7 ms·

He says > None of the data I shared is from my organization and it was obtained entirely independently. I did not break any NDA or contract. I would never viol

He says > None of the data I shared is from my organization and it was obtained entirely independently. I did not break any NDA or contract. I would never violate the trust of the organization I work for. https://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508614036719648771 https://twitter.com/BillDemirkapi/status/1508614036719648771

gjsman-1000 5y ago
It doesn't have to be obtained from your organization if it is an embarrassment to the company or its partners. It would be like an NSA Employee tweeting about Snowden.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
Doesn’t matter that it was obtained “independently”. Doesn’t matter that he didn’t sign an NDA with Okta. Zoom certainly had agreements with Okta that prohibit employees from either company from sharing private information publicly like this. To remain compliant, they can’t continue to employ someone who is publicly violating that (with his handle emblazoned all over the documents, no less) You can’t expect to work for a company while publicly leaking materials from one of their partners, regardless of how you acquired it.
- rendall 5y ago
  > the materials are from a Zoom partner company that provides a critical integration for the company’s operations? > Zoom certainly had agreements with Okta that prohibit employees... Partner? Can you say more about this? How do you know Zoom and Okta are partners?
  - helsinkiandrew 5y ago
    https://www.okta.com/partners/zoom/ https://www.okta.com/partners/zoom/
  - dmd 5y ago
    There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of organizations that log into Zoom via Okta.
    - hunter2_ 5y ago
      When implementing SAML, the IdP and any given SP don't need to be partners or even know anything about each other. That's kind of the point.
  - notreallyserio 5y ago
    This page on Okta's site links to their "Zoom Partnership Overview": https://www.okta.com/integrations/zoom/#overview https://www.okta.com/integrations/zoom/#overview
  - mescaline 5y ago
    That's a moot point. When in a non-disclosure agreement with a company, the binding part is that one will not divulge information about the company or potential partners. If one doesn't know if the company is a partner or not, they still can't divulge the information. If you've ever worked for one of these on-demand consulting firms, they go over this in detail. Basically, if a company tells me something on the call, and that includes information about another company, I can't tell a third party about it, nor can I mention it to the other company. It is very likely Zoom and Okta are partners. Companies are constantly "partnering" with each other and all that means is there likely some agreement somewhere between them to not divulge information. I think it's pretty clear the poster figured out they were in legal jeopardy, or were worried about it, given the content is now gone.
    - CoastalCoder 5y ago
      > When in a non-disclosure agreement with a company, the binding part is that one will not divulge information about the company or potential partners. I don't think that's true for all NDAs.
    - throwaway290 5y ago
      > If one doesn't know if the company is a partner or not, they still can't divulge the information. So if Okta partners with 90% of tech companies, then no one can research what they do and talk about it? And more generally who isn't a "potential partner"? Can we say anything about any company at all?
      - Redoubts 5y ago
        You should at least consider pseudo-anonymity
    - rendall 5y ago
      > That's a moot point. When in a non-disclosure agreement with a company, .... Do you know this because you're a lawyer?
- db65edfc7996 5y ago
  Not that I disagree with your overall point, but how does that work for mega-huge companies? Microsoft/Visa/Google/etc likely have deals with everyone. If you work for a large company, you could essentially never disclose anything, regardless of the source.
  - buescher 5y ago
    Here's a rule of thumb that will work for you, no matter how large a company you work for or how you got the material or what agreements they have in place: if it's not explicitly public material you should not disclose it.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - krageon 5y ago
      > if it's not explicitly public material you should not disclose it. By definition anything you can get to independently is public material, as you are the public.
      - otterley 5y ago
        Can you please argue this in a court of law? I will gladly supply the popcorn.
      - djbusby 5y ago
        Public Material is the material the Company chose to make Public. Many legal terms are different from their definition in OED.
        smsm42 5y ago
        That means if something is published in the NYT but the company didn't explicitly ask NYT to publish it, you have to treat it as private. This makes zero sense. And I want to see somebody try to win a legal case based on the theory that something published in NYT is not "public" because they didn't "choose" to make it public.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

It doesn't have to be obtained from your organization if it is an embarrassment to the company or its partners. It would be like an NSA Employee tweeting about Snowden.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

Doesn’t matter that it was obtained “independently”. Doesn’t matter that he didn’t sign an NDA with Okta. Zoom certainly had agreements with Okta that prohibit employees from either company from sharing private information publicly like this. To remain compliant, they can’t continue to employ someone who is publicly violating that (with his handle emblazoned all over the documents, no less) You can’t expect to work for a company while publicly leaking materials from one of their partners, regardless of how you acquired it.

rendall 5y ago
> the materials are from a Zoom partner company that provides a critical integration for the company’s operations? > Zoom certainly had agreements with Okta that prohibit employees... Partner? Can you say more about this? How do you know Zoom and Okta are partners?
- helsinkiandrew 5y ago
  https://www.okta.com/partners/zoom/ https://www.okta.com/partners/zoom/
- dmd 5y ago
  There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of organizations that log into Zoom via Okta.
  - hunter2_ 5y ago
    When implementing SAML, the IdP and any given SP don't need to be partners or even know anything about each other. That's kind of the point.
- notreallyserio 5y ago
  This page on Okta's site links to their "Zoom Partnership Overview": https://www.okta.com/integrations/zoom/#overview https://www.okta.com/integrations/zoom/#overview
- mescaline 5y ago
  That's a moot point. When in a non-disclosure agreement with a company, the binding part is that one will not divulge information about the company or potential partners. If one doesn't know if the company is a partner or not, they still can't divulge the information. If you've ever worked for one of these on-demand consulting firms, they go over this in detail. Basically, if a company tells me something on the call, and that includes information about another company, I can't tell a third party about it, nor can I mention it to the other company. It is very likely Zoom and Okta are partners. Companies are constantly "partnering" with each other and all that means is there likely some agreement somewhere between them to not divulge information. I think it's pretty clear the poster figured out they were in legal jeopardy, or were worried about it, given the content is now gone.
  - CoastalCoder 5y ago
    > When in a non-disclosure agreement with a company, the binding part is that one will not divulge information about the company or potential partners. I don't think that's true for all NDAs.
  - throwaway290 5y ago
    > If one doesn't know if the company is a partner or not, they still can't divulge the information. So if Okta partners with 90% of tech companies, then no one can research what they do and talk about it? And more generally who isn't a "potential partner"? Can we say anything about any company at all?
    - Redoubts 5y ago
      You should at least consider pseudo-anonymity
  - rendall 5y ago
    > That's a moot point. When in a non-disclosure agreement with a company, .... Do you know this because you're a lawyer?
db65edfc7996 5y ago
Not that I disagree with your overall point, but how does that work for mega-huge companies? Microsoft/Visa/Google/etc likely have deals with everyone. If you work for a large company, you could essentially never disclose anything, regardless of the source.
- buescher 5y ago
  Here's a rule of thumb that will work for you, no matter how large a company you work for or how you got the material or what agreements they have in place: if it's not explicitly public material you should not disclose it.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - krageon 5y ago
    > if it's not explicitly public material you should not disclose it. By definition anything you can get to independently is public material, as you are the public.
    - otterley 5y ago
      Can you please argue this in a court of law? I will gladly supply the popcorn.
    - djbusby 5y ago
      Public Material is the material the Company chose to make Public. Many legal terms are different from their definition in OED.
      - smsm42 5y ago
        That means if something is published in the NYT but the company didn't explicitly ask NYT to publish it, you have to treat it as private. This makes zero sense. And I want to see somebody try to win a legal case based on the theory that something published in NYT is not "public" because they didn't "choose" to make it public.