Engadget article - LAN streaming

[rstone]

Re: Engadget article - LAN streaming

My guess is that someone who identifies themselves as a beta tester can become an instant target for others to try to get proprietary information out of. Some of those attempts could be quite tempting and could lead to leaks that would not otherwise occur.

That may be, but them being a "target" does not mean they will disclose information, anymore then them being known for working at a company means you will disclose company secrets. Using your logic, all companies should ban its employees from disclosure as an employees, since they MIGHT be solicited to obtain, or reveal company secrets.

Keep in mind that if you owned a product and had beta team members, you could always go after them if they DID reveal information, as that is a violation of the NDA. However, to take pre-emptive action against someone due to something that MAY occur, seems a bit over the top in my book.

[redwein]

Re: Engadget article - LAN streaming

That may be, but them being a "target" does not mean they will disclose information, anymore then them being known for working at a company means you will disclose company secrets. Using your logic, all companies should ban its employees from disclosure as an employees, since they MIGHT be solicited to obtain, or reveal company secrets.

No that doesn't follow from what I said. In the case of a company and it's workers, their identity is not hidden and it would be impossible to do so. They must rely on their employee's discretion and the penalty for violation would be severe (e.g. termination).

In the case of a beta program, it is trivial to require them to remain anonymous to the outside world and having them be known does absolutely no good. That coupled with the fact that being booted from a beta program would be the most likely action that a company would take, given that lawsuits are extremely expensive, makes an employee's relationship with their company a very different thing than a beta tester's relationship with the company they are testing for. You must also remember that the beta program is an entirely voluntary thing. Having different rules and mechanisms that recognize those differences makes absolutely perfect sense.

[rstone]

Re: Engadget article - LAN streaming

They must rely on their employee's discretion and the penalty for violation would be severe (e.g. termination).

And yet, a Beta tester can't be relied upon to use the SAME discretion? The employee and beta tester face the same result for disclosure of company secrets (i.e. termination).

having them be known does absolutely no good.

And having them do so, does no harm either.

an employee's relationship with their company a very different thing than a beta tester's relationship with the company they are testing for. You must also remember that the beta program is an entirely voluntary thing.

I agree it is different, but you still have't explained how their disclosure HARMS the company, other than to come up with some hypothetical that "potentially" they could be "targeted" for information, and how that being "targeted" is ANY different from an employee being "targeted" for information.

[redwein]

Re: Engadget article - LAN streaming

And yet, a Beta tester can't be relied upon to use the SAME discretion? The employee and beta tester face the same result for disclosure of company secrets (i.e. termination).

Termination from a beta program is not the same thing as termination from your job. One isn't even a slap on the wrist. The other can cause economic peril for you and your family. Which is a bigger incentive to follow the rules? It's pretty easy to figure out which is which.

And having them do so, does no harm either.

Isn't this where we started?

I agree it is different, but you still have't explained how their disclosure HARMS the company, other than to come up with some hypothetical that "potentially" they could be "targeted" for information, and how that being "targeted" is ANY different from an employee being "targeted" for information.

Hm. Last time I checked, avoiding hypothetical harm makes perfect sense, in both business and life, especially when the cost of doing so is zero. And yes I did say what the difference between an employee vs. a beta tester is with regard to their likelihood of divulging propietary information based upon the vastly different levels of negative incentives inherent in their respective relationships.

[rstone]

Re: Engadget article - LAN streaming

One is a slap on the wrist, the other can cause economic peril for you and your family. Which is a bigger incentive to follow the rules?

Your talking semantics, either one can result in lawsuits. I assure you if you revel company secret's, they are just as likely to come after you financially.

Isn't this where we started?

Yes, but you still haven't explained how ANY company is financially harmed by the disclosure, and I don't mean a "potential" harm. Where is the REAL harm? If someone disclosed today they were a member of the hypothetical company beta team, how did that company suffer an "actual" harm? Did their stock go down? Did their competition gain financially from this disclosure? So where is this harm again?

Hm. Last time I checked, avoiding hypothetical harm makes perfect sense, in both business and life, especially when the cost of doing so is zero.

Well again, using your logic, you hypothetically might revel company secrets from the company you work for, therefore I think they should fire you to avoid any hypothetical harm you MAY cause in the future!.

[redwein]

Re: Engadget article - LAN streaming

Your talking semantics, either one can result in lawsuits. I assure you if you revel company secret's, they are just as likely to come after you financially.ypothetical harm you MAY cause in the future!.

It's not semantics. It's common sense. My company could fire me at very little cost to them when compared to the cost of a lawsuit. Lawsuits are typically expensive and used as a last resort.

