[AusNOG] Fwd: LulzSec Leader Arrested in Sydney - One of our

[Aaron Swayn]

+1 to Matt's response. Had the exact same thing happen to me. Caused all sorts of grief, given most 'enployee's' on this list are likely covered by a employment agreement that prohibits commenting to media and the like.

My experience was the same and this particular journo in question simply asserted his right that if he can find it using google, then he can publish what he likes and it 'technically can't be removed from their web site once published' crap. Really bad experience trying to demonstrate I never spoke to the media to the powers that be. I'd love to comment on many of the going on's as I work with many large enterprises, telco's and such. But can't just risk the bad media experience by shit lazy journo's who can't do their job with an ounce of integrity, or at the very least give the person a chance to see if they approve being quoted. 

Sure, even a closed list can leak. But you know what. This is still a really small community, everyone knows each other and anyone caught will be booted (I'd hope so anyway). The issue is most in this industry, esp with network design/architecture understand the need to maintain professionalism and certain comments and opinions need the correct context and understanding. It's just professional courtesy really not to reproduce certain information due to potential for misinterpretation by those trying to 'simplify' so the layperson can understand. The issue for me has been very simple. It's the lazy ass Journo's that don't;
a) ask if they can reproduce your comments
b) abide by the AUSNOG charter which postings are made under
c) make a concerted effort to ensure the public understands the detail and not 'dumb' it down
d) make attributions that are either false or irrelevant. If someone doesn't mention their employer, then it's a personal option, not that of their employer, regardless what the Internet says. (Ok, that last one is based on my last experience)

There are many pro's on this forum that simply can't contribute cause of their employment agreements, and quite simply don't want to be quoted in the media. It's just that simple and why a closed forum would makes sense (and why Bevan has made a condition on AS ownership and/or technical merit to join). Some/most of us are not business owners like some of vocal people on this forum and aren't likely to loose their jobs over a misinterpretation in the media if that we're to occur. So I'm sure for them a closed forum doesn't make as much sense, but for some of us, it's a huge hassle when your just trying to help out. 

I'm all for open and shared info, but when it's abused at the posters expense, then it has little value to contribute.

Oh, and when it comes to NDA's and confidentially agreements, if your covered by one, you know what that means. These forums, open or closed have to be viewed only as personal opinions, as in most cases the facts that can be covered or demonstrated to be covered under such agreements won't be published anyway. That's not a risk anyone would take (I'd hope anyway) again, the pro's that are lurking understand this distinction. So I don't think that is even a valid reason for a closed list. The closed forum will Just allow for some in the group to post with much less risk of them being quoted in the media. Oh and probably less 'users' trying to bypass support processes to fix their home ADSL connection. Yeah, we know it happens. If your in the telco's top 10 customer list  by revenue or a strategic business relationship, then you'll probably have the necessary direct contacts and escalation paths anyway. 

Looks like I got in b4 the stop thread... Bonus! :)

Many Thanks

Aaron Swayn

Disclaimer: the comments made in this post are personal opinion only and not those of any past or present employer. No reproduction allowed.

On 27/04/2013, at 7:46 PM, Matt Whitlock <mbw.whitlock at gmail.com> wrote:

> That's good to hear Mark. I just wish my experiences were like these!
> 
> On 27/04/2013, at 19:35, Mark Newton <newton at atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 27/04/2013, at 6:54 PM, Matt Whitlock <mbw.whitlock at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> So I've been avoiding this discussion but I think my experience with AusNOG is relevant to this.
>> 
>> I had the opposite experience, quite recently.
>> 
>> After I sent my IPv6 "Objections to Sale" message to this list last month, I was contacted by
>> a journalist interested in quoting it in their publication.
>> 
>> I assented -- Quite happy to have that kind of stuff spread far and wide if the effect is to 
>> accelerate IPv6 adoption!
>> 
>> A day or so later the journalist replied and said they'd checked the list charter, and noted
>> that posts made to the list were not intended for consumption by media outlets, so he wouldn't
>> be using it.
>> 
>> So I guess it depends on the media outlet:  Some of them are more diligent about checking,
>> sourcing, and ethics than others.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> - mark
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog