[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference 7.286::digital

Title:	The Digital way of working

Moderator:	QUARK::LIONELON

Created:	Fri Feb 14 1986
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	5321
Total number of notes:	139771

1055.0. "White envelopes" by HANDVC::SIMONSZETO (Simon Szeto @HGO, Hongkong) Wed Mar 21 1990 05:26

  I'm not sure whether I wrote something like this about a year ago; if I
  did, then I'll come back later to delete this topic, or maybe if the
  moderators found the earlier topic, move this note over there.

  There are some unwritten cultural conventions around DEC.  One that bit
  me recently, and also a year ago, is the use of the white envelope for
  Personnel Confidential stuff.  This is against all written policies about
  proper labelling, mind you, but people do it; I've done it.  Let's say
  you wrote a performance review and you take it to your boss and your boss
  isn't in the office.  Well, you just leave it around the office in a
  white envelope, probably sealed with Scotch tape, and you trust that
  nobody but your boss will open it, right?  Wrong.  You shouldn't have
  done that, not without labelling it Personnel Confidential.

  Maybe nobody gets burned by this sloppy practice in the US, I don't know.
  But let me tell you, if you should ever send stuff outside the US and
  it's confidential, please, please use the blue envelopes marked
  "CONFIDENTIAL (To be opened by addressee only.)"

  I realize that writing this note isn't going to solve this problem once
  and for all, but at least if I can raise the consciousness of a few
  people, somebody else's mistake (in sending something confidential like
  W-2 forms in a white envelope without labelling it CONFIDENTIAL) might
  help others avoid making the same mistake in the future.

  --Simon

  P.S.  Yes, of course I'm going to find out who made this boo-boo.

