|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus
On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 05:45:46PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > > Unless Gordon is an Exodus customer I'll assume he was sent the > communique' by an Exodus customer. There's probably some truck with > that customer, but if Gordon is only acting in his role as a reporter > then, well, short of creating an imminent threat to someone's life > (like revealing the whereabouts of someone in a witness protection > program) or libel or a few other similar kinds of problems generally > reporters report if they think something is newsworthy. > > Put another way, just about half of everything one generally finds > interesting, from the white house's handling of certain emails to what > the tobacco companies tried to do to thwart suits against them was > once marked confidential. Almost everything interesting gets marked > confidential. > > Put yet another way; If one's only plan is to mark a letter sent out > to every customer (what? hundreds?) as marked "customer confidential" > and hope that oughta stop it from getting out and that everyone who > receives it agrees that it's in their best interest, or ethics, to go > along with that confidentiality, then I think they need another plan. And I can only repeat, I found it very interesting to see, because I did not receive that letter. But I am the one who gets asked if our customers have problems reaching us. > > Sure, some things, like being let in on some cool products coming down > the pike (or 128) and then running to the press would be pretty > unsavory. > > But finding out that there some kind of internecine warfare going on > between the vendor you're probably married to (technically, > contractually) and some other vendor which is going to change the > quality of your service and deciding that if this was brought out into > the open, quickly, is a better thing to do with this memo doesn't > shock me. > > Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe someone else is, but if > something "company confidential" falls into the hands of a reporter > it's generally not confidential for long if it's interesting. And > that's not usually considered unethical on the part of the reporter > unless as I said someone's life is in danger in some real and > immediate way (and not metaphorically.) > > [spare me the wild analogies like violating a govt secrets act, we're > talking about a lousy company confidential memo to customers not atom > bomb secrets] > > > On April 3, 2000 at 23:41 [email protected] (Paul Ferguson) wrote: > > > > At 08:31 PM 04/03/2000 -0700, Ulf Zimmermann wrote: > > > > >And I found that forward very interesting, as we did not get that > > >info and its very valuable for us to know. > > > > For the masses, now: > > > > It is the forwarding of "private" or "confidential" e-mails that > > I find offensive, not the information or content. > > > > - paul > > > > -- > -Barry Shein > > Software Tool & Die | [email protected] | http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD > The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo* -- Regards, Ulf. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ulf Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: 510-769-2936 Alameda Networks, Inc. | http://www.Alameda.net | Fax#: 510-521-5073
|