TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
I can respect the Anonymous Poster's perspective on the security of client
information and processes. It is a valid concern since the originator's HR
department made it an issue, and since most of the respondents have seen fit
to address the issue in their replies.
This issue here is not client security, however. If it were, all parties
would have begun immediately to work on solutions that would satisfy all the
needs of all the parties involved. The issue is how people in the workforce
are treated. Our particular take is on how technical communicators are
treated in the work place, since that is what we in this list are.
There comes a point where the company's concern for saving money must be
balanced against the need for a productive working environment--or at least
one conducive to productivity. I argue constantly (in a nice way, I hope)
that the cubicle environment is itself not a productive environment. To put
2, 3, and even 4 people in a cube that barely meets the space needs of one
is both intolerable as a working condition and stupid as a management
decision. And I will continue to find ways (nice ones, I hope) to point
that out to management when they ask.
Security issues are important, and I think every communicator in this list
would work very hard to address those legitimate concerns. All we are
saying is that management ought to address our legitimate concerns, too.
There are win-win solutions to such problems, as have been pointed out in
many posts on this thread.
Tom Murrell
> ----------
> From: Anonymous Poster[SMTP:anonfwd -at- RAYCOMM -dot- COM]
> Reply To: Anonymous Poster
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 7:40 AM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: FWD: security issues/telecommuting
>
> Forwarded anonymously on request:
>
>
> I find it shocking that everyone's response seems to completely discount
> the security issue, as if it were only a matter of encryption.
>
> The fact of the matter is that Bombardier pays millions to suppliers for
> the use of confidential and proprietary design information, for which
> the end client pays billions. As a corporation, they *should* concerned
> about such information not leaving the building except under controlled
> circumstances.
>
> Many agreements include provisions that confidential information be
> strictly controlled. Bombardier's clients and suppliers would be
> justifiably alarmed if they discovered that their information were going
> home with technical writers. Alarmed enough to sue for breach of
> contract? Who knows, but is that a chance you would want to take on a
> billion-dollar contract just to keep your tech writers happy?
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Forwarded anonymously on request. If you want the
> original poster to see your response, you must reply
> to the TECHWR-L list. All direct replies to this
> message are automatically discarded. Contact Eric
> ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com with questions.
>
>
> Tom Murrell
> Senior Technical Writer, Alliance Data Systems, Inc.
> CAD4A - (614)729-4364
> Fax: (614)729-4499
>mailto:tmurrell -at- alldata -dot- net
>
>
