Conference 7.286::digital

I copied the base note out of the Globe.  [Also cross-posted in Security
for different reasons then it's posted here.]

I haven't had too much time to think about it, but my initial reaction is
one of distaste and disgust.  I would really hope that there are better
ways for our security folks to deal with the inevitable problems that will
always come up.

Comments anyone?

/Skip
     

    "distaste and disgust", yeah, but so is stealing information.  The
    reporter and the newspaper are profiting at our expense.  So might one
    of our competitors, and maybe even a trusted employee.  In cases like
    this, I have to rely on Corp. Security to know what's best for the
    Company and to take appropriate measures.

Perhaps the "document recovery and source-finding" mission was just
a cover so the two could find out from the reporter "what's really
happening at DEC".

More seriously, it is of course reasonable for the company to pay
some attention to matters of security, including improper disclosure,
but shouldn't they know that a visit to a *reporter* was likely to
be, er, reported? 

I wonder if they contacted public relations first, as we must do,
before they approached the press?

- greg

    Sounds like Digital's corporate security group " ARE VERY " public
    relations conscious. Which would you prefer, a two person team, man and
    woman, in a expensive looking vehicle and I'm sure they were probably
    tastefully dressed to complete the professional image, come up to your
    doorway, introduce themselves as members of a corporate security team,
    probably inform you of their concern about information that you have
    received and pose hypothetical questions to ensure that you understand
    their legitimate concern about information leaks from Digital.
    
    Alternative- Two oversized gorillas (Terminator types) pulling up to
    your doorstep in a black Dodge challenger with aerials sticking up
    in every direction with a noisy exhaust to boot.  Pounding on your
    front door and when you open it proceding to threaten you with every
    possible threat in the book and then spitting on your front walkway
    as they leave.  (We don't hire these types but I know of several
    unionized companies that do.)  
    
    The situation was probably handled in excellent taste and Digital
    was smart enough to handle it in a pleasant face to face encounter
    rather then sending nasty grams through the mail and running afoul
    of the Postal Service Code.  So I think congratulations are in order
    for the security people.  Now if they can only find the person who
    has so little decency that they immediately blab confidential internal
    memos that have been entrusted to them as an employee by their company,
    termination with cause would be the only way to go.

     I'm not sure that I agree with the methods but I unquestionably
    agree with the motivations. 
    
     Think of it in political terms (as opposed to industrial), such an
    action by someone in government is considered (or at least used to be)
    treason punishable by life in prison or even death. Personally, I 
    believe immediate termination would be in order and a law suit should 
    not be ruled out.
    
     I don't know about the rest of you but I feel personally betrayed
    everytime I hear of information leaks to the press which nip away at
    every competetive edge that DEC tries to develop. "Loose lips sink
    ships" is a cliche' because it is TRUE. To say it very bluntly, I
    believe anybody leaking such information to the press is low life 
    scum. I can not understand how anybody could support such an act.
    At a very *MINIMUM*, leaking important/confidential information simply 
    reinforces the perception that nobody is in control of the ship.
    
     This raises a very interesting question for me. How many people
    out there think it is acceptable to leak such information from their
    employer but would have a problem with a reporter investigating
    every detail of their private life and publishing it in a major
    publication without permission? To me, there is no difference.
    
    
    Glenn

>one of distaste and disgust.  I would really hope that there are better
>ways for our security folks to deal with the inevitable problems that will
>always come up.

It's hard to tell...I mean, how much faith do you have that this 
article accurately represents what really happened?  It seems that 
there would be much better ways to deal with this, knowing that she 
had to get the information from someone inside DEC and that this 
information is protected by law for (I hope) obvious reasons.  On the 
other hand, Security probably wouldn't be very successful at this if 
they told people how and what they do/did about this, would they?  So, 
if we can accept this as being the case, how do we really know what 
other methods Security (or management) may have tried in this case?  

FWIW,

JB

I'd have to agree that what I find distasteful is the leaking of confidential 
information.  The reporter probably was approached, but beyond that, how much 
of her story are you willing to believe?  She knows the power of the press, 
she understands poetic license.

I am appalled at the level of security in some facilities.  It's no wonder the 
competition always knows what we are doing.

Can we ask those folks to visit Charlie Matco?

