Re: [802SEC] FW: [802-11WG] Confidentiality Notices
Tony
At 05:00 PM 4/4/2005 +0100, Tony Jeffree wrote:
Geoff -
I had an offline conversation with Dave Ringle in which he asserted that
the 4.1.1.5 text you quoted was intended to apply only to the SB and its
committees (RevCom, NesCom, etc).
That is Dave's opinion. I helped craft the text and I don't agree. It was
specifically done because a legal VP at UL wanted to be pointed to a
chapter and verse when I objected to their footer.
So just to make things crystal clear, I
believe that we should explicitly include that (or closely similar) text
in our P&P.
I would agree for absolute clarity. We should include text something to
the effect of "in alignment with IEEE-SA P&P..."
I would be happy to propose a P&P change
to that effect. I believe it should also be worded to cover the
non-inclusion of copyright statements in materials presented at
meetings.
Yup, that too.
Geoff
Regards,
Tony
At 17:07 04/04/2005, Geoff Thompson wrote:
Mat-
I believe that we absolutely should get a read from IEEE legal counsel on
this one. Especially since there is a new person in that seat.
I am strongly suspicious of any assertion by a company that such a notice
is "a requirement being imposed
to ensure compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002."
Rather, as Tony Jeffree asserts in his note, it is an effort to
"place the onus on the recipient to make a determination of what
they can legitimately do with the message."
I do not doubt that company lawyers would like to duck the responsibility
for taking ownership of what their company's employees send out to the
world. But it is not appropriate for them to do so, nor is it appropriate
to place that burden on our volunteer officers.
(This issue actually arose many years ago because a volunteer's company
lawyer specifically required that the volunteer not accept the
burden.)
It is equally inappropriate for us, as officers, to:
1) Ignore
a legal notice, either individually or systematically.
2) Make a
determination of what some company, who is not our employer, holds
confidential
TIA handles it differently, they require a cover sheet on all
"submissions" that specifically disclaims confidentiality and
further states that if the submitter alters the standard disclaimer the
disclaimer reverts to the text in their P&P. The result is that
(effectively) TIA participants can't say anything of substance in the
body of an e-mail.
While I believe that we should get a new read from IEEE legal on the
policy, it has been vetted in the past and the text is in the current
version of the SASB Operations Manual. The requirement is that:
- 4.1.1.5 Confidentiality Statements and Copyright Notices on
Communications
- The IEEE-SA Standards Board and its committees operate in an open
manner. To that end, no material submitted to the IEEE-SA Standards Board
or its committees will be accepted or considered if it contains any
statement that places any burden on the recipient(s) with respect to
confidentiality or copyright. Any communication, including electronic
mail, containing language with such restrictive wording will not be
accepted or considered.
We believe that this requirement trickles down to ALL of the routine
business of our Working Groups and sub-groups and should thus apply to
all reflectors owned and/or managed by those groups. That should be
sufficient to provide the final word on the debate in 802.11.
Geoff
At 10:04 AM 4/4/2005 -0400, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
Folks,
This is a lively debate that is ongoing with the 802.11 reflector.
There seems to be an implication that confidentiality disclaimer
are
becoming legally required on corporate e-mail. Yet, many of
our
reflectors currently forbid such disclaimers. Should we get a read
from
IEEE legal support as to what our position should / could be on
this
stuff?
Thanks,
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Foegelle
[mailto:Michael.Foegelle@ets-lindgren.com]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 9:37 AM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802-11WG] Confidentiality Notices
I just thought I'd point out that this type of notice (which I just
had
to delete from my signature below myself) is a requirement being
imposed
to ensure compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. (You
can
thank Enron et. al. for another piece of corporate headache that we
all
have to deal with.) I suspect that more and more companies will
be
requiring such a message on e-mails in the future, and currently
I'm
breaking company policy by deleting said notice. There's even
discussion in our company of increasing the penalties for not
putting
the notice on messages (i.e. it could become a dismissible
offense). I
try to remember to remove the message before posting (since it's
automatically added), but I don't always remember to do so.
And before anyone suggests that I go get a private e-mail account
to
work on the reflectors, the reality is that even though we're all
IEEE
members as individuals, I do this work as part of my job and my
company
foots the bill for all of the IEEE activities I'm involved in. The
same
is likely true for most everyone else on these reflectors. If I
can't
use my company e-mail address to carry on this work, then it's just
not
practical. I'm sure I'm not the only one to feel that way.
So, given that this problem is only going to get worse, I think we
need
to take a more corporate friendly approach to resolving this issue.
Rather than installing a filter to remove any message that might
contain
a problem restriction notice, why not add a filter capable of removing
a
footer that starts with a standardized message footer that we could
all
attempt to incorporate. Thus, if the notice started with something
like
"-------------Legal Notice------------", a filter could
automatically
remove it. That may not be the best solution for everyone, but I
think
it would resolve my issue here and give us a standardized place to
start
as other companies begin requiring these notices.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dr. Michael D. Foegelle
---------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Michael D.
