North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus
On Mon, 03 April 2000, Randy Bush wrote: > >> Because one party -- the originator -- marks an electronic communique as a > >> confidential communication, does that really require the reciever to keep > >> it confidential? > > Professional courtesy. > > or one nanoclue if you think you want anyone to talk to you. Gordon is a reporter, professionally what would you expect? Did Gordon do anything different than the New York Times did with the Pentagon Papers? Besides the law of large numbers is working against you. Although a few people may not talk to Gordon, if you send a "confidential" communication to large group of people with no duty to keep it secret, someone will talk. Since peering is listed as a significant risk factor in many SEC filings, I'm wondering whether it will be considered a material piece of information for one or both of the parties. If it was important enough to notify Exodus' customers, was it also important enough to notify investors? Was Gordon shorting the stock?