Conference 7.286::digital

    Any comments?  Sure.  She was wrong, you were right, and perhaps
    you should talk to her manager.  Sounds to me like a classic attitude
    problem.
    
    I would (with proper editing; shrink it down a little) send a memo
    containing what's in .0 to her manager. State your case effectively
    that you do not appreciate being harassed. 

    She might have been wrong, but she's probably acutely aware of a
    problem all too prevalent in "DECcie hangouts."  Often stuff that
    _is_ Company Confidential is talked about openly and loudly.  I
    heard examples of this a few years ago in various places in Maynard,
    including restaurants and a bookstore.
    
    Someone who used to work for one of the competition told me that
    his former company had people whose job was to frequent DECcie hangouts
    at lunch and after work simply to gather intelligence.
    
    Similar loudmouthing also occurs at some conferences, and elsewhere.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

re:.0
 In my opinion, she was right to tell you not to talk about potentially
confidential information in a public place. No, not because she "had a low
badge number" or becase she "worked for a VP", but because she is an employee
of this corporation, as are you, and she has responsibilities to that 
corporation, as do you.
 The situation may not have been handled very well by her (I can't judge from
having heard just one side of it) but she may even have been trying to do you
a favour. Remember, Digital Equipment Corporation is a business, whose main
concern is to make money and to be a successful business. One of the ways that
Digital tries to stay ahead of its competitor is by keeping secret (well,
confidential anyway) some of its internal mechanisms and short range AND long
range plans. Little anecdotes about neat stuff which you found on a printer
(or whatever!) by themselves give little information, but taken with other
anecdotes, trade rumours and simple intelligence can give insight into future
corporate products and plans.
 Hell, I've picked up tidbits of information about projects and products just
by sitting in the local restaurants round Spitbrook Road. Fortunately, I'm on
our side. But the person at the next table may not be.

			Nigel

    Some time ago I was sitting in a bar in Edinburgh (Scotland), and
    next to me a salesman for a rival company was talking to someone
    who was obviously his boss, ... in the course of an hour (and a
    couple of nice malt whiskies...) I heard him run down his entire
    prospect list in Scotland. After dinner I wrote it up and passed
    it on to one of our salesmen, who spent part of the following month
    getting his foot in the door at a number of those prospects.
    
    Nigel is right: we shouldn't even discuss in general terms, things
    that are internal to the company in a public place.
    
    /. Ian .\

    
    
    In my opinion she was right, if the topic had anything to do
    with a confidential matter.
    
    Various times confidential meetings are held where confidential
    matters concerning vendors are discussed, and at times the 
    word for word dialogue of these meetings end up in print.
    It has happened..............
    
    
    I feel she was right pointing it out to you, and I don't feel
    it has anything to do with freedom of speech or what ever.
    
    
    my humble opinion is that you were wrong to discuss it, and
    wrong for taking offense.

I've got to go along with the majority and say one should be careful what one
says in public places.  It may be possible that you were talking about something
not confidential, but perhaps she feared what direction the conversation was
heading.  At the very least, it sounds like she has poor communications skills.
A better approach might have simply been to point out that she overheard what
you were saying and that others obviously could as well.  If what you wanted to 
say was confidential you could then make the decision to take it elsewhere.

One of the scariest things that ever happened to me was when I was discussing a
project we were doing for a customer with someone in a bathroom.  Sure enough,
one of the stalls opened and out walked the customer.  Fortunately I hadn't
said anything I shouldn't have but the thought had never even occured to me that
it wasn't a private conversation!  BUT...  From that day forth I NEVER discuss
business in the bathroom! 

BTW - having a low badge number has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever
heard.  There are a lot of low badge numbers that belong to non-management types
and lots of high badge numbers that do.

-mark

    As presented in .0, one would REALLY have to stretch one's imagination
    to say that the DEC-related material was in any way hazardous to
    our corporate security.  About the only point I can think of is
    that the information that a particular individual had access to
    information of some confidentiality was made semi-public, and that
    this could open the door for attempts to subvert said individual.
    
    Commies under the bed, for Christ's sake.  Would those of you who
    sided with Ms. Security please re-read .0 carefully and report
    whether your first reaction was more knee-jerk than considered?
    
