On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Guus Snijders via arch-general <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Op 6 mrt. 2017 10:52 schreef "Henrik Danielsson via arch-general" < > arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > I guess I'll be the devil's advocate. I see no privacy issues in handing > > over a list of already public information You could deny it for practical > > reasons though, if you simply could not be bothered to scrape/export such a > > list yourself. Denying or allowing won't stop anyone from obtaining the > > list. > Gaetan's criticism applies to you here, now. please designate paragraphs of text which you reply to. > I know it's not directly an privacy issue, but I find it scary > nonetheless... (especially since they expressed the wish to consolidate the > data with other websites such as github). This is exactly for the argument I was struggling to come up with. As far as I followed the discussion, this was the first time (I realized?) someone clearly disconnected the argument from the privacy discussion. Put this way, it makes sense to me, too. For the practical implications we'd hand over along, with a note of "do whatever you want with it we don't care". Turns out we do care what someone else does with the data. cheers! mar77i