Foegelle | 1301
Arrow Point Drive
Senior Principal Design Engineer | Cedar Park, TX 78758
ETS-Lindgren,
L.P.
| (512) 531-6444
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
[mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 8:02 AM
To: STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802-11WG] Confidentiality Notices
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector
---
Ivan,
I like the concept, but I think we will need a more complex filter.
The
word confidential is sometimes used in our dialogues, and I'm not
sure
it always occurs in the footers of concern.
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE stds-802-11 List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]
On Behalf Of Ivan Reede
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 8:52 AM
To: STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802-11WG] Confidentiality Notices
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector
---
I hope this will be a constructive suggestion...
I suggest that the IEEE listserv admins place the word
"confidential"
into
their spam detector...
That waym we will not have to lose all this time and effort in the
futur..
after all, it's a banned word for standards that are open.
Any such message in the futur would simply get canned by the spam
filter
and those messages would never get relayed.
Ivan Reede
==============================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK>
To: <STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 5:45 AM
Subject: Re: [802-11WG] Confidentiality Notices
> --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector
---
>
> Mike -
>
> I think that you are missing the point here. Confidentiality
notices
> attempt to place the onus on the recipient, rather than the sender,
for
> correcting the sender's mistakes, and also place the onus on the
recipient
> to make a determination of what they can legitimately do with the
message.
> Regardless of how valid or otherwise these kinds of notices might be
if
> tested in law (and I suspect they would actually fail on a number
of
> grounds, even when not used in private communications - but lets not
go
> down the armchair lawyer rat-hole here), they have no place in an
open
> communication forum such as this.
>
> And actually, the "please disregard..." etc. statement in
the message that
> sparked off this thread is IMHO of very dubious relevance, as it
cannot be
> clear to the recipient as to whether the sender had the authority to
make
> such a statement on behalf of his employer, so I believe that the
only
> valid treatment of that message (and other similar messages) is to
delete
> it from the email archive and disregard its content until such a
time as
> the sender re-sends it without any attached disclaimer.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 09:16 04/04/2005, Mike Moreton wrote:
> >--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group
Reflector
---
> >
> >Clint,
> >
> >Maybe the IEEE should pay for a legal opinion on this one.
Seems to me
> >that if you intentionally send an email to a public list with an
open
> >archive, then the "intended recipients" could
plausibly be argued to be
> >the entire world.
> >
> >Surely this clause would only kick in if you clearly sent
something by
> >accident (such as internal company plans), in which case it
would give you
> >a good justification for asking for it to be removed from the
archive.
> >
> >Or to put it another way, this clause would only be applicable
if a
> >recipient of an email could be reasonably expected to determine
that that
> >email was sent by accident. Clearly this wouldn't apply to
email exploder
> >programs.
> >
> >Mike.
> >
> >P.S. I have to use an external email address because my IT
department
> >manages to mess me up in a completely different way...
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ***** IEEE stds-802-11-tgn List *****
>
>[mailto:STDS-802-11-TGN@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]
On Behalf Of Clint Chaplin
> >Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 8:42 AM
> >To: STDS-802-11-TGN@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >Subject: Re: [802-11TGN] Reasons for No Vote on TGn Sync
Proposal
> >
> >
> >--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group N
Technical
> >Reflector ---
> >
> >If you cannot straighten out your IT staff, may I suggest
getting a
> >gmail account and using it for your IEEE work? That's what
I am
> >using, and I like it very much. If you want, I can extend
you an
> >invitation.
> >
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
____
____
> >
> >IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT
send
your
> >request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool
to
communicate
> >on the issues at hand.
> >
> >SELF SERVICE OPTION:
> >Point your Browser to -
>
>http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11
and then amend
your
> >subscription on the form provided. If you require removal
from the
> >reflector press the LEAVE button.
> >
> >Further information can be found at:
>
>http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
____
____
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
____
___
>
> IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send
your
request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to
communicate
on the issues at hand.
>
> SELF SERVICE OPTION:
> Point your Browser to -
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11
and then amend
your
subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the
reflector press the LEAVE button.
>
> Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
>
________________________________________________________________________
____
___
________________________________________________________________________
_______
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your
request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to
communicate on the issues at hand.
SELF SERVICE OPTION:
Point your Browser to -
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then amend
your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the
reflector press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
________________________________________________________________________
_______
________________________________________________________________________
_______
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your
request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to
communicate on the issues at hand.
SELF SERVICE OPTION:
Point your Browser to -
http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then amend
your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the
reflector press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at:
http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
________________________________________________________________________
_______
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
Regards,
Tony
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.