Thanks for playing, PP, but you lose the argument. If what you post on the Internet is determined to be an invasion of privacy, you have committed an unlawful act of defamation. Post at your peril. Your IP address can be subpoenaed and once someone gets that, as well as the provider information, they can also subpoena your address and identity. Tell a jury you had a right to post it, but bring your wallet with you.

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. The fact that private information is in public view or publicized somewhere does not necessarily make it public information for all purposes. The question becomes whether further release or publication of the information constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

That is a subjective determination for the administrators. My name and address may be in the phone book, or on the Internet. I have a mezuzah on my front door in plain view. Would it be an unwarranted invasion of my privacy to publish my name and address on DCUM, along with my religious affiliation? You can probably find the amount I paid for my home on the I telnet, too. So let's throw that in. Maybe you can also determine my place of employment. Throw that in, too.

And now what you have is a separate aggregation of private information that was derived from obscure, yet public sources. Only now the information is aggregated in a much less obscure place.

It's an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. If you see a car parked in an obnoxious or obstructionist way, leave a note. Or call the police and have them ticketed. Don't start aggregating their personal information and posting it on the Internet.

Uncool.

Anonymous wrote:I have an idea: why don't you aggregate and publish personal information on the Internet that you find either from a public source and/or in public view? Do it a lot. To a lot of people. Eventually,you will hit the jackpot, and someone will sue you for defamation [iwhich includes invasion of privacy[/i]. Then we will find out if such practice violates any law. Good luck.

Anonymous wrote:
I have an idea: why don't you aggregate and publish personal information on the Internet that you find either from a public source and/or in public view? Do it a lot. To a lot of people. Eventually,you will hit the jackpot, and someone will sue you for defamation [iwhich includes invasion of privacy[/i]. Then we will find out if such practice violates any law. Good luck.


Or worse, maybe from the information/photograph provided, a nutcase will identify someone who cut in front of them in traffic for example, deduce from the photo where the person parks/works/lives/hangs out and perhaps starts stalking them or harms them. Not that much of stretch. I agree with a PP that at some point everyone has some deviations from perfection since we are all human. Or perhaps you don't even know what it is you've done. Perhaps you are walking down the street with your skirt stuck up at the back and your panties are showing. You're in public but do you really want someone to post a picture of that on DCUM? Or a picture of your house?

Once you start identifying private people or their cars online, it becomes a slippery slope. You never know when it will happen to you...

Anonymous wrote:It is an invasion of privacy. Even the DMV has an anti-stalking policy. You can go there with someone's plate and get the name of the owner if there has been a hit-and-run. But if they think you just want to hassle someone, they will not give it to you. I was once in a situation where my car literally TOUCHED another car. We both got out of our cars and I looked at his car very carefully. There had been no damage but it was obvious he intended to make a meal of this situation. He called the police, then he called me a bitch, and I just left. He got my plate.

This had occurred on Rockcreek parkway, so I was called by the federal police. I told them my side of the story. The policeman went to look at this guy's car and did not see any damage. A week later the guy presented the police with an estimate for thousands in alleged damages to his car. The police knew at that point that I was in the right. He asked the police for my name, and he decided not to give it to him, citing the santi-stalking provision.

I disagree with Jeff that because one piece of information is public or in public view, it's OK to post it in conjunction with other identifying information on DCUM. What you've then done is create a separate item of public information (pic and plate), which in turn can be used to find other pieces of information, and before you know it you've got a whole mosaic.

Just because a piece of information is public does not mean that it should be further released to the public. My name and number is in the phone book. That's public. Do I want that information prominently posted on DCUM? No. If a piece of public information is fairly obscure, it can be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy to publicize it further or more prominently.

At the time my car touched this freak's car, I was single and living alone. The Rock Creek police, after talking to both of us, figured out that this guy had a screw lose, and so he did not give him the name of the corresponding plate and warned DC DMV not to do so. The result was that he had my plate, which is public, but not in conjunction with my name, which is also public. The police looked at the totality of the circumstances and decided that he did not want to give this creep my name and then have the well-being of a single woman on his conscience.

I know people will ask why I didn't wait for the police to come. Here's my answer: I was already late for an appointment; it was getting dark and I had no idea when the police would come; I hadn't done any damage to his car that I could see; it was getting dark and I was not about to sit alone on the side of the road with a man calling me a bitchn and who obviously was going to try to milk this non-thing.

Jeff, take heed,