Comments on: I didn’t sign nothing (NDA) http://www.mckeay.net/2008/05/30/i-didnt-sign-nothing-nda/ The views of one man on security, privacy and anything else that catches his attention Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:22:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Network Security Blog » Learning the rules http://www.mckeay.net/2008/05/30/i-didnt-sign-nothing-nda/comment-page-1/#comment-2054 Network Security Blog » Learning the rules Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:59:18 +0000 http://www.mckeay.net/2008/05/30/i-didnt-sign-nothing-nda/#comment-2054 [...] MacVittie misinterpreted my rant on an NDA slipped into a recent presentation I saw as “don’t trust bloggers” when what I [...] [...] MacVittie misinterpreted my rant on an NDA slipped into a recent presentation I saw as “don’t trust bloggers” when what I [...]

]]> By: Evan Schuman http://www.mckeay.net/2008/05/30/i-didnt-sign-nothing-nda/comment-page-1/#comment-2042 Evan Schuman Sat, 31 May 2008 19:28:39 +0000 http://www.mckeay.net/2008/05/30/i-didnt-sign-nothing-nda/#comment-2042 Interesting post, but I must take some exceptions to some elements of it. Most critically, both you and Lori MacVittie seem to be using the term "blogger" and "journalist" as mutually exclusive and I can assure you they are certainly not. There are many journalists who don't have blogs and are therefore not bloggers, just as there are many bloggers who are not journalists. But there are a huge number of journalists who have active blogs. Are you actually suggesting that, for example Dan Balz of The Washington Post isn't a journalist because he also writes on a blog? (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/31/the_rbc_opening_arguments.html?hpid=topnews) I assume not. Blogging is a communication device and a blogger who is anyone who uses that device to communicate. There are doctors and lawyers and U.S. Senators who are bloggers. All three of those groups have their own obligations and privileges and the fact that they have a blog changes none of it. Yes, as a career journalist who also happens to be blog, I get rather touchy on the subject. Now as to the core of your message on NDAs. You don't come right out and say it, but you seem to be suggesting that the NDA-related obligations are somehow different with journalists and bloggers who do not happen to be journalists. I would argue that there is none. An NDA is a very simple concept. It's an agreement between two or more parties and needs to be treated as such. The issue you're getting at here is crucial: namely that far too many PR people seem to believe that an NDA can be unilaterally dictated. The "a" stands for "agreement." Every time I get one of these uniliterally-declared NDAs, I am sorely tempted to reply, "Attached please find a copy of an agreement that you owe me $5,000. Given that you apparently believe people should adhere to the terms of an agreement unilaterally dictated by another, thought this would be a good way to pick up some easy cash." The procedure of an NDA is the same as it's been for many decades. The PR person contacts the reporter (or non-journalist blogger) and says something like, "We have a new version of our security application coming out next Tuesday. If you'll agree to sit on the details until 12:01 am Tuesday, I'll brief you on those details right now." The reporter would then ask a little to determine if it was a mutually-beneficial deal, check with his/her superior (if there is one) and then decide. If it's a "yes," it would be done in writing (E-mail is fine) and only THEN should the details be revealed. ANY shortcuts in the process risk problems for the PR person. P.S. Your comment "But when I saw the NDA statement cleverly slipped into the presentation, part of me wanted to post about it right away just out of spite," was interesting. You should know that there is a VERY small minority of PR people--but they do exist--that play on this. If they have something so trivial that no one will run it, they'll deliberately say it's embargoed (without getting an agreement) HOPING that it will make the news look sexier and that it will goad some reporter into using it. I've been working with PR people professionally since 1979 and these kinds of issues have changed surprisingly little over the years. Interesting post, but I must take some exceptions to some elements of it.
Most critically, both you and Lori MacVittie seem to be using the term “blogger” and “journalist” as mutually exclusive and I can assure you they are certainly not. There are many journalists who don’t have blogs and are therefore not bloggers, just as there are many bloggers who are not journalists. But there are a huge number of journalists who have active blogs.
Are you actually suggesting that, for example Dan Balz of The Washington Post isn’t a journalist because he also writes on a blog? (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/31/the_rbc_opening_arguments.html?hpid=topnews)
I assume not.
Blogging is a communication device and a blogger who is anyone who uses that device to communicate. There are doctors and lawyers and U.S. Senators who are bloggers. All three of those groups have their own obligations and privileges and the fact that they have a blog changes none of it.
Yes, as a career journalist who also happens to be blog, I get rather touchy on the subject.
Now as to the core of your message on NDAs. You don’t come right out and say it, but you seem to be suggesting that the NDA-related obligations are somehow different with journalists and bloggers who do not happen to be journalists. I would argue that there is none.
An NDA is a very simple concept. It’s an agreement between two or more parties and needs to be treated as such. The issue you’re getting at here is crucial: namely that far too many PR people seem to believe that an NDA can be unilaterally dictated. The “a” stands for “agreement.” Every time I get one of these uniliterally-declared NDAs, I am sorely tempted to reply, “Attached please find a copy of an agreement that you owe me $5,000. Given that you apparently believe people should adhere to the terms of an agreement unilaterally dictated by another, thought this would be a good way to pick up some easy cash.”
The procedure of an NDA is the same as it’s been for many decades. The PR person contacts the reporter (or non-journalist blogger) and says something like, “We have a new version of our security application coming out next Tuesday. If you’ll agree to sit on the details until 12:01 am Tuesday, I’ll brief you on those details right now.”
The reporter would then ask a little to determine if it was a mutually-beneficial deal, check with his/her superior (if there is one) and then decide. If it’s a “yes,” it would be done in writing (E-mail is fine) and only THEN should the details be revealed.
ANY shortcuts in the process risk problems for the PR person.
P.S. Your comment “But when I saw the NDA statement cleverly slipped into the presentation, part of me wanted to post about it right away just out of spite,” was interesting. You should know that there is a VERY small minority of PR people–but they do exist–that play on this. If they have something so trivial that no one will run it, they’ll deliberately say it’s embargoed (without getting an agreement) HOPING that it will make the news look sexier and that it will goad some reporter into using it.
I’ve been working with PR people professionally since 1979 and these kinds of issues have changed surprisingly little over the years.

