Conference 7.286::digital

For reference, here's the relevant excerpt from the policy:


  Responsibility for Content of Messages Sent or Posted on Network

 Messages mailed or posted over the Digital network are the
 responsibility of the original author.  Posting these materials in a
 notesfile/conference without the explicit permission of the author is
 prohibited and is a violation of this policy.

 When forwarding messages or posting them to conferences, removal or
 falsification of the original message header (which indicates the
 author) is prohibited.

 | This policy covers all messages addressed to individuals and
 | organizations.  It is not intended to restrict the distribution of
 | general announcements, course listings, etc., or messages originally
 | posted on external bulletin boards such as Usenet news groups.

My interpretation of this would extend the prohibition to cover using a
notes conference to advertise the location of a copy of a memo without
the memo author's permission.  Please don't use DIGITAL for that
purpose.

Note that the wording of this policy has been under some debate among
moderators, with a general agreement that the policy should apply similarly
to memos transmitted by electronic mail.  In other words, it's just as
wrong to forward a memo without permission by mail as it is to enter it
in a notes conference.

In my view, far too many people don't think before forwarding possibly
sensitive memos to wide distribution lists.  Memos purportedly (and I use
the word deliberately) from Ken Olsen seem to cause anyone who trips across
them to think that they're automatically "for all employees", which is
most assuredly not the case.

Personally, I find myself wishing at times that those who indiscriminately
forward memos should have their fingers broken - figuratively, at least.

					Steve

Steve,

I think .0 was asking a much simpler question, not attempting to avoid
the issue raised in 1520.  Just: can "Digital Internal Use Only" files
be pointed to in an unrestricted conference?  

I don't have time right now to dig out the policies, but my recollection 
is that /ALL/ EASYnet-wide conferences are "For Internal Use
Only", although they should also say that in their opening note. 
Digital Confidential information should not appear in conferences which
do not require registration.  So it would be OK to reference Internal
Use Only files in a conference.  You are, of course, right in pointing
out that this does not relieve the burden of having the author's
permission.

As I recall, the labeling policy also does not require the use of
classification labels for obviously interpersonal communication, so
documents which explicitly carry classifications usually are meant for
distribution to a fairly wide audience.  The "Internal Use"
classification does not carry, per se, the restriction against copying
and forwarding that is explicit with "Restricted Distribution"
classification.  Of course any copying should retain the source
information.  But in many cases documents labeled "Internal Use" would
fall into the category of "general announcements, course listings, etc." 
that are excepted from needing further explicit permission to propagate
them. 

Is this not so?

/henry

Re: .2

Dave's question was asked in light of policy 6.54, which does not discuss
security classifications but rather the appropriateness of "posting" memos
without permission and/or with concealing or altering the author's
identity.  I answered the subject in that regard.

As far as the security classifications go, there is nothing wrong with
providing a pointer to an "Internal Use Only" memo in a notes conference,
provided that restrictions such as mentioned in 6.54 are met.

			Steve

	RE: .2 I'm not sure that .0 was asking a simpler question. The
	answer to the simple question "can you provide pointers to
	Digital Internal Use Only files in a notes conference." Is
	maybe.

	The answer is generally that it's ok. Mail messages, or rather files
	that hold a mail message, is a different story because mail is
	something of a special case under policy. You can argue nits and
	wording but I suspect that posting a pointer to a mail message that
	you don't have permission to post violates the spirit of policy.

	This especially true IMHO when dealing with messages from KO. In
	general when Ken wants everyone in the company to see something
	he says so. When he sends mail to a list of VPs I suspect, based
	on what I've seen and heard over the last 10-12 years or so, he
	expects them *not* to pass it own to every Tom, Dick and Harriet
	in the company. He's often disappointed and I suspect he gets
	upset when it happens. The current policy exists in its current 
	format *because* people forwarded a KO message too far.

		Alfred