Alan Burlison wrote:
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
I think the script under consideration has blacklist words like
"confidential" "proprietary" or "engineering only". It appears that
the filter is not very smart about the context where these occur, and
it would probably be best to avoid any of those words in any ARC case
mail going forward.
It is a little more sophisticated than that, but not much. And it has
to check *all* the case materials, not just the mail logs. And the
old ARC case publishing mechanism did the same thing as well.
In case its not obvious, yes, I think this restriction is silly and
likely to cause far more problems than it solves. But don't ask me,
I just work here. ;-)
If people put 'confidential' in places that it doesn't apply then it
becomes legally meaningless, and can't be used to defend material that
truly *is* confidential.
The problem is that the script doesn't have enough brains to detect the
differences in usage. For example, this very message would be
blacklisted by your script, although nowhere in it is an assertion that
any of the material is Sun Proprietary.
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.
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.
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.
-- Garrett
_______________________________________________
website-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