    		- Bill
    

    Maybe some further explanation of the conversation on my part is
    needed. The point of the whole topic was to point out how hard it
    was for my friend to run the 100 yards from his office to the printer
    after saying "Print foo" and be able to get there before it had
    printed. THe only reason he even mentioned the project was to point
    out the extra need for security as far as the printouts were concerned.
    If we (digital) are concerned that some other company might find
    out we are using a financial analysis package in-house (and that's
    the most information my friend imparted to me about the project)
    then I'd say we're all living in a state of paranoia since I'm sure
    most companies in general use some form of financial analysis system
    and I'm sure not just anyone in the company has access to it, just
    like in this instance. I personally had no interest whatsoever in
    the logic of the package, the kind of output it generated, the input
    it used or anything that might be considered confidential and I
    didn't ask any questions about that kind of thing. Having worked
    in the field and having dealt directly with customers on a day to day
    basis I know what should and shouldn't be spoken about in any public
    place, not to mention the fact that I was a customer for 7 years
    so I know both sides of the coin. 
    

    Not being there, so really don't know "exactly what was said, and
    how" I still feel the woman had a right to caution you on a subject
    she felt was company confidential.
    
    She has no knowledge of whether you were a past customer and knew
    all the ins and outs. It sounded like she heard a couple of 
    buzz words on of a "confidential project" and reacted to it.
    
    Depending on how hard she came accross, my own humble opinion
    would have been to say you may be right, and either move or change
    the subject. If she knows more about the project, and as you say
    you didn't ask any questions, maybe there is more to the
    confidentiality than you know about.
    And if you found out everything about the project, and know that
    it is no big deal..............Sounds like she was right to warn
    your friend, because he told you everything. 

    I vote for the lady with the low badge number.
    I think that .0 should read Digital Review, oh, maybe  Charlie Matio's
    section.  Sept 1, page 84 is a good example.
    
    Diogital review is *not* published by DEC.  Its contents seem to
    come from bar room conversations.
    
    Are we really:
    	o that short of office space/meeting rooms that we must talk
    	  Dec business in a bar?
    
    	o that uninteresting that all we can converse together is 
    	  Dec work even when we've left work?
    
    	o that despirate for whatever was being served in that place
    	  that we must reconvien a meeting there?
    
    :-] intended.  But I try to escape such talk outside of the safty
    of my office.  I can not separate old/new that easy.
    
    ed
    

   re .0: 

   It's not clear to me whether the woman in question identified
   herself, or chose to remain anonymous.  I'm less concerned about the
   confidentiality issue (serious as it is) than I am worried about
   anonymous employees threatening other employees.  It should *not* be
   necessary to intimidate employees of Digital into keeping
   confidential material confidential. 

   Bob

Ahhh Gi'day...

    I'd be  more  worried  about  not  talking  in bars if Digital had some
    stronger   policy   of   keeping   customers   (usually   led  by  some
    marketing/sales  type)  out  of  areas where sensitive things are being
    discussed.

    Running customer  courses  on  the  same  floor as a CSC (a high stress
    situation  at  the  best  of  times)  with  all  the  discussion  about
    customers, bugs, security holes etc. is asking for trouble.

    I wouldn't  worry about her, most people who act like that usually turn
    out  to  be  little  more  than  a  clerk  or  secretary, who use their
    proximity  to  someone  in  high  position  as reason for assumption of
    authority.

I have no idea of the exact details here.  Yet, mulling over
this, and my own occasional attempt to divert restaurant chatter
where I was a participant, I would say that the woman was probably
well-meaning, if inept, maybe a bit drunk and so came on as a heavy.

Many years ago, a friend of mine described how, in trying to find an
alternate way in to a building at one site, he pushed open the Door That
Oughta Be Locked, behind which was the dumpster of "Confidential" waste
paper...does your site have a Door That Oughta Be Locked? :^)

Pat Hardy

    The point of this note isn't caution against discussion of the proprietary
    information of Digital in public places, it's point is regarding:
    
    (1) HARASSMENT
    
    (2) ABUSE OF POWER
    
    (3) CONFUSION OF AUTHORITY
    
    If the offender were less intrusive and/or more accurate in detecting
    when identifiable proprietary information was being discussed, this
    note wouldn't have been written.
    
    If the offender did not harass, abuse power, or confuse authority,
    this note wouldn't have been written.
    
