BeGlobal and confidentiality
Thread poster: Tone Halling

Tone Halling  Identity Verified
Norway
Local time: 02:05
Member (2004)
English to Norwegian
+ ...
Jan 26, 2014

Should I ask my client's permission before using BeGlobal? I know SDL claims that BeGlobal is completely secure, and that neither source nor target text is retained in any way, but on the other hand I found the following on their product site: "Using SDL BeGlobal may violate your non-disclosure agreement with your translation customer. Check with your customer prior to connecting to this translation provider. The use of this provider is recorded in the SDL XLIFF bilingual file during translation." So wouldn't this indicate that BeGlobal is perhaps not so secure after all?

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Kind regards,
Tone


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Yan Yuliang  Identity Verified
China
Local time: 08:05
Member (2008)
English to Chinese
+ ...
Truth Jan 26, 2014

The truth is, SDL has a strict system protecting customer data. Even maintenance engineers may need special permission before accessing "cloud data" submitted by its customers.

From a reliable source.

[Edited at 2014-01-26 16:12 GMT]


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Rolf Keller
Germany
Local time: 02:05
English to German
"No" means "no" Jan 27, 2014

Tone Halling wrote:

So wouldn't this indicate that BeGlobal is perhaps not so secure after all?


That question is rather irrelevant.

It's very simple: Non-disclosing means non-disclosing. It does not mean "disclosing is allowed, if you disclose the information to a person or entity who is (or claims to be) trustworthy".


Direct link Reply with quote
 

B D Finch  Identity Verified
France
Local time: 02:05
Member (2006)
French to English
+ ...
Really? Jan 27, 2014

Yan Yuliang wrote:

The truth is, SDL has a strict system protecting customer data. Even maintenance engineers may need special permission before accessing "cloud data" submitted by its customers.

From a reliable source.

[Edited at 2014-01-26 16:12 GMT]


An unnamed source should never be claimed as "reliable". If "maintenance engineers may need special permission ... ", that means they may and they may not: do they or don't they? and how do you know?

Of course, we now know that all our translations sent via email are available to the NSA!

[Edited at 2014-01-27 10:37 GMT]


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Tone Halling  Identity Verified
Norway
Local time: 02:05
Member (2004)
English to Norwegian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
How do fellow translators handle BeGlobal? Jan 27, 2014

Yes, I'm aware that "non-disclosure" means "non-disclosure". I just wonder how other translators go about this, since it seems that lots of translators use BeGlobal, and one would assume it is usable since it is a part of the Studio package. In forum discussions regarding machine translation, it appears that translators also in fact use Google translate, which is definitely not secure...

Thanks for all comments so far


Direct link Reply with quote
 
Daryo
United Kingdom
Local time: 01:05
Serbian to English
+ ...
not retained in any way? Jan 28, 2014

"I know SDL claims that BeGlobal is completely secure, and that neither source nor target text is retained in any way"

they may or may not be "economical with the truth / creative with facts", but the fact is that any data arriving on their servers CAN be retained, as it can also be intercepted at any nod between your PC and their servers.

Consider anything sent over the internet as being as private as a notice stuck on the porch of the local church, and you will get it about right.

Strictly speaking the moment they send you any file over the Net they have already started eroding their own NDA in the first place...


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 02:05
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Non-disclosing does not mean non-disclosing Jan 28, 2014

Rolf Keller wrote:
Tone Halling wrote:
I know SDL claims that BeGlobal is completely secure, and that neither source nor target text is retained in any way, but on the other hand I found the following on their product site: "Using SDL BeGlobal may violate your non-disclosure agreement with your translation customer. Check with your customer prior to connecting to this translation provider. The use of this provider is recorded in the SDL XLIFF bilingual file during translation."

So wouldn't this indicate that BeGlobal is perhaps not so secure after all?


That question is rather irrelevant.

It's very simple: Non-disclosing means non-disclosing. It does not mean "disclosing is allowed, if you disclose the information to a person or entity who is (or claims to be) trustworthy".


What "non-disclosing" means depends on the specific wording of the specific NDA that you signed with your client. A number of NDAs that I had to sign actually state that I 'm allowed to disclose to others as long as I ensure that they abide by the NDA. Other NDAs state that I'm not allowed to disclose to anyone, except if authorised by the client.

What BeGlobal's statement above propably means is this: The fact that a system is non-disclosing in itself does not mean that if you share data with it that you're not disclosing. To put it differently: If your NDA says "never disclose to anyone" then you are not allowed to disclose to BeGlobal, no matter how secure BeGlobal is. However, if your NDA says "never disclose, except to parties who will also abide by the NDA", then BeGlobal is safe to use (if you believe SDL's claims).

BeGlobal's statement is also a kindness to translators who believe that if they use the system without telling the client, that the client will never find out. The fact is that the client will find out, unless the translator edits the XLIFF file afterwards to remove identifying traces left by BeGlobal.


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 02:05
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
@Daryo Jan 28, 2014

Daryo wrote:
The fact is that any data arriving on their servers ... can also be intercepted at any nod between your PC and their servers.


A valid argument, yes, to which the reply is equally valid: if the client had used a certain method of file transfer that is technically speaking not 100% secure, then that means that you are allowed to use the same method of file transfer to transfer files back to the client. This means that if the client sends you files via non-secure e-mail, then you can send files back to the client via non-secure e-mail, and that does not say anything about sending the files anywhere else.


Direct link Reply with quote
 


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

BeGlobal and confidentiality

Advanced search







WordFinder
The words you want Anywhere, Anytime

WordFinder is the market's fastest and easiest way of finding the right word, term, translation or synonym in one or more dictionaries. In our assortment you can choose among more than 120 dictionaries in 15 languages from leading publishers.

More info »
Protemos translation business management system
Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!

The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.

More info »



Forums
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search