2003 Subaru Thread
05 June 2002, 01:25 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely not. Its all anonymous, and anyone who visits the Prodrive factory would have seen what i saw. Plus, it just promotes interest in the brand, so Subaru/Prodrive won't mind. And after all, its only 'speculation', no photos or anything. Go on, re-post it.......
05 June 2002, 01:29 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Herts.
Posts: 1,727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps you could post it on another web site completely independent to Scoobynet and then merely make a link to this incidental piece of information on here ?? 
(If it was interesting that is)
Surely that wouldn't cause anybody any grief?
(If it was interesting that is)Surely that wouldn't cause anybody any grief?
05 June 2002, 01:41 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1998
Posts: 2,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If accurate, I would have thought the only damage that could have been done would have been to the reputation of the author. At the end of the day, there was very little information, and was very speculative.
Trending Topics
05 June 2002, 01:53 PM
#8
beefola
The problem is... whilst you are annonymous (unless we are required to release your details by law) scoobynet is not, so scoobynet is seen as being the publisher of that information.
If the information being released (if indeed it IS true) causes damage to the company by any means, it could get nasty.
If the information being released (if it is NOT true) causes damage to the company by any means, it could also get nasty.
In addition, I would have thought it was slightly immoral and anti-professional-courtessy (sp?) to release this sort of information in public if you had come about it by means of your job??
Best regards
Simon
The problem is... whilst you are annonymous (unless we are required to release your details by law) scoobynet is not, so scoobynet is seen as being the publisher of that information.
If the information being released (if indeed it IS true) causes damage to the company by any means, it could get nasty.
If the information being released (if it is NOT true) causes damage to the company by any means, it could also get nasty.
In addition, I would have thought it was slightly immoral and anti-professional-courtessy (sp?) to release this sort of information in public if you had come about it by means of your job??
Best regards
Simon
05 June 2002, 01:58 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point Simon.
For all legal purposes the previous thread had no factual standing and was pure speculation, entirely by my own creation, and was in no way related to Scoobynet in any way. As for the NDA with my employer, i'm a contractor, so it doesn't really apply... Heh heh heh...
For all legal purposes the previous thread had no factual standing and was pure speculation, entirely by my own creation, and was in no way related to Scoobynet in any way. As for the NDA with my employer, i'm a contractor, so it doesn't really apply... Heh heh heh...
05 June 2002, 02:01 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm saying no more for risk of shooting myself in the foot.
You aint seen me, roight?
(beefola skulks away into the shadows, leaving nothing more than a feeling of deja-vu in the readers....)
You aint seen me, roight?
(beefola skulks away into the shadows, leaving nothing more than a feeling of deja-vu in the readers....)
05 June 2002, 02:46 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aah i see, just so long as i wasn't mentioned in any way i don't mind. If i was there's a date for you with my freind Mr.Canal bottom....
Only messing, good on you mate.
Vive la resistance!
Only messing, good on you mate.
Vive la resistance!
05 June 2002, 03:28 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ISP I come across this kind of thing quite often. My policy is this:
if someone asks us to remove information hosted by us, we will review it, and if in our (and our legal teams) view the information is legally dubious or worse, we will remove it. However, if we feel the author of such work has a right to publish that information, we will not remove it.
For example, we host a website selling a book written by a guy who was sexually abused by a catholic priest who is also related to someone famous. The book itself is on dodgy legal ground as it is the authors word against the priest, but the website itself is only selling the book, the site itself contains no allegations against the individual named in the book. We were sent threatening legal letters but stood our ground, and surprise surprise, nothing ever happened.
The point of this ramble is:
if an individual breaks his or her confidentiality agreement with his or her employer by publishing information on a publically accesible website, then it is the person breaking the greement that is in trouble, the web site owner, or it's hosts would only be liable if they refused to remove the information following a legitimate request, and even then it would be very difficult bring a lawsuit against the web site owner or it's hosts.
SHORT VERSION: woah, paranoia city!
if someone asks us to remove information hosted by us, we will review it, and if in our (and our legal teams) view the information is legally dubious or worse, we will remove it. However, if we feel the author of such work has a right to publish that information, we will not remove it.
For example, we host a website selling a book written by a guy who was sexually abused by a catholic priest who is also related to someone famous. The book itself is on dodgy legal ground as it is the authors word against the priest, but the website itself is only selling the book, the site itself contains no allegations against the individual named in the book. We were sent threatening legal letters but stood our ground, and surprise surprise, nothing ever happened.
The point of this ramble is:
if an individual breaks his or her confidentiality agreement with his or her employer by publishing information on a publically accesible website, then it is the person breaking the greement that is in trouble, the web site owner, or it's hosts would only be liable if they refused to remove the information following a legitimate request, and even then it would be very difficult bring a lawsuit against the web site owner or it's hosts.
SHORT VERSION: woah, paranoia city!
05 June 2002, 03:33 PM
#21
Hi
All good points.. but..
ScoobyNet was actually publishing the information. We were not selling a book which contained the information.
No matter what ageements the person who posted this was breaking, scoobynet was still publishing something that could cause damage to another company.
Due dilegence is recognising these things and acting on them.
All the best
Simon
All good points.. but..
ScoobyNet was actually publishing the information. We were not selling a book which contained the information.
No matter what ageements the person who posted this was breaking, scoobynet was still publishing something that could cause damage to another company.
Due dilegence is recognising these things and acting on them.
All the best
Simon
05 June 2002, 03:53 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 16,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There appears to me to be a very fine line between the thread that was pulled and several others on here. I don't draw that line so I'm not going to start slating anybody.
Could we also consider the post about the PPP in the same way?
Could we also consider the post about the PPP in the same way?
05 June 2002, 04:44 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Herts.
Posts: 1,727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point about the PPP, gets me thinking -conspiracy theory time given that we know Prodrive read this board...
There is no alternative to the new PPP at the moment so leaking some early details just whips up some hype and gets people eagerly anticipating its arival.
If news of the MY03 got out however, then this could effect current MY02 sales and get them in trouble with Subaru so they've asked for this thread to be deleted??
There is no alternative to the new PPP at the moment so leaking some early details just whips up some hype and gets people eagerly anticipating its arival.
If news of the MY03 got out however, then this could effect current MY02 sales and get them in trouble with Subaru so they've asked for this thread to be deleted??
05 June 2002, 05:10 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 21,865
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<Rant Mode On>
This bugs me all the time, Simon (or one of the moderators) removes a thread which could cause problems for the community, he then puts a post up stating that he has removed the thread, and people comment on it.
Why cant people just accept the decision and leave it as that.
Scoobynet is a great community, and i for one dont want to see anything happen to it.
Ian
</Rant Mode Off>
This bugs me all the time, Simon (or one of the moderators) removes a thread which could cause problems for the community, he then puts a post up stating that he has removed the thread, and people comment on it.
Why cant people just accept the decision and leave it as that.
Scoobynet is a great community, and i for one dont want to see anything happen to it.
Ian
</Rant Mode Off>