    The note was written to call attention to harassment, abuse of power
    and confusion of authority.
    
    (1) Beyond mere annoyance a threat was made.  I'm sure that there's
    a public law in Mass. or N.H. against harassment.  That was out
    of line.
    
    (2) It's an abuse of power in such a setting as a bar, hearing part
    of a conversation to attempt to evaluate and then take action against
    the employees in such a totally one-sided manner: especially
    pseudo-disciplinary action.  Such capricious use of power in
    a bar is nothing less than intimidation.  And who appointed you
    the secret police of Digital, etc.
    
    (3) Absolutely no authority is implied by "low badge number" or who one
    "works for". This is the worst piece of nonsense to come along to
    Digital in quite a while.  Suggestions from all, but direction
    (DECspeak for orders) only from one's supervisor. 
    
    Had names been taken, I'm sure that responsible managers would fear
    more from the legal repercussions of a lawsuit against the corporation
    for harassment based upon the fact that the employee thought in
    good faith that she was merely enforcing company policy. 

    
    Knowing how I react to persons who abuse their authority; that person
    would be wearing my drink!
    
    (Of course, it's gotten me into trouble a few times too.)
    
    Despite all this, after the drink dumping, I'd probably sit back
    and upon reflection, determine that she had a good point despite
    her rude and unprofessional behaviour.
    
    If it bothers you that much and you feels it's right, escalate!
    

    re:.0
    
    I have to go along with the last few responses. The woman in
    question acted in a responsible manner in attempting to advise
    you that you *might* be breaching Company Confidentiality.
    
    However, if your description of her attitude, reflected in what
    she said to you, was accurate, she made her attempt in a rude
    and unnecessary manner.
    
    As for confidentiality, I think it's a right and proper thing,
    but I also think that some people carry it too far into paranoia.
    
    --- jerry

    
    
      from what i heard that you were dicussing,securty problem with
    printer output, that lady had a VERY big mouth,small brain and a
    point that blown out of context!!
    
    	sure,i know people should not talk about new projects and i
    work in a area that abounds with them! since she had her big ears
    in your conversation,she should have picked up that you were talking
    about a problem with printer output security and not the project
    itself.
    
    	i would have asked the bartender to have here tossed out the
    door.
    
    
    					wh.

    A company I worked for at one time failed a security audit because
    of "printer integrity" -- essentially the problem related in .0
    
    It sounds as if the lady was a bore. But essentially I still think
    she was right.
    
    It has long been the tradition in British army officers' messes (and
    probably other armies too) that one does not talk shop in the social
    environment of the mess. This is partly because it is boring, but the
    main reason is because once one starts to talk shop in a social
    environment it becomes a habbit, and hence may become a security
    problem. Even if what was being discussed *this time* was
    inconsequential, the habit is demonstarted and next time the
    conversation may go on to something serious. 
    
    Also who says that DEC using a financial analysis package is
    uninteresting: if the person next to them at the bar sold FA packages
    they might be real interested. Also if that person were a head-hunter
    it might be interesting. or... 
                                   

    /. Ian .\    
    

    I think I'll begin by saying "echo .14". 
    
    The intruder in .0 sounds very much like a low-level functionary
    with too much ego and too little brains.  I've worked in the past
    with others with "VP's Secretary Syndrome" and "been here longer"
    disease who imputed into themselves unreal ideas of power.
    
    That Digital's physical security, particularly our "operatorless"
    computer rooms with unattended printers, is less than adequate is
    rather common knowledge.  Our "secure" labs, like the ones that
    do payroll, are different, but sometimes the "average" not-too-secure
    becomes the "best" in a facility.  That's a generic problem, and
    the fact that someone was doing work with confidential data (and
    just about all companies view their finances as very confidential,
    no DECsecrets about there) means that they had reason to worry and
    that gives them reason, if not right, to let off steam.  Saying that 
    anyone inside a building has access to secrets is not the same, 
    however, as reciting those secrets in public!
    
    If someone were openly yapping about genuinely confidential matters,
    a fellow employee would be in line by kindly asking them to tone
    down.  That's not what .0 is about.

    Re.19
    
    Regarding your comment about "this is not what .0 is about"
    
    We must remember, we only got .0's version. I'd be interested in
    hearing the other side. What the woman heard, and how she feels
    she came accross. How much bantering went on before she came on
    like a storm trooper. 
    
