= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on A Marriage Ceremony for Aspiring Rationalists - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (77)
That's the decision of the person providing the Non Disclosure Agreement, not the decision of the people engaging in bonding rituals.
I'm pretty sure it's some combination of the decisions of both parties making the agreement, and the relevant laws.
I've definitely seen NDAs negotiated to cover a spouse, but this needs to be negotiated in advance, and will require the spouse to sign as well. More importantly, my experience is that it is absolutely NOT reasonable to expect this when signing an NDA. Quite a few organizations will shoot it down, either because they view the request as unreasonable, or simply because of the sheer bureaucratic wrangling it would take to make an exception.
To clarify, my comment was not about what is a reasonable assumption given the current legal state of affairs. It was a suggestion for how married couples could legally be viewed.
In practice, I would guess that most people who sign NDAs and are married just disregard them when it comes to one's spouse, so people providing NDAs really should be aware of that if they're concerned.
Upvoted because I can't see any reason THIS comment should be negative, even if I STRONGLY disagree with the "just assume they apply" comment beforehand.