Hi Paul
1. I am doing what press is HERE to do. *INFORM*
So, it's acceptable to publish a leaked circuit design? Software design? Source code? All those things are marked Company Confidental too... Where does it stop...
2. I am sure you can figure out that this was sent to me by an affected party who wanted it leaked.
That's irrelevant.
3. This concerns the ability of a publicly traded company to give its customers adequate service on the Internet.
PSI is not the Internet. PSI is becoming more and more irrelevant as their customers go elsewhere.
4. Exodus certainly had to tell its content providers that they were gong to face problems in getting to somewhere between 5 and 10% of the Internet.
Is reduced capacity a 'problem' per se? Unless you've got their traffic stats, I don't see how you can make this claim.
5. But Exodus was also embarrassed by the deterioration in its service that it was allowing to be inflicted on its customers. So Exodus, in an attempt to limit the damage, marked the email "customer confidential communication."
Maybe they just don't want to make a public announcement every time a peering arrangement changes, and maybe they don't want to deal with people overreacting over such a change.
6. I am NOT an Exodus customer! And since I am press I have a personally reasonable obligation, should I choose to exercise it, to inform people that some important peering links have been broken.
The fact that you're not an Exodus customer means you shouldn't have received that in the first place; regardless of the 'wishes' of the person that leaked it to you, the intended distribution is quite clear on that message.
7. Exodus has a problem. In marking that customer confidential it appears to me that it was trying to cover up its own problem and I imagine in doing so it was making some already upset customers further upset.
I don't see how an Exodus problem or lack thereof justifies poor ethical behaviour.
8. The sender of the message quite explicitly said I hope the press covers this. Therefore there was not a shred of doubt as to his intent.
So?
In my opinion, if someone chooses to leak it to me, except for my relationship to the leaker, I have no obligation to exodus or anyone else. My default mode of operation has always been to keep the identity of the leaker CONFIDENTIAL. It is a subject of interest to me and I think to list readers. -snip-
If you were truly trying to cover this, in a journalistic sense, why not talk to PSI, and ask them about it? Of late, they've been promoting a supposedly open peering policy...what would make a company that claims to peer with anyone that will drag a line to them sever that connection, or did they? I can think of all sorts of obvious questions to be asking people in both places, and you don't appear to have asked any of them. I think that many of us would have no problem with you reporting the information, had you done so without leaking that notice. Reporting consists of a lot more than leaking confidential information. --msa