    
    Maybe I'm a little sensitive because of supposed stricktly
    confidential info that got out about a vendor.
    
    But I still feel .0 would have been better off to move. 

    Once in a while, someone weighs in in a similar manner in NOTES
    files.  I have also been in some conversations/meetings where someone
    has also weighed in in a similar fashion.  The pattern is:

	    (1) they state their authority.

	    (2) they quote the regs.

	    (3) they issue an order.

    What is a galling about this behavior is that the person is most
    likely correct, as far as it goes (as has been pointed out in these
    other replies).  But in most cases, (1) and (2) are either bogus
    or overinflated bullshit.  What does a low badge number have to
    do with anything?  Lots of people work for V.P.s--that doesn't
    necessarily give them special authority.

    My attitude in such a case would probably have been to do what
    you (.0) did; move to another table and finish the conversation.
    I would, however, have asked her for her name and badge number
    afterwards.

    I have been challenged by people on occasion asking what I was doing
    in such-and-such machine room, or on such-and-such computer, etc.,
    in a similar manner as above.  If it appears to be some such
    self-appointed authority, then I give them my boss'es name and
    ask them to take it up with her ("I don't feel I have to explain
    my job to everyone who passes by.").  Persons with real authority
    (such as system managers in aforementioned labs), usually don't
    behave in such an obnoxious manner.

    re:15
    
    Amen... I would have done the same to the old (*&(&&*. I hope she
    might see this note and reflect on her stupidity. I've gotten in
    trouble many times for stating facts.. Seems MGMT. can't handle that
    so good...
    
    Also as alot of u stated I can see the point about all the secret
    stuff BUT, from I've read nothing was really breached... People
    u gotta calm down.....
    
    Joe
    

    Whenever anyone has a conversation, even about the weather, within
    earshot of others then there is potential for offending the party
    within earshot.  That party may not share your values and opinions.
    People often take offense or disagree with the strangest things,
    which YOU may not find at all offensive or disagreeable.
    
    Since its a small world, the offended party may often turn out to
    have surprising power to counter the offence.  This is true even
    when you may not be made aware that you have offended them.
    
    Nowhere is all of this more true than in a bar.  Alcohol makes it
    easier to cause such offence, and to take such offence.  Its easy
    to spot a particularly large drunk and most people take pains not
    to offend one.  Its not always so easy to spot your mother-in-laws
    neighbor, your bosses wife, a VP's secretary, etc.
    
    Setting aside for the moment the matter of confidentiality, its
    probably good advice to sit somewhere in the bar where the people
    who hear you are people you know won't be offended anyway.  Unless,
    that is, you are willing risk offending or becoming offended for
    the sake of meeting strangers in the bar.
    
    You might have just as easily offended your bank manager's
    brother-in-law who drives a Ford by expressing your distaste of
    Fords.  If that brother-in-law was waiting to meet your bank manager,
    who showed up ten minutes later in his Ford .....
    
    My point is, that I'm not sure the issue is unique to Digital, or
    to company business being discussed in public, or to how well MGMT
    handles facts as the previous reply suggested.  Most likely, its
    just a part of what happens when people interact, especially in
    a bar.  I doubt you can change it, but you probably could minimize
    your risks by taking the lady's advice and sitting out of earshot.

Re .0:
    
    I have to agree that the woman was out of line in her approach,
    and it sounds like what you were discussing wasn't frightfully 
    confidential, unless...
    
1.  Isn't it confidential that a certain kind of project is being carried
    on in a particular facility, regardless of the details?  Was that what
    she was concerned about?  DEC's a big haystack until you know where to
    look for the needle.  I suspect it doesn't take long after that. By
    that logic, it isn't even safe to say "I'm working on a general
    thus-and-such sort of thing." 

2.  Given her specific comments to you, this doesn't seem to have been her
    concern, but advertising the weaknesses of security is in itself a
    breach of security. 
    
Re: The root issue --
        
    How far can DEC afford to go with this before we have to have a
    "war-time" attitude, with our competitors as "the enemy"?  Once that
    attitude is prevalent, we will begin to act like common soldiers, and
    our time-honoured reputation as the "gentleman of the industry" won't
    last very long.  This isn't war; this is business.  
        
