I really, don't want to make it any easier for someone to spam me based on correlations between account names. On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 4:39 AM, Martin Kühne via arch-general < arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 >
