Author: LinuxLearner Date: To: Hampshire LUG Discussion List Subject: Re: [Hampshire] stuart biggs added you as a business connection on
Plaxo
Brad Rogers wrote: > On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:51:33 +0000 LinuxLearner
> <passiveprofits@???> wrote:
>
> Hello LinuxLearner,
>
>> Why is facilitating data-rape not a crime?
>
> What data rape? Your email address is *not* private data.
Arguable ... If I create a new email address right now, only me and the
company that gave it to me know it exists ... To me, that satisfies the
definition of 'private' (but the address can still be used; with the
company that gave it to me). If I then give it out to just those I want
to use it, I don't think that satisfies the definition (or should) that
it now be 'public data', and thus a free for all by all dishonest
companies out there can develop. We may just disagree on this though.
Neither, you > might be horrified to hear, are such things as your name, date of
> birth, marital status, etc.
Which is why it's a better personal policy, simply to never give this
info out. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your view, this is
only resulting in companies increasingly collecting incorrect data, as
more and more p*ssed off people simply start lying to companies about
who they are, what their name is, etc, etc, etc. I don't think the law
should be set up in such a way that citizens only have this as
'recourse'. We can do (much) better, IMHO.
> In fact, your email address, by definition, is public data. If it
> weren't, it would serve no purpose whatsoever.
Ibid. You confuse 'private' with 'not known by anyone' and public with
'known {or knowable} by everyone'. Again, we may be playing semantics.
In practical effect, what I would like is a world where CONSENT is key,
and this simply does not apply, at the moment, when it comes to e.g. FB.
> As I've already told you, and now Stephen, (who has done the leg work
> for you) contact FB.
Cannot be bothered to potentially waste my time like that (I have no
idea if Facebook complies but doubt it due to their current policies in
this regard). I prefer the route of pointing out publicly how they
operate, why it's wrong, and why it should be (if not already), illegal.
I agree wholeheartedly though, that we should have the right to get
companies to delete all but necessary legal/accounting data about us,
but I'm not going to be part of the problem by starting to confirm to
SPAMMERS, who I am, etc. Per previous post, I wouldn't do it to a
company SPAMMING me about p*nis enhancement cream, why should I do it
for FB, unless there be *two* sets of rules developing here, in
practice, which I think there is, and which I think is wrong.
