Markovich wrote on 01/12/09 at 14:22:00:
Antillian wrote on 01/12/09 at 14:00:38:
The Hand,
With all due respect, I don't think it is appropriate to "out" someone else's identity for them if they have chosen not to reveal it themselves.
Exactly. Contemptible. "The Hand's" post should be removed, pronto. For some weird reason, if you quote sloughter's posts, you discover this info, and I sent him a message about this problem. But apparently he failed to correct it before someone outed him.
The user must have originally signed-up using that name and then made change after the account was created, I am guessing. If this is the case, it cannot "be corrected" as he chose to register this way. It can, however, be
changed by a webmaster.
But, internet postings, links and records are public domain, folks.
A cautionary tale.
##############
Added post-post, a good time later.More, now after I have spent some time thinking about it: How is this outing a person?
The person in question posted info on the web for the reason of it getting attention and being seen by other people. All website info that is readily avaiable, in the public domain, and was provided by the individual in question,
for the purpose of diseminating said info.
I argue that when a person puts info on a web page, they want it to be seen by as many people as possible. I am not arguing the validity of any of it, only the intent/purpose of having it posted.
Linking from one site to another is standard web practice, not illegal, not unethical.
Using all info that the user provided themselves (in an attempt at self PR) coalating it, and posting it in an index list is doing exactly what that individual desires, as evidenced by their placing said info on web to begin with, and in such a fashion as to allow it, and even promote it (meaning: it was not encrypted, there was no security breach/ no computer "hacking")
Now, it may be against a particular website's ethical mores (in which case they should make it part of their policy and user agreement -- and that is not such a bad idea!), but it is
not morally wrong because it is in fact
exactly what that individual wants:Attention.Think about it.
So long as the info was accurate, true, not malicious and posted on the web by the individual, there really is no issue, legally, ethically, morally, or any other way except for perhaps questioning the wisdom of putting personal info in cyberspace to begin with.
My final argument is that Sloughter's posts are SPAM. And as such, it is those posts that should be removed. They are merely advertising for his book. Thinly vieled, poorly strategized, but nonetheless, they are merely advertisements for the Snake oil product he is selling. As such, he should be outed in more ways than one!
BTW: I like the Samisch.
#30
Epilogue: And now I see this rant is made moot as the info is gone anyway. If only all problems in the world disappeared so easily.