Template:Return of information: Difference between revisions

Template:Return of information (view source)

Revision as of 09:23, 13 May 2019

666 bytes removed , 13 May 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,900

edits

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 So the real ask ought to be “to {{confiprov|put beyond practical use}}” and have an exception for regulatory retention.
 ==={{confiprov|Derived information}}===
-There’s also a conceptual issue with [[Derived information - Confi Provision|information the receiving party has derived]] from the {{confiprov|confidential information}}: the fecund fruits of its own creative energies and analytical power.
+There’s also a conceptual issue with [[Derived information - Confi Provision|information the receiving party has derived]] from the {{confiprov|confidential information}}: .
-This is in no sense proprietary to the {{confiprov|disclosing party}}, and may indeed by as commercially sensitive to the {{confiprov|receiving party}} as the material the disclosing party gave, and on which it was based, it in the first place. Think Paul’s middle eight about having a shave and catching the bus in ''A Day in the Life''. We are in danger of getting into the [[jurisprudence|jurisprudential]] wisdom of treating intellectual endeavour as if it were tangible property - but let’s not go there just not<ref>Those who can’t resist the siren call, start with Larwence Lessig’s fabulous Code 2.0.</ref>
+{{derived information}}
 In any case {{confiprov|derived information}} should not have to be offered up to the {{confiprov|discloser}}. Query whether it should have to even be destroyed or {{confiprov|put beyond practical use}}. I mean. can you imagine a world without a McCartney middle eight, just because Lennon had the hump?