On 06-03-2017 12:13, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 11:53:34 +0000, Mauro Santos via arch-general wrote: >> I think the point here is not so much privacy, as I believe everyone >> recognizes that the information that was asked for (the full list of >> usernames) is public > > It's not per se forbidden to take a photo of a public location, it's > even allowed to take the photo and to publish the photo, if a girl > randomly is on that photo, too. It is forbidden to provide a collection > of such photos to somebody else, who needs such photos for a porn > website. Now "research" isn't "porn", but subtleties could make it hard > to decide how to handle something like this. That something is public, > doesn't mean that privacy could be ignored. > . > I'm not saying privacy doesn't matter, it does. The usernames are there for everyone to see, there is no expectation of privacy on that, or the comments on packages. What I feel is the crux of the problem here is handing the list (or database) of users wholesale. I believe you have framed the main question better than I have in one of your replies :) -- Mauro Santos
