4 ms·

There is nothing precluding separate NDAs for individual instances that enforce different terms than a duty-required blanket non-disclosure policy enforces.

e12e 13y ago
I can't think of a situation where it would(should) be legal for a government agent to accept any kind of NDA in order to perform his or her job. Either there are secrets that you come in contact with in line of duty that you shouldn't share -- or there aren't. In the first instance, your employer should be able to make sure you don't talk about it; in the latter talking about it would probably be in the public interest.
- mattlutze 13y ago
  I see no reason for government agents to be treated differently legally than private individuals when business secrets are requested to be exposed. Coast Guardsmen have no special right to the inner workings to a private company's data center, for example. If their duty is to board a boat and insure there is no contraband or whatever, I cannot imagine they're also given a blanket right to learn trade secrets and then be at their own discretion to disclose those. It's absolutely plausible to require an NDA before exposing such information.
  - e12e 13y ago
    > If their duty is to board a boat and insure there is no contraband or whatever, I cannot imagine they're also given a blanket right to learn trade secrets and then be at their own discretion to disclose those. No, exactly. If you're entering any private property and learn information that you wouldn't have been aware of, as a result of preforming your duty, you are not allowed to disclose it. That's my point. Any NDA should be entirely irrelevant. If you you're cop and bust someone for possession of drugs, you're not allowed to, as a private citizen, go to that persons employer and recommend they fire the guy, either. The only possible value I could see of an "NDA" is not as an NDA at all, but as a brief education on what things might be considered private -- that might not be obvious to someone not already familiar with data centres. In other words, an explanation and expansion on what might constitute privileged information, and so fall under the provisions for secrecy and privacy that the government employee is already subject to.
    - mattlutze 13y ago
      I've been googling, and I haven't found the regulation or policy for the Coast Guard that forbids the disclosure of business intelligence. If one does not explicitly exist, then it doesn't practically exist, either. If you know of one though please provide a link, it would definitely settle the debate for me. Otherwise, there is fiduciary imperative on the part of the business to insist on non-disclosures, and I see nothing where it should be illegal to insist up until a court orders the disclosure of that information (and even then, can be argued that the court must seal the discoveries).
      - e12e 13y ago
        I was thinking there had to be something like: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1905 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1905 I'd be surprised if there isn't something equivalent for most state legislations as well (for state employees).

e12e 13y ago

I can't think of a situation where it would(should) be legal for a government agent to accept any kind of NDA in order to perform his or her job. Either there are secrets that you come in contact with in line of duty that you shouldn't share -- or there aren't. In the first instance, your employer should be able to make sure you don't talk about it; in the latter talking about it would probably be in the public interest.

mattlutze 13y ago
I see no reason for government agents to be treated differently legally than private individuals when business secrets are requested to be exposed. Coast Guardsmen have no special right to the inner workings to a private company's data center, for example. If their duty is to board a boat and insure there is no contraband or whatever, I cannot imagine they're also given a blanket right to learn trade secrets and then be at their own discretion to disclose those. It's absolutely plausible to require an NDA before exposing such information.
- e12e 13y ago
  > If their duty is to board a boat and insure there is no contraband or whatever, I cannot imagine they're also given a blanket right to learn trade secrets and then be at their own discretion to disclose those. No, exactly. If you're entering any private property and learn information that you wouldn't have been aware of, as a result of preforming your duty, you are not allowed to disclose it. That's my point. Any NDA should be entirely irrelevant. If you you're cop and bust someone for possession of drugs, you're not allowed to, as a private citizen, go to that persons employer and recommend they fire the guy, either. The only possible value I could see of an "NDA" is not as an NDA at all, but as a brief education on what things might be considered private -- that might not be obvious to someone not already familiar with data centres. In other words, an explanation and expansion on what might constitute privileged information, and so fall under the provisions for secrecy and privacy that the government employee is already subject to.
  - mattlutze 13y ago
    I've been googling, and I haven't found the regulation or policy for the Coast Guard that forbids the disclosure of business intelligence. If one does not explicitly exist, then it doesn't practically exist, either. If you know of one though please provide a link, it would definitely settle the debate for me. Otherwise, there is fiduciary imperative on the part of the business to insist on non-disclosures, and I see nothing where it should be illegal to insist up until a court orders the disclosure of that information (and even then, can be argued that the court must seal the discoveries).
    - e12e 13y ago
      I was thinking there had to be something like: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1905 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1905 I'd be surprised if there isn't something equivalent for most state legislations as well (for state employees).