On 21/03/2015 07:23, Jari Arkko wrote: > I agree with the points from Scott, Christian, and you John that it is > possible that confidentiality is not maintained on a case involving > a continuously bad actor. (Assuming we get to such a bad situation > to begin with, which I hope we wont.) In fact I think it's stronger. It's not just possible, it's virtually certain that a persistent bad actor will be outed by gossip. And that puts the privacy of the victim(s) at real risk. > My question to you though is what effect do you believe that observation > should have on our procedures? Are you suggesting that they should > not by default be confidential? No. But maybe the lawyer should craft a phrase to avoid liability if there is a leak. Brian