Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus

  • From: Ulf Zimmermann
  • Date: Tue Apr 04 18:06:00 2000

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 ferguson@cisco.com (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    | bzs@world.std.com          | 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





Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.