non-disclosure of infrastructure problem a management issue?

[Anders Karlsson]

* Frank Cox <theatre at sasktel.net> [20080824 21:42]:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:27:47 -0800
> Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >  the full details
> > can not be publicly disclosed instantaneously due to legal constraint
> 
> This I simply don't understand.

You do not need to understand, you just need to accept that this is
the case.
You may not like it (I don't particularly, but I realise the need for
it), and you are within your right to voice your opinion.

> If I am minding my own business and walking to the post office, and Joe Bloggs
> walks up to me and punches me in the nose, I think I'm perfectly within my
> rights to tell my friends and everyone else who wants to listen that Joe Bloggs
> punched me in the nose. On the other hand, if I want to date Joe Bloggs' sister
> I might tell people who ask me how I got a broken nose that I can't tell them.
> But that's not "legal reasons", that's simply my personal choice to keep quiet
> about it.

You are describing two situations that are worlds apart. Comparing
apples and oranges is not going to all of a sudden make you right.

> Why should this be any different?  Either something happened, or it did not.
> If something happened, then the facts will either be released, or
> not.

In due time. Patience is a virtue and all that. In another post, Paul
Frields pointed at a thread that explains the situation.

> I don't see how vague, unspecified "legal reasons" could stop anyone
> from discussing their involvement unless there is some contractual
> issue involved, in which case the person(s) involved in enforcing
> the contract are the ones who are in a position to provide the
> facts.  "I realize that this contract says that I'm not supposed to
> talk about this, but in these circumstances perhaps we should make
> an exception."  "I agree.  Here is a written waiver of the relevant
> contact provisions."  Problem solved.

If you are volunteering to spend all the years in jail on behalf of
those involved in the investigation that you are asking to interfere
in a criminal investigation - I guess that some sort of deal can be
accommodated with the courts. (And yes, I'm taking the piss now as the
discussion is beyond farcical.)

Facts - not petty demands or ludicrous speculation - will emerge in
due time and when appropriate, and I still think that The Cuckoo's Egg
should be a mandatory read before people start demanding instant
disclosure.

/Anders