On Saturday, March 21, 2015 07:46:10 AM Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 21/03/2015 07:23, Jari Arkko wrote:
I agree with the points from Scott, Christian, and you John that it is
possible that confidentiality is not maintained on a case involving
a continuously bad actor. (Assuming we get to such a bad situation
to begin with, which I hope we wont.)
In fact I think it's stronger. It's not just possible, it's virtually
certain that a persistent bad actor will be outed by gossip. And that
puts the privacy of the victim(s) at real risk.
My question to you though is what effect do you believe that observation
should have on our procedures? Are you suggesting that they should
not by default be confidential?
No. But maybe the lawyer should craft a phrase to avoid liability if
there is a leak.
Don't promise confidentiality where you can't provide it. That should solve
the problem.
It's not limited to 'bad actors'. I'll tell you in advance that if I'm ever
accused of anything, the resolution won't be private. I suspect that's true
for others as well.
Scott K