[10405] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: On disclosing proprietary details...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bruce Gingery)
Mon Feb 21 16:22:22 1994
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 14:12:04 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Gingery <lcbginge@antelope.wcc.edu>
To: Alan Sugarman <sugarman@panix.com>
Cc: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>,
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.05.9402211545.A10080-b100000@panix2.panix.com>
on Mon, 21 Feb 1994 15:29:47 EST, Alan Sugarman <sugarman@panix.com>
replied to Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com> and the com-priv list...
[portions omitted]
-> So sometimes, proprietary is used to protect anything
-> that would call the contract into question or might
-> reveal other agendas.
... and at times people just "test the water" based on other "current
events". I am reminded of the draft comittee for public healthcare.
When rules are not enforced at the top by the administration, perhaps
others just figure that there's more to "get away with".
Judging by a series of posts in this and other lists, this
non-disclosure is a current trend in the US Federal Government, though
certainly not a "new" trend.
Read recent legislation/proposed legislation, and comparable documents
and think back to the "paperwork reduction act" which is being largely
disregarded WITHIN government. Where is the full detail of the "Warren
Commission Report" with regards to the Freedom of Information Act.
Status-quo or status red flags!?
Bruce Gingery lcbginge@antelope.wcc.edu
