>>At least one Coast Guard employee has been required to sign a non-disclosure agreement with the company regarding the San Francisco project
An inspector with an unidentified California agency said he, too, had to sign such a document.<<
EDIT: On a second thought, it must be common practice for various inspectors to sign NDA's since they see private corporate stuff. Thus the signage of the document has no role in whether inspector would be allowed on board or not.
It's incredible how much power corporations have in the US.
But, maybe they would need a warrant, and by getting permission they avoid that? Don't know.
https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-co...
The barge is not in a lake, it's in a bay and border rules take precedence.
When you're a huge corp like Google that operates around the globe, you can't help but to rub elbows with the government - collaborate and make concessions, if necessary (e.g. PRISM).
The sad part is that the lack of privacy is advantageous to both government and corporations. One get better ad targeting, another tracking and control. So they're one team on this. The dispute is who and how will get to use the data.
I don't think I'd have the power to tell the US Coast Guard to fuck off if they approached me as I sped across the harbour in my little speedboat.
WTF? AFAIK it is common practice that you're not allowed to talk about stuff you see in line of duty, as cop, or any other kind of government empowered inspector?
To me this sounds completely redundant -- either the coast guard employee in question is already under much more powerful obligation to keep quiet than some corporate civil law NDA -- or this is completely outside the law, and just a show of force by private corporate interest...
If their duty is to board a boat and insure there is no contraband or whatever, I cannot imagine they're also given a blanket right to learn trade secrets and then be at their own discretion to disclose those.
It's absolutely plausible to require an NDA before exposing such information.
No, exactly. If you're entering any private property and learn information that you wouldn't have been aware of, as a result of preforming your duty, you are not allowed to disclose it. That's my point. Any NDA should be entirely irrelevant.
If you you're cop and bust someone for possession of drugs, you're not allowed to, as a private citizen, go to that persons employer and recommend they fire the guy, either.
The only possible value I could see of an "NDA" is not as an NDA at all, but as a brief education on what things might be considered private -- that might not be obvious to someone not already familiar with data centres. In other words, an explanation and expansion on what might constitute privileged information, and so fall under the provisions for secrecy and privacy that the government employee is already subject to.
Otherwise, there is fiduciary imperative on the part of the business to insist on non-disclosures, and I see nothing where it should be illegal to insist up until a court orders the disclosure of that information (and even then, can be argued that the court must seal the discoveries).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1905
I'd be surprised if there isn't something equivalent for most state legislations as well (for state employees).
> Ensign Connan Ingham said that no non-disclosure agreements had been signed but that some local agency officials "have been asked by the owner not to talk about it."
Which is it? :/