What does that even mean? Graham sent an email blast to hundreds of people with negotiation advice in it. The problem isn't that the mail got out --- of course the mail got out. He sent it to a giant mailing list.
The problem is that publications like Venturebeat and Techdirt went to town on the email spinning it into something it wasn't. And the problem is people who promote that cynically packaged excreta on sites like HN.
Uh, it's marked FOUO, not Top Secret, and it's going to be made public when it gets issued anyway, troll.
.....
FOUO=for official use only, ie = confidential
pg internal email = confidential [1]
almost all leaks = confidential
a PR before embargo = confidential
......
What does that even mean?
This is the world we live in...Leaks are a form of "black hat" PR [2]
......
Calling someone a [troll] for suggesting this may be a [trial baloon] seems un-intelligent at best.
Whether or not its good policy or bad or good pr strategy or bad is a fair topic of discussion.
.......
[1] This was a simplification of "internal", if it technically includes portfolio companies that are legally distinct entities from YC. But being pedandtic here is off point. This was being illustrative that "all kinds of data could be leaked", and in particular all manner of private, non-governmental information, that for whatever reason, people feel should not be sent to the press and have a reasonable expectation of privacy around.
[2] I.e. The leak can be by a friend or foe, for information or dis-information, etc.
It's easy to keep an argument going if you just ignore what the other party says and repeat your talking points over and over again. But my last comment was pretty simple: Graham's "internal" mail, which went to hundreds of people on a mailing list, wasn't "confidential".
For that matter, "FUOU" is explicitly not classified.
If you can't make a reasonable analysis of something as simple as Paul Graham's mail to YC companies, what makes you think you're a credible critic of public policy, which is much more complicated?
And Pg and other VC's don't sign NDAs but confidentiality is understood in certain areas...almost all communication relating to corporate finace and investment, BOD internal deliberations, communications for example...
For that matter, "FUOU" is explicitly not classified.
Again, this is off-point...its not "official" use to send internal <government> documents to the press for "public" consumption. This is really "rookie" 101 type stuff, things that in a BigCo job are subject to all kinds of intenal compliance procedures...ect...not even debatable
In addition, there are disclosure rules around market moving informations, and all kinds of stuff...
Routinely dis-respected, but thats another story.[1]
__________
[1] These rules typically apply to Public companies, and revolve around providing fair access to information for retail investors and the like. Reg FD is an example.
Also easy to keep an argument going by saying "my point is understood to be correct" instead of backing it up. You seem to be having a hard time with the point that Graham sent his negotiating advice to a giant freaking mailing list with many tens of companies on it.
If he wanted it confidential, he wouldn't have done that. Graham is many annoying things but an idiot is not one of them.
None of this, none of it at all, has anything to do with what happened to ...
Nice try again, but this is directly addressing something else altogether. It seems to show, that you most likely have never personally handled information at this level.
You're just wrong to think unless something is "TOP SECRET" and a government document, its not a "leak" in contemporary usage.[1] YC's email that ended up public was not meant to be public, however you want to debate the wording. It was provided here only as an illustration people are familiar with. There is no opinion expressed here about the situation, nor implied (its been discussed by PG on numerous threads).
There are well-trodden notions of confidentiality, privlege, and confidence outside of govenment. Things that are familiar to people operating at the level of founders, vcs, board members, etc. If you are't familiar with this, that would explain some of your comments. You were the one who needed a citation. Here is a typical excerpt:
Most other folks are too nice to actually mention it, but since I'm not a VC or big deal business tycoon, I'll just say the most important point outright: Asking for someone to sign an NDA also often makes you look amateurish. -- Anil Dash
But, that would genuinely surprise me, to the extent I almost don't believe you would not be aware of this. I'll be charitable and assume you mis-read or mis-interpreted what I wrote. It seems most likely you mis-inferred something about what may or may not follow as a result.
For this reason, you'll note there are [now] more footnotes and citations, for the benefit of others. [This was one]. Some of these were added after you made initial comments -- I'm happy to take advice to make things clearer -- and I happy to aknowldege these changes.
Hundreds. Stop trying to argue that Paul Graham was trying to keep a secret on a mailing list that might hit 1000 people.
The reason for all the drama about Graham's mail wasn't that it was a leaked secret. It's that dishonest tech publications cynically spun it as one. Just like they're doing on this story.
tptacek - you're acting desperate with that smear.
......
You seem to be having a hard time with the point that Graham sent his negotiating advice to a giant freaking mailing list with many tens of companies on it.
No. I understand this. These are people with whom he has a investment interest, are portfolio companies, and YC alumn executives and the like. Ie, the types of people he would be giving advice to about raising money.
So, I'm not implying anything about PG.
I wrote "NOT MARKED TOP SECRET" as a modifier for his e-mail. As a point of fact, he's not a government agency.
And the point is certainly not the issue that PG <sent> the email.
The only relevance here was that it was "leaked" to the <press>, by a party [intentionally or otherwise] he implicitly trusted enough in the first place send it too.
It clearly was not a <press release>.
PG made many comments here on HN. It did not seem that he wanted or envisioned his note to be in the press.
The point is that non-government, non-top-secret information can be "leaked." Which is true, and not really a debating point.
The problem is that publications like Venturebeat and Techdirt went to town on the email spinning it into something it wasn't. And the problem is people who promote that cynically packaged excreta on sites like HN.