Wikipedia talk:Non Disclosure

I don't understand how a civil contract between two parties, can bind us, as a third party into not revealing something. Could you explain further how wikipedia is at risk if we don't respect a third parties NDA ? Megapixie 04:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a completely pointless policy; Wikipedia is under no contractual obligation to honor anybody else's agreements, though individual editors who are signatories of any such agreement will be under legal risk if they violate their agreement by posting things either to Wikipedia or to other sites (whether or not they're ultimately linked by Wikipedia). If having a link to some particular site can pose legal risks under some country's laws, that's up to the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers to judge on a case-by-case basis. *Dan T.* 20:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was happy when someone else removed a questionable link. Tbere was no direct policy available to me this time. You do not really believe i make up a needless policy? User:Yy-bo 22:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly question the appropriateness of this proposed policy

The article (at least the version up here when I write this comment) is clearly NOT written by an attorney.

A non-disclosure agreement is an agreement which you reach with another party. Once you’ve signed one you can be held liable for disclosing data under the terms of the agreement. This is civil, not criminal. And yes, if you do it foolishly, it can cost you money.

But it has nothing to do with Wikipedia’s responsibilities. Wikipedia’s responsibilities, in my non-legal opinion, are more likely to derive from a responsibility not to knowingly aid & abet those violating the legal restrictions on classified information. One presumes Wikipedia may have some liability if they do not take reasonable measures to preclude this from happening. One also presumes they are not idiots and have already (after multiple years of operation) taken appropriate measures.

I’d strongly suggest we defer this topic to the Wikipedia attorneys (Wiki spends money on those folks for good reason) and get them to write it if it is needed. Or at least get some of our Wiki members who are attorneys to do so.

Williamborg (Bill) 02:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, 'national security' - is that for any/all nations' security? Cuba, Iran, N.Korea? --Doc 14:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - this would be international, or, politically correct, global security. An answer to that question does not disclaim who may provide this global security. National security, when using english, addresses then concerns of the industrialized nations. User:Yy-bo 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very confused

This page is very confused right now. A non-disclosure agreement is a civil contract. A third party cannot be liable for violating it. Further, even a party that is bound by a NDA can still disclose those details provided that are willing to pay the civil penalties involved.

However, a third party might be liable for revealing trade secrets, as defined by law, and which may or may not have been explicitly protected by an NDA.

Finally, anyone could be held responsible for revealing classified information as defined by the applicable state secrets law.

This page is conflating NDAs (a specific type of civil contract) with trade secrets and state secrets. Dragons flight 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, even a party that is bound by a NDA can still disclose those details provided that are willing to pay the civil penalties involved (excerpt from above discussion).

Personally i do not consider this to be a good idea. Recently (9/2006) i have seen this labelling within a nintendo magazine: ultra illegal ROMs. They take it more serious now. No favour to hacker kiddies to supply them with relevant links. User:Yy-bo 20:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another confusion. Distributing ROMs is a copyright issue, and already against policy per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. Dragons flight 20:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contributory infringement (from the link above) - This covers the subject, though some hacker sites do not have direct ROM links. Sometimes the ROM links just do not work, or they do not work correctly. An NDA policy would cover such violations in general, not just in company of console ROM downloads. I do not know how to spell everything correctly, however i have observed an enforcement of action by, for instance, nintendo. I have read about it, and, see above, now i have myself seen printed evidence of disapproval to posession of illegal ROM images. User:Yy-bo