4 ms·
I agree it probably isn't true. But I've seen this argument quite a few times about how there is not a chance something this important is covered by an NDA. Pe
by sammcd 16y ago
I agree it probably isn't true. But I've seen this argument quite a few times about how there is not a chance something this important is covered by an NDA.
People make mistakes. I think this argument has nothing to do with the relevance of his claims. It could be covered by an NDA. Maybe he doesn't understand that it is covered by more. Either way. I just don't see this as an important point.
- maukdaddy 16y agoIt is an important point - especially if you've ever worked in the government contracting industry.
- gcb 16y agoCare to elaborate? I never did...
- firemanx 16y agoIntelligence operations, such as this, don't use NDAs when performing contract work (at least not in any project I've ever seen). There's no reason for NDAs - they have a robust, developed clearance infrastructure that assures a much stronger legal commitment than any flimsy NDA can ever offer. As such, work like this is ALWAYS covered under classified rules. Second, when you go through the clearance process, the consequences and nature of the legal ramifications are burned into you by the documentation and people you have to deal with. Hence the suspicion that the original claim is bogus. Either that, or the guy who made the claim will most likely be brought up on some very serious charges.