Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Ricardo Harvin

@darius When BigCorp insists on an NDA, that's enough to warrant a public warning of possible impending harm.

Any entity wanting to privately discuss, under penalty of legal harm, any matter regarding participation with a network that explicitly functions under a principle of complete openness and transparency should always be met first and foremost with suspicion and concern for harms they may commit, intentional or not.

You understand that, surely.

4 comments
Darius Kazemi

@ricardoharvin correct! And not incompatible with what I'm saying

Ricardo Harvin

@darius It seemed to me your post was claiming accepting the NDA was *required* in order to know if there was a possible danger approaching, and a warning necessary.

If I misunderstood, I apologize.

Darius Kazemi

@ricardoharvin it is simply required to know things that a corporation will only say under NDA

Ricardo Harvin

@darius I understand that.

Go Up