Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!telecom-request From: kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp!trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J Woodhead) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! Message-ID: Date: 10 May 91 03:25:02 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan Lines: 59 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 345, Message 7 of 11 ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) writes: > In that sense, I think that > anyone who deals with sensitive information about other people, > whether they work for a hospital or telecommunications company, has an > obligation to make sure that any information they disclose about their > work does no harm. And who decides whether the disclose did harm? Who gets to play "God?" > Saying something in private to Patrick would have done no harm. Again, sez who? Who knows what Patrick, or anyone else might be tempted to do with the information? The reason there are RULES about confidentiality is to reduce the temptation to play God! > While the telemarketing company in this case did not lose > anything by having its calling patterns disclosed, I think AT&T > suffered by appearing to be a telecommunications carrier whose > employees don't keep proprietary information confidential. I'd disagree with your first point -- I'm willing to bet that said company's lawyers would disagree too, if they found out about it. You're right on point two, though. The loss to AT&T could be quite significant. > That having been said, Randy didn't do this out of a desire for > profit. He deserves to be yelled at by his boss, not fired. What Randy "deserves" is to be treated like any other employee who committed this infraction of "the rules." Whether or not the disclosure was "harmless" is besides the point. kaufman@neon.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) writes: > In article syd@dsi.com writes: >> disclosure of records of calling patterns to any third >> ----- >> parties, or disclosure of phone calls was not only against rules, it >> was illegal and we could be procusuted, and a reference to the >> appropriate statue for my state was stapled to the booklet. > I understand this, and think it is proper, however ... how then can > one of the LD carriers call me and say: "Mr. Kaufman, we have analyzed > your long distance calling pattern -- and you can save $x by > subscribing to our service". Mark, in this case, you are the party of the second part, not the infamous party of the third part. It's perfectly OK for the phone company to tell you "we've looked at how YOU make phone calls with US and you can save money" but not for THEM to tell US what phone calls YOU made. (Geez, I shudda been a lawyer ;^) ) Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp