Spreadsheets and such
I have received a few spreadsheets here and there, but have not posted any of them in their entirety. I did use the totals from the June DTC Spreadsheet and put those up, but I purposefully did not include any of the specific agency information on it.
I have been careful to not post specific, detailed, information. I'm trying to find a balance between disseminating information and respecting detailed information enough to just give a synopsis.
I have had an email asking me to take down the spreadsheet that came from a specific agency. I do not have their spreadsheet posted, so I cannot take it down.
I did mention it, in this post. But I did not name the agency, nor did I give any specific numbers. And honestly, I wasn't going to mention it at all, but there were some comments that listed how many this agency had for May 31st and I just wanted to point out that I didn't think that really meant anything. I have gone in and deleted those comments, even though I did not make them.
Can someone point me to a specific URL that needs to be taken down? If I have mistakenly named the agency, or given out more than I should have, please let me know.
posted by RumorQueen at 4/06/2006 01:43:00 PM
6 Comments:
I think it is safe to say that anyone who was familiar with the agency could tell what you had, and that was probably not what the folks meant to have happen when they sent it to you. I would say it's just a lesson for people not to send you stuff that they can't risk being known. Fair enough.
Okay, but what is it that I'm supposed to take down? I did not post the spreadsheet. I did not give specific numbers from the spreadsheet. I did not name the agency that the spreadsheet belonged to.
All I did was respond to comments that did make a specific note of how many LID's there were on a specific day. And I think I addressed it as generically as one possibly could. I feel that I was responsible with the information.
I am still trying to understand what I'm being asked to remove.
No, no problem, and definately nothing to take down. Just saying, people shouldn't be blaming you for what they really did. :)
Okay, apparently someone else did post the info somewhere online, and that is the problem. It wasn't me at all.
So, all of those people know how many were LID on a certain day because they'd seen the info wherever it was posted (still hazy on that, but it appears to be one of the 2006 DTC groups)
I kinda think that was the agencies fault, they knew this would not "keep". Funny, but good for them. they sent enough info out that they won't have to send another SS with #'s until April 2007. Yeah.
Why is any of this information considered top secret? I know CCAA and all our agencies would be happy if we would sit back and not discuss or concern ourselves with the timeline, but that is not a realistic or fair expectation. We are to care enough to go through this process to bring our children home, but not care enough to ask questions. Hmmm...very frustrating. Just because the CCAA is not obligated to give us information does not mean that common courtesy does not dictate otherwise. Maybe that makes me a clueless American that I want the CCAA to operate to our standard of communication and not China. At a minimum I expect it from our agencies and I am disappointed that any info is considered top secret.
Post a Comment
<< Home