On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 07:19, Travis Roy wrote: > > Then I suggest you look at the archives of some mailing list software > > mailing lists... The idea is often brought up there, for the very > > same reasons I brought them up here (originally). Personally, I find > > the notion that I should be required to provide personally identifying > > information to the whole world in order to participate in a public > > forum to be offensive, and contrary to the priciples by which the > > United States of America was founded. It does not need to be, and > > should not be so. That so few people value their 4th amendment right > > to privacy is a travesty. > > If that is true, perhaps you shouldn't have your webpage address in > your sig: > > [dslv-1-175:~] travis% whois pizzashack.org >
I have stayed out of this until now, as I don't really care all that much about the public or private status of the GNHLUG list. I actually thought that it was a closed list to keep RMS from posting rants about how it should be called GNHG/LUG ;-) However, I think that the posting of the whois information was not only unnecessary, but completely inappropriate to the discussion. It does, however, bring up a good point that is currently being debated: How public should the whois database be? Does anyone really need to know where Derek lives? Should it be common knowledge that Travis is in apartment 4T? And, more importantly, why was all of this information made to be public to begin with? Even the most simple minded can look up whois data and abuse it. And anyone with malicious intent can take it further and use that information for harassment, or more nefarious things. So, mailing lists aside, just how much privacy are we *FORCED* to give up to participate in this whackey little thing that we called the internet? And who decides what amount of lost privacy is ok? C-Ya, Kenny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part