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
1055.1		MARVIN::COCKBURN	SCOTLAND 13, England 7 !!!	`Thu Mar 22 1990 03:44`	11
	> <<< Note 1055.0 by HANDVC::SIMONSZETO "Simon Szeto @HGO, Hongkong" >>> > -< White envelopes >- > Maybe nobody gets burned by this sloppy practice in the US, I don't know. > But let me tell you, if you should ever send stuff outside the US and > it's confidential, please, please use the blue envelopes marked > "CONFIDENTIAL (To be opened by addressee only.)" Blue? In the UK these envelopes are brown! So much for corporate standards.... Craig
1055.2	Brown is US also	AUNTB::WARNOCK	Todd Warnock @CBO	`Thu Mar 22 1990 06:56`	1
	re: .1 Ditto US (or at least SC) - ours are also brown...
1055.3	not necessarily equal	MPGS::MCCLURE	Why Me???	`Thu Mar 22 1990 08:19`	14
	My understanding is that the color of the envelpe is not really important. What is important is that it is properly labeled. If the envelope contains material that should only be seen by the addressee, it should be labeled "To Be Opened by Addressee Only." The classification of the material in the envelope is a seperate matter. This classification (IUO, Personal,Confidential,Restricted Dis), may or may not be marked on the envelope along with the addressee only marking. To my mind, leaving an envelope marked with the security classification in plain sight is asking for trouble. The 'to be opened by' label will attract less attention by casual observers and, as long as the contents are appropriately labeled, should not be a security violation. Bob Mc
1055.4		COVERT::COVERT	John R. Covert	`Thu Mar 22 1990 13:54`	7
	re .3 The official rules are that there be an inner envelope with the "to be opened by addressee only" and "Personnel Confidential" labels. This envelope is placed in an outer envelope with no special markings. /john
1055.5	Personnel Confidential?	DEC25::BRUNO	Stoic and smug	`Thu Mar 22 1990 14:40`	11
	Hmm, I've never even heard of that classification. Around here, all we have are: DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY DIGITAL CONFIDENTIAL DIGITAL PERSONAL DIGITAL RESTRICTED DISTRIBUTION I didn't know they were different in different locations. Greg
1055.6	Delete before reading	SDSVAX::SWEENEY	Patrick Sweeney in New York	`Thu Mar 22 1990 14:52`	3
	Someone once asked me to give them a copy of something I had received with RESTRICTED DISTRIBUTION markings, I said I could, but then I'd have to kill you.
1055.7	Quill Pens too ?	JUMBLY::DAY	No Good Deed Goes Unpunished	`Thu Mar 22 1990 16:52`	4
	I presume you guys have heard of electronic mail ? -) -) Mike Day
1055.8		HGABSS::SZETO	Simon Szeto @HGO, Hongkong	`Thu Mar 22 1990 22:48`	17
	Yes, the proper classification these days is "Digital Personal" but I used the older terminology (shame on me). Anyway, the point of all this is that this stuff should have been double-wrapped inside the white envelope, and the inside should be marked "Digital Personal" and "To be opened by addressee only." In re the blue envelopes. Yes, over here they are blue (probably even "Digital blue") and they look otherwise like the brown inter- departmental correspondence envelopes except for the labelling: CONFIDENTIAL [in red] (To be opened by addressee only.) And they don't have six see-through holes punched through the envelope. They are exactly the same size as the normal brown ones and so can't fit in them. I don't know if these envelopes violate the letter of the policy or not, since they are obviously confidential-looking. --Simon
1055.9	'European Guide'!!!!!!	JGO::EVANS		`Fri Mar 23 1990 03:53`	19
	re outer envelopes In the "official" security awareness course for digital employees booklet that we all recently received here in Nijmegen there was a guide (for europe) to protecting company info. For the categories :- DIGITAL RESTRICTED DIGITAL CONFIDENTIAL DIGITAL PERSONAL we are told to use two envelopes:- The outer envelope should be "not transparent". Only name and address, no further indication. j.e. by the way - the above is my best translation from dutch to english.
1055.10	Trivial? Maybe...	DEC25::BRUNO	Stoic and smug	`Fri Mar 23 1990 08:39`	12
	RE: <<< Note 1055.8 by HGABSS::SZETO "Simon Szeto @HGO, Hongkong" >>> >Yes, the proper classification these days is "Digital Personal" but I >used the older terminology (shame on me). Anyway... This is not as trivial a matter as it may seem. There is a question as to whether or not a person could be disciplined for violating the confidentiality of an message marked with a label which is not an official Digital information classification. Greg
1055.11	Give me a break today, McDigital	11SRUS::SAVAGE	Neil @ Spit Brook	`Fri Mar 23 1990 12:21`	5
	What's the purpose, or rationale, of double-wrapping? Seems like an excess to me, Aren't we filling our land with waste paper fast enough? Is it security? Since when has anyone had more of a problem getting through two layers of paper than one?
1055.12		TLE::HETRICK	George C. Hetrick	`Fri Mar 23 1990 18:30`	15
	> <<< Note 1055.11 by 11SRUS::SAVAGE "Neil @ Spit Brook" >>> > -< Give me a break today, McDigital >- > > Is it security? Since when has anyone had more of a problem getting > through two layers of paper than one? There is, of course, little extra difficulty in removing a second level of envelope. But the purpose in having the plain outside wrapper is to make the important mail look just like all the other mail, thus providing security via obscurity. The inside wrapper is to prevent a secretary (for example) who opens a managers mail from inadvertently seeing data they should not. An information thief who was willing to open all the mail in the ZK mailroom would find all the confidential info, but a casual thief could not, and that's all this sort of thing is intended to stop.
1055.13	Issue of personal privacy	BSS::C_BOUTCHER		`Fri Mar 30 1990 06:13`	19
	Regardless if the envelop was marked according to "Digital Standards", or marked in any other fashion that would indicate the material to be confidential, the issue would involve the violation of the recipient's privacy - unless the individual were normally assigned to read the "non-confidential" mail (ie. secretary normally assigned to open and distribute mail). This would dictate that some form of diciplinary action be taken against the individual gaining access to information to which they were not privy. This may or may not include termination depending upon the circumstances involved. It could also open up issues of criminal or civil violation of local, state or federal law depending upon your location. I would assume the violators "intent" would play a big role in determining possible actions to be taken, as well as the extent of the damage caused to the recipient of the mail. Some people may not deam this issue to be of a serious nature, but issues around the violation of personal privacy should not be tolorated.