If You Don't Want People To Know About Stuff, Maybe Don't Put A Press Release On Your Website With The Info
from the just-a-tip dept
Reader jprlk alerts us to the amusing news that Carleton University apparently put a press release on its website with all of the details concerning an upcoming visit by the Emperor and Empress of Japan... and opened it up by saying:
The Government of Japan respectfully requests that media outlets do not report on specific details, including exact times, prior to the events. Thank you for your cooperation.Someone, apparently, isn't quite aware of the way the web works. When you put that info on the web yourself, Carleton University, you've already "reported on the specific details, including exact times, prior to the event." The University has since pulled the press release, but it's too late, as it's been picked up by the local press. As you can see, the blog post above summarizes the situation nicely:
So I guess the message from Carleton is that they'll put stuff on their website, but SHHHHHH! nobody else is to say anything.Welcome to the internet, Carleton University.






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Maybe they are smarter than you think?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
One more thing...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more thing...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Well
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike you are a Jerk
I know that you cannot pass up the opportunity to point out how stupid someone else is. And sure - Carleton University was pretty dumb to post that information on the internet, especially when they were respectfully asked by the Government of Japan not to post time specific details. Of course some people are completely oblivious to the security concerns of attempting to protect a foreign dignitary. On the other hand, YOU were obviously completely aware of all of these issues, and despite that fact still choose to send out this information via RSS to the world, before any of these events took place. Mike, do you think you could have published the "Ha Ha, Isn't Carleton Stupid" article after the Emperor left? Yes, Carleton and the local news outlets were dumb to run with this story. You, being aware of all of the implications of your irresponsible actions are not stupid, just crassly indifferent.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike you are a Jerk
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike you are a Jerk
Maybe it is, but the point is in his article - ONCE IT'S ON THE WEB, IT'S OUT THERE. You seem to have missed it...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike you are a Jerk
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike you are a Jerk
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike you are a Jerk
Dude, I totally fornicated with that guys mother, you stupid ass-fucker.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike you are a Jerk
Stop posting on the same blogs as I do.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike you are a Jerk
I think what you fail to realize is that the information is already out there. The horse is gone, the dam has burst, Timmy is in the well and Lassie can't get him out. Am I making any sense here, hello, hello?
I think you have a valid point, but, really, does it matter at this point? The information is out there and no amount of "pleeze?" is going to make it come back home. Perhaps someone will read this, realize that "Oh, we were going to do the same thing!!!1!" and then, not do it.
'k? Now don't be hatin' on the peeps, mkay?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike you are a Jerk
If you cannot understand the difference between someone talking about the issue and revealing the information, I'm not quite sure how to respond to you.
I may or may not be a jerk. But if you are going to accuse me of being a jerk for revealing such info, you might want to make sure I actually revealed such info.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike you are a Jerk
And Mike, why would you say "If you cannot understand the difference...". Isn't it obvious that I can tell the difference. As I said in my earlier post, the people at Carleton likely made a dumb mistake. I distinguished that from your actions which were made with full understanding of the ramifications - you just didn't care. Perhaps like some of the other people who posted comments, your take is that once information is out, the actual number of people who see the information is not relevant. I suspect the security detail for the Emperor has a different take.
I know, waiting a day or two to report on this HOT story would have required a bit of forethought, or empathy, or just a basic understanding of how the internet works. As you were ridiculing Carlton for their lack of forethought and basic understanding of how the internet works, I am thinking you have those two areas covered.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike you are a Jerk
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike you are a Jerk
Ok, let's try this again: I DID NOT RELEASE the info. Others did. I wrote about that as the story. It's newsworthy. That's why I wrote about it.
I'm not sure why you have so much trouble understanding such a basic concept. THE INFO IS OUT THERE. Me telling people doesn't change that.
I honestly cannot understand how you think my posting about a story that OTHERS HAD ALREADY WRITTEN ABOUT is somehow wrong.
My job is to tell the story. Not to hide information because someone might not like it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: relevance
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
He didn't post the details
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He didn't post the details
oops, isn't that copyright infringement?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment