3 ms·

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

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.
    - djbusby 5y ago
      You've shifted the context to argue a nonsense point. If NYT published info, and that's how you became aware of it, yes, it's Public. But that was not the context I was replying to. My reply is in the context an individual employee making private information public. A journalist informing GenPop of data is very different than an employee leaking. Talk to your contracts or securities council for the details - scope and context are important.
    - shalmanese 5y ago
      Many government contractors couldn’t legally read the Snowden papers despite them being published in newspapers because they weren’t declassified.
      - smsm42 5y ago
        Classified info has different rules. The government never plays by the same rules as mere plebes.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  Sure, but the parent comment said “explicitly public” which means information that satisfies both these criteria: - you can get to it as the public - the owner of the information considers it to be public (this is the “explicitly” part)
- smsm42 5y ago
  That's wrong. The crucial part is that it should apply to any random person, not just you. E.g. if it's published in a newspaper, or broadcast on a news channel, which anybody could watch, then it's public. If somebody told you, and only you, it's not public, because any random person couldn't get the same information.

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.
  - djbusby 5y ago
    You've shifted the context to argue a nonsense point. If NYT published info, and that's how you became aware of it, yes, it's Public. But that was not the context I was replying to. My reply is in the context an individual employee making private information public. A journalist informing GenPop of data is very different than an employee leaking. Talk to your contracts or securities council for the details - scope and context are important.
  - shalmanese 5y ago
    Many government contractors couldn’t legally read the Snowden papers despite them being published in newspapers because they weren’t declassified.
    - smsm42 5y ago
      Classified info has different rules. The government never plays by the same rules as mere plebes.
snowwrestler 5y ago
Sure, but the parent comment said “explicitly public” which means information that satisfies both these criteria: - you can get to it as the public - the owner of the information considers it to be public (this is the “explicitly” part)
smsm42 5y ago
That's wrong. The crucial part is that it should apply to any random person, not just you. E.g. if it's published in a newspaper, or broadcast on a news channel, which anybody could watch, then it's public. If somebody told you, and only you, it's not public, because any random person couldn't get the same information.