Yes, but you still haven't explained how ANY company is financially harmed by the disclosure, and I don't mean a "potential" harm. Where is the REAL harm? If someone disclosed today they were a member of the hypothetical company beta team, how did that company suffer an "actual" harm? Did their stock go down? Did their competition gain financially from this disclosure? So where is this harm again?

Yes I did. Potential harm is exactly that, the potential to suffer harm. People insure against potential harm for all kinds of things. People don't buy fire insurance because their house is on fire. They buy it because it "might" catch fire. In the case of the beta tester, the potential exists and insurance to lessen the likelihood of it is free. You may disagree that they should do that, but you can't say I didn't expain that.

Well again, using your logic, you hypothetically might revel company secrets from the company you work for, therefore I think they should fire you to avoid any hypothetical harm you MAY cause in the future!.

That is certainly not using my logic. I explained the difference in the relationship. My company knows it holds a big stick over me and it values my services as I am a highly skilled individual in my field. The incentives for them to employee me and for me to not divulge proprietary information are optimized for reality. In the beta tester case, they would be much more replaceable and not allowing them to divulge their beta status would reduce the likelihood of information getting leaked out.

Look, I understand that you disagree with me, but please don't say I haven't explained myself. That is simply factually inaccurate. I suggest that you refrain from entering any beta programs that restrict you and if I ever run a beta program I'll control it however I see fit. if we do those things, I doubt any harm will come to either of us over it.

[rstone]

Re: Engadget article - LAN streaming

My company could fire me at very little cost to them when compared to the cost of a lawsuit. Lawsuits are typically expensive and used as a last resort.

Actually the cost to your company for firing you is not little at all, and depending on the employee the real cost I'm sure could reach millions of dollars. They spend a ton of cash training you and invest a great deal of money in their employees. The cost to terminate a beta tester is ZERO. As for the lawsuit cost for either, they are the same.

Yes I did. Potential harm is exactly that, the potential to suffer harm. People insure against potential harm for all kinds of things.

You can't compare someone buying insurance, to a company suffering ACTUAL harm from disclosure. They are NOT even close to being the same thing. Sure, both MAY result in a "potential" harm, but in the world of real business, the measure of the success of one's company is not valued in "potential's" but in "actual" real world dollars. An I submit that disclosure on its face, results on ZERO actual real world harm to a company. Potential harm is NOT actual harm and to even say they are the same thing is factually incorrect. I assure you no court of law will give you a dime for something that is hypothetical, in fact the Supreme Court calls that a moot point, as no court is allowed to hear hypothetical harms, and why is that? because it is absurbed for ANY person to be awarded a dime for something that has not happened and MAY never happen, and hasn't result in an "ACTUAL" harm.

The incentives for them to employee me and for me to not divulge proprietary information are optimized for reality. In the beta tester case, they would be much more replaceable and not allowing them to divulge their beta status would reduce the likelihood of information getting leaked out.

I agree a beta tester is more replacable, and asking ANY person who has factual knowledge, be it an employee or a beta tester of company secret, from revealing what they know is always good business practice. In fact, the mere fact an employee has access to ALOT more information and company secrets makes them a bigger liability and therefore more prone to being "targeted" then a beta tester with limited knowledge. And therefore, using your logic, we should ban employees from disclosure, since they are the bigger "potential" risk for being targeted for information.

Look, I understand that you disagree with me, but please don't say I haven't explained myself.

But you haven't, at least in a way that explains what "actual" harm any company will suffer from disclosure of the fact they are a beta member. So far you have only explained what "potential" harm could result, not what "actual" harm would result.

[redwein]

Re: Engadget article - LAN streaming

But you haven't, at least in a way that explains what "actual" harm any company will suffer from disclosure of the fact they are a beta member. So far you have only explained what "potential" harm could result, not what "actual" harm would result.

Yes I have. Potential harm means that someone who is more likely to divulge proprietary information is therefore more likely to divulge something that would financially damage a company. Given that the cost of reducing that potential is zero, it makes perfect sense for companies that are so inclined to write that into their agreement. Personally, I would. Like I said, you can disagree with that but I certainly explained it sufficiently.

I'll let the other stuff just rest because it is going nowhere.

[rstone]

Re: Engadget article - LAN streaming

Yes I have. Potential harm means that someone who is more likely to divulge proprietary information is therefore more likely to divulge something that would financially damage a company. Given that the cost of reducing that potential is zero, it makes perfect sense for companies that are so inclined to write that into their agreement. Personally, I would. Like I said, you can disagree with that but I certainly explained it sufficiently.

I'll let the other stuff just rest because it is going nowhere.

