nanog mailing list archives
Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus
From: "Henry R. Linneweh" <linneweh () concentric net>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 11:09:34 -0700
I would consider this an outage of sorts, setting the political rhetoric aside, it served everyone well to be informed so they can reroute and adjust their networks with exodus now so that there will be minimal disruption of traffic. William Allen Simpson wrote:
"Majdi S. Abbas" wrote:So, it's acceptable to publish a leaked circuit design? Software design? Source code? All those things are marked Company Confidental too... Where does it stop...In a word, yes! Perhaps you are too young to remember the "Pentagon Papers", car companies suing car magazines, and other examples. Well established case law here. Admittedly, this is the "North American" NOG, and case law elsewhere (China as a recent example) differs considerably, where such a notice might be considered a state secret.7. Exodus has a problem. In marking that customer confidential it appears to me that it was trying to cover up its own problem and I imagine in doing so it was making some already upset customers further upset.I don't see how an Exodus problem or lack thereof justifies poor ethical behaviour.Actually, as a matter of ethics, revealing the circumstances behind a network degradation is considered a "public service", and highly ethical. Cover-ups are unethical. I've just heard that a bill will be introduced in Congress that would exempt outage and security incident reports to government from FOIA. This would be a disaster! Full disclosure is very important.If you were truly trying to cover this, in a journalistic sense, why not talk to PSI, and ask them about it?Here, I agree. Good reporting requires thorough investigation.I think that many of us would have no problem with you reporting the information, had you done so without leaking that notice.And you would be wrong. The notice is a "primary" source. Weren't you taught in 7th grade to examine primary sources, rather than relying on secondary information? I am glad to have the actual document, rather than a synopsis.Reporting consists of a lot more than leaking confidential information.Agreed. Cook is lazy. But not unethical in the case at hand. WSimpson () UMich edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
-- Thank you; |--------------------------------------------| | Thinking is a learned process so is UNIX | |--------------------------------------------| Henry R. Linneweh
Current thread:
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus, (continued)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Paul Ferguson (Apr 03)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Alex Rubenstein (Apr 03)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Paul Ferguson (Apr 03)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Gordon Cook (Apr 03)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Majdi S. Abbas (Apr 03)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Gordon Cook (Apr 03)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Ryan Tucker (Apr 04)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Bill Woodcock (Apr 04)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus William Allen Simpson (Apr 04)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Christian Nielsen (Apr 04)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Henry R. Linneweh (Apr 04)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Christian Nielsen (Apr 04)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Vijay Gill (Apr 04)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Forrest W. Christian (Apr 04)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Howard C. Berkowitz (Apr 04)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Simon Lockhart (Apr 04)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Ulf Zimmermann (Apr 04)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Mark Kent (Apr 04)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Charles Sprickman (Apr 04)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Dustin Goodwin (Apr 04)
- Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus Michael Shields (Apr 04)