Secrecy Bill Doesn't Go Far Enough

Secrecy Bill Doesn't Go Far Enough
Mark Rasch, 2002-02-18

An exemption from the Freedom of Information Act isn't enough. Companies needs a new legal privilege as an incentive for sharing cyber security details

Colapse all | Post comment

Secrecy Bill Doesn't Go Far Enough 2002-02-18
Anonymous (1 replies)

"Why is personal secrecy such a talisman, but corporate secrecy an anathema to privacy advocates?"

Because freedom can only be maintained while we have the ability to monitor the actions of those with power over us. It's the only way the democratic system can function to check the power of gover...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Secrecy Bill Doesn't Go Far Enough 2002-03-05
Anonymous

on the mark, but he won't comprehend what you are saying....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Secrecy Bill Doesn't Go Far Enough 2002-02-19
Chris (1 replies)

Under the proposed solution what is to prevent a corporation from "voluntarily" sharing confidential information with the government in order to preempt the government from discovering that information independently and using for regulatory purposes that could and should be accessible to the public ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Secrecy Bill Doesn't Go Far Enough 2002-02-22
Mark Rasch (1 replies)

The underlying information is not protected. It is merely the act of disclosing it that is protected. Moreover, if the information is disclosed for improper purposes (e.g., to defraud) it is not protected, nor is it protected if obtained by the government by other means....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Secrecy Bill Doesn't Go Far Enough 2002-02-25
Ferret

Uh - Mark - I think you have left out a word in there! It is not "merely the act of disclosing it that is protected." If it is exempted from the Freedom Of Information Act, then it is quite obviously the 'act' of NOT disclosing it that is protected.

Isn't it amazing what a difference one word c...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Ur going the wrong way 2002-02-19
Amused

"A legally recognized privilege -- meaning that the information so created and so shared could not be used in any proceeding, civil, criminal, administrative or regulatory -- would encourage companies to take their best efforts to critically examine their information security practices and share the...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Secrecy Bill Doesn't Go Far Enough 2002-02-22
Anonymous

I must agree, I have read similar articles and thought the title of the article here was fecious, this is amazing...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Secrecy Bill Doesn't Go Far Enough 2002-02-26
Anonymous (2 replies)

Mark has made a parallel between attorney-client and doctor-patient privilege , but I think those priveleges are there to protect personal privacy - I don't think that compares to a corporation that wants to hide its 'dirty laundry' at the expense of the security of our national infrastructure....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Secrecy Bill Doesn't Go Far Enough 2002-03-06
Chris L

"Why is personal secrecy such a talisman, but corporate secrecy an anathema to privacy advocates?"

First of all, large corporations make millions of dollars collecting, trading, and selling the American People's, credit, banking, andother personal information.
While large corporation...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Secrecy Bill Doesn't Go Far Enough 2002-03-10
Mark Rasch replies

The attorney-client privilege protects not just individuals, but any collective entity (e.g., corporations) that need to seek out legal advice or representation. While the doctor-patient and priest-pentitent privilege are personal in nature due to the nature of the information disclosed, the self-a...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Secrecy Bill Doesn't Go Far Enough 2002-03-07
Steve

Personal privacy is not equivalent to corporate secrecy. Personal privacy is essential to a democracy, corporate or government secrecy is anathema to it.

If the corporations are so concerned about industry security, they'll band together and work it out themselves. If not, they won't. And as s...

[ more ] [ reply ]