5 ms·
Isn't this exactly the right use case for an NDA? Making sure everyone understands what's secret and what isn't?
by formerly_proven 5y ago
Isn't this exactly the right use case for an NDA? Making sure everyone understands what's secret and what isn't?
- jdrc 5y agogiven that it's impossible to enforce it, no. but it s a great way to communicate a message
- doikor 5y ago> given that it's impossible to enforce it For some foreign journalist or diplomat sure but against a local journalist, maintenance crew, cleaner, etc who all most likely sign the exact same NDA for sure Ukraine can enforce it if the person is unable to escape the country (which for males aged 18 to 65 is really hard at the moment for example) edit: Also as a journalist if you actually do leak such information after signing a piece of paper saying you would not who would actually trust you with any kind of secret information in the future?
- jdrc 5y agoif you are a journalist and leak out endangering information you should never be trusted again, with or without an NDA
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- b112 5y agoYet the NDA gives additional guideance as to what is sensitive.
- jdrc 5y agoFor Ukrainian willingly endangering the pres would amount to treason
- golergka 5y agoWithout signing NDA they would be able to (rightfully) pledge stupidity.
- sofixa 5y agoStupidity isn't a valid excuse against treason charges.
- gruez 5y agoI'm not sure how the legal system in Ukraine works but for criminal charges you typically you need to prove intent. "Stupidity" would probably be a valid excuse in that case because it implies lack of intent, at least pertaining to the charge of betraying the country.
- hnaccount_rng 5y agoI would love to be a fly on the wall when someone tries using that excuse in a war zone xD In a way I'm thankful for it. It means that most people never even came close to real consequences of their actions...
- simonh 5y agoSo no, er, but actually yes?
- rospaya 5y agoWhy is it impossible to enforce? Not sure I follow.
- formerly_proven 5y agohackernews trying not to be contrarian for five minutes challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
- jdrc 5y agoEvery opinion should be attacked from all angles to prove its validity. Saying that people are contrarian for expressing a counteropinion is asking for people not to attack a position, which would lead to false opinions being propagated.
- McLaren_Ferrari 5y agothe "current thing" must be destroyed at all costs
- jollybean 5y agoDefinitely possible to enforce it. They have a functional legal system and a 'very active' counter intelligence team.
- michaelt 5y agoIt depends. Much like everyone making a purchase online will 'agree to the terms and conditions' without reading them, many jobs get so many NDAs thrust at them that they'll sign without reading them. If you repair office coffee machines for a living? You might visit 4 office buildings a day, and they'll all hand you a pile of paperwork telling you not to take photos, not to connect things to their computers, that you should evacuate if you hear the fire alarm, and so on. Hardly anybody reads such things before signing them.
- junon 5y ago> sign without reading them. If you're actually signing, with signature, a legal document without reading it, you reap what you sow. Ticking a checkbox on a site is not the same legally binding agreement that an NDA is.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago> Ticking a checkbox on a site is not the same legally binding agreement that an NDA is. It’s not? I thought it was! (Not that it should be.)
- junon 5y agoIANAL but this is my understanding. Sites that use "By using this service, you agree to X." do not hold up in court almost at all. Sites that use "By checking this box, you agree to X." there is some semblance of a binding agreement but there's a lot of wiggle-room in court. User doesn't understand, wasn't made clear, wasn't actually the user, etc. can all be argued. Sites where you sign your name in some way, shape or form, tend to be treated more fortified - a la Docusign, which employs an extensive set of protections against forgery and cases of misunderstanding. These cases probably couldn't be argued in court on the premise of sort of 'unintentional' agreement like the prior two could be. This of course extends to written documents. Unless you're signing NDAs with a checkbox (which would be kind of reckless on the issuer's part), then NDAs hold much more weight in court in most cases as there is very little ambiguity as to whether or not the signee actually meant to sign it.