Yes you explained "potential" harm in great detail, but potential harm does not equal actual harm. For actual harm something real world (ie: disclosure resulting in financial loss to company) would have to have resulted. Just because there is a "Potential harm" does not mean that you or me or anyone is MORE likely to divulge information. That is like saying that because you have the potential to cause more harm to your company, due to your standing within your company, that you are more likely to divulge company secret. Now we both know that isn't true, so how you can say such a thing is confusing, to say the least.

Now I do agree that it is good business practice to try to reduce potential harms, via contracts, agreements, NDAs, etc...and while I agree the point of the agreements is to ensure for the potential non-disclosures, and to provide a means for a remedy when an "ACTUAL" harm occurs from that disclosure. What I don't agree with is that just because a company seeks to protect itself from "potential" harm, which is valid, that it means a company receives any real world harm from a potential harm, as the potential harm for something to happen has not materialized into an actual harm. If that was the case, companies could just sue everyone who signed an agreement, because they might potentially disclose information. The reality is that why there might be a potential harm from revealing beta information, the disclosure of one's participation in one, does no real world harm, and even if you buy into the argument they could potentially do harm, and therefore should be kept silent, then you also would have to buy the argument that this also applies to all employees who have access to sensitive company information, and therefore their disclosure as an employee equals the same potential harm as a beta tester, in real world dollars.

Hey we can agree to disagree, but regardless, you still haven't explained what actual harm disclosure, in this case, results in, but oh well.

[redwein]

Re: Engadget article - LAN streaming

Just because there is a "Potential harm" does not mean that you or me or anyone is MORE likely to divulge information.

Yes, if there is the potential for harm occurring, then that means that there is a non-zero probability of that harm occurring. If the probability was zero, then there would be no potential for harm. A non-zero probability of harm occurring means that actual harm might occur.

So we disagree on whether someone divulging their beta tester status actually increases that potential or not. You feel there is no additional potential for harm and I believe there is and I explained why in my first post on this point. Let's leave it at that.

[rstone]

Re: Engadget article - LAN streaming

Yes, if there is the potential for harm occurring, then that means that there is a non-zero probability of that harm occurring. If the probability was zero, then there would be no potential for harm. A non-zero probability of harm occurring means that actual harm might occur.

Just because there is a .000001 percent chance of a potential harm, does not mean that the result will be an actual harm. Just that there is a potential harm, which has not and may never materialize into an ACTUAL harm. Maybe we need some definitions here, as there is obviously a misunderstanding over what potential and actual means.

Potential:
1. possible, as opposed to actual
2. Capable of being but not yet in existence

Actual:
1. existing now; present; current
2. existing in act or fact

I explained why in my first post on this point.

The only thing you explained in your first post was that disclosure could result in them becoming a target, being susceptible to influence, and allowing a company to prevent leaks and terminating those who disclose they are a member.

Now what part of that explains what "actual harm" resulted from their disclosure again?

I see potential for harm, IF they became targets and divulged information in violation of the NDA, IF they violated the NDA and were susceptible to influence, and IF they violated the NDA and leaked information, of their own free will. However, NONE of that is actual harm, until it actually happens. Also, all three of those potential scenerios require a violation of the NDA, and therefore are subject to lawsuits, etc anyways. The mere fact of one's disclosure as a participant on the other hand, does not violate the NDA, unless the NDA specifically states that disclosure as a member is a violation, nor does their disclsoure result in any company secrets being revealed, and therefore result in no actual harm. And being that disclosure does not equate to actual harm, you still haven't explained what ACTUAL harm results from disclosure.

If person A says "Hey, I'm a beta member" and never is targeted, never is influenced to divulge information, and never leaks information then ZERO actual harm results. That is a fact, and all the potential scenarios in the world won't change that.

[redwein]

Re: Engadget article - LAN streaming

Obviously I think the potential is greater than you and acknowleded we disagree on that. Exactly why are you going on and on and on?

[rstone]

Re: Engadget article - LAN streaming

Exactly why are you going on and on and on?

Why are you?

Personally, I think your logic makes little sense in the real world, since no court of law would ever agree with your logic, so we can disagree on if potential harm results in actual harm. As for the rest...this started because someone said that disclosure was not allowed, and you defended the position potential harm = actual harm in the real world harm from that disclosure, so I was explaining why that is not the case. And as I recall, I was replying to said person, not you, so I'm not sure it is fair to point fingers at me and say I'm going on and on, when my response was never initially directed at you, and you challenged my view, with your initial response. However, you are free to drop it.

[JohnA]

Re: Engadget article - LAN streaming

Hey guys. Let's keep this on topic. You guys can take your personal discussions to PM if you want.

[aaronwt]

Re: Engadget article - LAN streaming

What was the topic?

I guess I need to check out Pandora sometime. It's been a while since I've taken a look at the VUDU Labs content.