Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Trying to use a program to replace human oversight on this is, IMO, wrong. Until you have a program that has a full natural language parser and can understand the difference between an assertion that content is proprietary, and other legitimate uses of words like confidential and proprietary, this is going to cause a lot of grief.
The problem is that the humans who have been asked to do this haven't done a thorough job in some cases. Trusting people to be diligent clearly doesn't work.
IMO, there needs at minimum to be an override mechanism, where a file can be blessed as not having any bad assertions, without requiring the *content* of said file to be altered.
There is one - 'manual' exposure. That's not been done properly either.
I had at one time believed that the process of marking a case open (which does involve additional human review of the materials, btw), implicitly performed this "whitelisting" step.
No, it doesn't. -- Alan Burlison -- _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