]]> By: Lori MacVittie http://www.mckeay.net/2008/05/30/i-didnt-sign-nothing-nda/comment-page-1/#comment-2022 Lori MacVittie Fri, 30 May 2008 16:05:51 +0000 http://www.mckeay.net/2008/05/30/i-didnt-sign-nothing-nda/#comment-2022 Martin, Nice post, and a great subject. <a href="http://www.theapplicationdeliverynetwork.com/?p=25" rel="nofollow">One I've spoken to in the past. </a> I suspect that we (meaning folks like you and I who've been members of the press in the past and are now bloggers without the equivalent "credentials") have an easier time dealing with these situations and understanding what can/should be publicly disclosed and what shouldn't. While I agree we [as in bloggers] are under no particular <i>legal</i> obligation to recognize "NDA" in the middle of a press release because we've signed nothing, there is still an ethical obligation to do so. The fact that many would ignore this is one of the reasons it is so difficult for the corporate world to treat bloggers as they do journalists. If we don't start recognizing the responsibilities and obligations that go with being journalists - whether "citizen" or "traditional press" - then we are going to remain "separate but equal" for a long time in terms of what information we will be fed. Do you want the pablum that's been carefully chewed for us by corporate communications or do you want the meat? Lori Martin,

Nice post, and a great subject. One I’ve spoken to in the past.

I suspect that we (meaning folks like you and I who’ve been members of the press in the past and are now bloggers without the equivalent “credentials”) have an easier time dealing with these situations and understanding what can/should be publicly disclosed and what shouldn’t.

While I agree we [as in bloggers] are under no particular legal obligation to recognize “NDA” in the middle of a press release because we’ve signed nothing, there is still an ethical obligation to do so. The fact that many would ignore this is one of the reasons it is so difficult for the corporate world to treat bloggers as they do journalists.

If we don’t start recognizing the responsibilities and obligations that go with being journalists – whether “citizen” or “traditional press” – then we are going to remain “separate but equal” for a long time in terms of what information we will be fed.

Do you want the pablum that’s been carefully chewed for us by corporate communications or do you want the meat?

Lori

]]>