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

[PRK]

I understand and agree with you, that when techs are talking to each
other to problem solve, they're not focussed on "what would a journalist
make of this email", and shouldn't necessarily be. This kind of
diagnosis and troubleshooting (where a theory is often proposed then
ruled out as part of the troubleshooting) should not be exposed to
journalists, IMO as it's too easy for a proposed theory to be restated
as fact, rather than a theory that was then proven false. 

However I think it's a different case with PIRs and RFOs where they're
being written for deliberate distribution to customers, if not the
public in general - I think it's perfectly reasonable that a journalist
would quote them and use them in a relevant article. 

After that, it just comes down to the knowledge and integrity of the
journalist as to how they're quoted and the surrounding context of the
article. 

prk. 

On 2013-04-27 19:24, Matt Whitlock wrote: 

> So I've been avoiding this discussion but I think my experience with AusNOG is relevant to this. 
> 
> I used AusNOG on behalf of my previous employer to assist with information sharing when things were going on with the network. After an incident in DC2 in BNE, my messages to this list were picked up by a journo and used to create a completely different set of events from what I wrote and from what actually happened. Because a few direct words in a sea of inaccuracy had been lifted from my messages, the article was riddled with quotes attributed to a spokesperson of the company. This led to me not using AusNOG again in this way. 
> 
> We also had a number of incidents where our PIRs and RFOs were published to AusNOG by various list members. This also led to times where journos would mine them to write articles. I would then have to ask the poster to not do it as the risk of an inaccurate article being written was too high. 
> 
> None of this information was bound by an NDA or particularly confidential but when used out of context and without proper explanation led to unduly negative impressions of the company. 
> 
> A closed list would allow such helpful information to be shared for the good of the community and would be understood in the context it was meant for. 
> 
> This is why I believe there is enough space to have both lists living alongside each other.

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130427/8d5f5b67/attachment.html>