    							Ralph

    RE: .23:
    
    You seem to be saying that if I am not talking to person X, and person
    X eavesdrops on my private conversation, and person X turns out to be
    completely unreasonable and takes offense when they shouldn't and
    becomes rude and abusive, then.....  it is my fault.  Am I correct
    in understanding your reasoning? 

    No, not saying it would be your fault.  Just saying that regardless
    of who's fault it would be, you might suffer.  Also, am suggesting
    that we can sometimes avoid these situations.  Just like defensive
    driving prevents accidents that might have been the other guys fault.
    If I don't wish to drive defensively, then I increase the chances
    of being maimed for life by someone who's in the wrong.
    
    If we're having a conversation within earshot of others, is it
    a private conversation?  Are they eavesdropping if they can hear
    us from where they sit with their bare ears?  Or are we broadcasting
    an unsolicited message with unpredictable results?
    
    Bottom line = life ain't always fair but you can improve your chances
    
    Sorry to be the one to point it out, please don't shoot the messenger.

    In view of what I said in 191.24, I'm not sure what I would have
    done if I had heard a co-worker blab in a tavern or other public
    place about the latest rumored products or some such confidential
    stuff.  I rather doubt, though, that I would go over and say:
    "Hey, do you know that I'm a manager at Digital?  You'd better shut
    up or I'll report you."  I suppose I could say:  "Hi.  I'm a manager
    at Wang and what you said sounded very interesting.  Can I buy you
    another drink?"
    
  --Simon
    

    re .27
    
    Love it!!!!!1

    Re .27:
    
    Marvelously creative!  One "attaboy!" awarded _now_!
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.:  Or better yet, say, "Hi!  I'm from _Digital Review_, and
    what you've said is _really_ interesting.  Let me buy you a drink.
    Oh, and how do you spell your name?"
    
    -SK
    

Right.  Irrespective of whether the conversation should have been carried
on in a bar, we as Digital employees must treat each other with consideration.
Nobody (not even Ken) has the right to be verbally abusive.  Politeness,
perhaps with some humor mixed in, is what we all have the right to expect
from each other.  (Don't forget to be polite to rude people, too.)

By the way, rule number two may be to not discuss DEC business in a bar, but
rule number one is to never discuss DEC business with someone drinking from 
a "Charlie Matco" cofee mug... (see Digital Review's Rumor Roundup).

	Larry

    
    We could always bombard him with 'bogus' info .... :-))
    dd;

A simular thing happened to me once regarding a 'quip' made in a pub,
only the overhearing person reported it direct to my manager, instead
having a quiet word with me. I would have respected their opinion, even
though the only other people in the pub were DECies!

re: the issue of 'coming on a bit strong'

It is sometimes necessary to talk to fellow employees in a 'assertive'
manner, if not they would not take you seriously. That same assertive
manner can be mistaken for aggressiveness. If you find yourself confronted
by an 'aggressive' person in such a situation then just walk away.

Dave.

RE: .

I think you were both wrong.  You were wrong for mentioning confidential
projects in a public place.  She was wrong for trying to "pull rank" in
an abusive and intimidating manner.

--PSW

    While the approach of those involved in the incident described way
    back in .0 might, on reflection, might have been improved, the best
    "security" is self imposed. I remember an incident about a year
    ago while I was attending a conference in Dallas in which DEC had
    very limited participation. One day at breakfast in my hotel, I
    could not avoid overhearing a quite loud conversation by four members
    of a company exhibiting at the conference on how they were hiring
    away from Digital an experienced senior level engineer. The details
    of that conversation allowed me to identify the individual being
    recruited. Since I knew that the project for which this engineer
    was responsible was not going well, I didn't feel his leaving would
    negatively impact DEC or the individual. However, if I were that
    engineer, I would have serious questions about the tact of my
    prospective future employer, to broadcast information like that.
    
    A good intelligence agent determines what's going on in a "secret"
    project by putting together little pieces of information like a
    jigsaw puzzle. Each piece of information may be innocuous by itself
    but when added to every other piece of "harmless" information becomes
    quite revealing of the confidential activities. for example, help
    wanted ads can tell you a lot about what a company will be doing.
    
    If I am talking shop in a public place where there are people I
    can't identify within earshot, I don't talk about confidential
    projects. If there is a genuine need to pass on this kind of
    information it can be done where no outside ears can pick it up.