    As reported, this is dumb. Just plain dumb.

    shameful, plain shameful.
    
    but, is anyone slamming and dumping on the reporter?  I agree grounds
    for dismissal are in order for the leakage, but when (if) the leak is
    found, couldn't DEC also sue the reporter/newspaper for the way they
    handled confidential information?  If a reporter leaked gov't
    confidential information they'd either be severely discredited or dead.
    
    Ogre.

    the reporter used information that is Digital propriety and as such is
    not public.  they should not have used it.  in fact it should be
    obvious that they have participated in stealing from Digital.  the
    paper should take the responsibility for the reporters actions and at a
    minimum fire their employee for participating in a theft.

    I think Digital's action was a minimum force tactic as is usually
    their response in most cases.  I guess we still want to encourage the
    softy image.

    .8 had it right in calling it dumb.
    
    If a reporter is not required to reveal sources to the FBI, there is no
    way a reporter is going to reveal sources to Digital's security
    employees.  It's dumb to not recognize the futility of this.
    
    For a company to make a big show of an "investigation" that to me and
    the readers of the newspaper looks more like intimidation, is dumb.
    It's not the way to conduct an serious investigation and it's not the
    way to create a sympathetic public image.
    
    There is a real problem with keeping secrets inside Digital, I will not
    doubt that.  The problem originates in the disintegration of trust and
    discretion:
    
    People hoard information because it creates an appearance of having a
    significant task in spoon-feeding it to people who need it.
    
    People collect proprietary information far beyond what they need to do
    their job because it provides a phony elevated sense of self-importance
    to be in posession of infomation.  And in the hands of an employee with
    an axe to grind aganist the corporation it becomes a weapon.
    
    Employees have a duty to keep such information proprietary.  Reporters
    do not.
                                             

    Not to condone the leakage, but consider the following:
    
    "All confidential information will leak, given enough time." 
    
    	(Beldin's insecurity law)
    
    I have to confess that I find that anyone who expects a secret to be
    maintained or confidentiality to be respected is a little naive.    To
    let a company's destiny to ride on secrecy is not wise.  All of a 
    company's employees are not immune to the temptation of showing off
    their own importance by quoting "inside information".  So, a little
    better prevention would be smarter than any amount of "after the fact"
    work such as that presented here.  Perhaps we should have taken a
    little more drastic action when we found confidential memos from Ken
    floating around the net.
    
    Dick

    This may be a bit off the wall but there is another reason for Digital
    to take security of information seriously.  The security of our
    CUSTOMERS' information, including, but not limited to, the US military.
    We could stand to lose many millions of $$$$ in military contracts if
    it is found that we can't keep other people from obtaining sensitive
    information about our customers. I would think that a possible reason
    for this very visible investigation is to show that Digital takes security 
    of all information SERIOUSLY. 
    
    Steve B.

    
    Contacting and speaking with the reporter makes some sense, but not in
    the way described in the base note.  That has more of an ominous
    feeling to it than one would expect from a respected company like
    Digital Equipment Corp.  I'd say it was a BIG tactical blunder.
    
    Steve
    
    

>       <<< Note 2178.8 by ASICS::LESLIE "See asics""::andyleslie*.gif" >>>

>    As reported, this is dumb. Just plain dumb.

And, as discussed here.  "Treason", "sue the newspaper", "get them to see
Charlie Matco", "newspaper should fire reporter for stealing".  This kind 
of reaction is what got Nixon in trouble.

There is a lot of interest in what Digital is doing and there are thousands 
upon thousands of people, not all of them employees, who have access to inside
information.  Furthermore, there are many stories published about what
Digital is going to do, some turn out to be true, some do not.

The proper reaction is to shrug and go about our business.

All that these clumsy "security" people accomplished was to confirm the 
story.

Tom, former reporter and current Digit

PS - You don't even have to answer real cops who come to your door in this
way and you certainly don't have to answer hypothetical questions from fake
cops.

    
    I have to reply here.  Keep in mind that to the U.S. news media,
    all "security types" are Gestapo.  Anyone whom has the audacity to
    restrict their access to any and all information will be accused of
    being Nixon.  Look what they're doing to Bush, because of the 
    handling of information access during the Gulf war.  
    
    The previous noter may want to look into the "rights" of security
    persons.  You'll find they are much less restricted than police,
    in some situations.  But I wonder, why didn't she just say, "I
    do not wish to speak to you", and close the door?

    Because she had a new story.

    
    Agreed this is silly.  What would the motivation be for an employee to
    leak the information?  Here are a few suggestions and I think it may be
    helpful to the discussion to look at the motives.
    
    1) Wants to sabotage the corporation (This would assume that the
    employee wants to see the company fail which would indicate to be that
    the employee does not need his job)
    
    2) Wants to stir up the corporation from the outside as it isn't being
    done from the inside (in the employees perception-maybe they are tired
    of the rhetoric being fed from the top and they want the investors to
    force the hands of management)
    
    
    
    any other motivations?

    re: proprietary information and the press
    
    Didn't this whole issue come up in the case of the Pentagon Papers,
    somwhere around 1970? Supreme Court basically told the government that
    they couldn't do anything about the press publishing that information.
    Even though the US Government classified the information as top secret
    (or whatever the classification was).
    
    

	RE: why leak. Most often just to show off how much they know.

			Alfred

    I assume that most "leaks" come from higher up and are done largely
    for political reasons.  I suppose also that Digital Security often finds 
    out where the sources of the leaks are, but little or nothing visible 
    happens.  That's partly why those of us at the bottom area of the 
    hierarchy don't usually hear about these things until we read it in 
    the papers.
    
    Steve

    
    if DEC thinks the law was broken, they should pursue through the
    normal channels; e.g. law enforcement agencies.
    
    to send corporate security to a persons house, unannounced, is 
    really a dumb move, and the agents were lucky they didn't get a 
    dog sicced on them.
    
    they have no legal standing off company premises anyway.

re Note 2178.12 by SGOUTL::BELDIN_R:

>     Perhaps we should have taken a
>     little more drastic action when we found confidential memos from Ken
>     floating around the net.
  
        It was drastic -- Ken was fired.

>     Perhaps we should have taken a
>     little more drastic action when we found confidential memos from Ken
>     floating around the net.

	This is in fact a large part of the reason that policy forbids posting
	mail messages in Notes without permission. To slow down the spread
	of confidential memos to people who do not need to see it. I believe
	that some people in high places also recieved some verbal messages
	about being careful who they forward things to over the same thing.

	At least with forwarding one knows who is being sent something. With
	Notes, in non-restricted conferences, anyone can read it.

			Alfred

    re: .18
    
    3) To test the waters or see what public or competitor reaction is to the
       information without making a commitment.  
    
    Since it is a "leak", plans can change and denial made of the leak, 
    allowing the decision makers to save face -- they can still appear to be 
    infallible while changing their minds.  Or, your competitors can spin 
    their wheels, which may allow you to take a better position.
    
    Steve

    
    What you have read in this article is someone's interpretation of
    something they heard second or third hand.  I don't believe that this
    is an accurate account of what happened.
     
    Also......
    I don't understand how any of you can ridicule the actions of Security when
    they are struggling to keep order within a very disorderly place. 
    
    

    
    RE 18  I think your reason number one was close but no cigar.  There
    are many people that are living day to day with the feeling their days
    as a member in good standing of the family known as DIGITAL are rapidly
    drawing to a close and they are bitter and they are angry.  It is not
    beyond the realm of possibliity that more that one has the idea that if
    they are going down that are taking someone with them.  It is the only
    way they have of fighting back.  To many people that are getting punch
    drunk from not knowing from day to day if they will be the next to go
    this is the only way they have of fighting back.  They receive no
    loyalty and so they extend no loyalty.
    
    Who wodda thunk it!

    One has to wonder how the Globe would react if DEC published their
    confidential business information???

    Part of keeping proprietary information proprietary is to show that you
    actively work at keeping it from becoming common, public knowledge. The
    actions of Corporate Security may have been done knowing full well that
    this reporter would report on the 'encounter'. This gives us the press
    that we are striving to keep proprietary information secret. I don't
    for a second believe that anyone in Corporate Security Investigations
    didn't think that this encounter would be reported. And in the Globe,
    to boot. I believe the whole thing was carefully orchestrated for
    whatever desired effect.