Barbara Weitbrecht [<[log in to unmask]> Mon, Aug 1, 1994 9:13 PDT] wrote:
 
You have subcribed to "The Washington Post".  You notice a public notice in
one issue, announcing that someone is compiling a directory of the residents
of Washington, DC, as a public service.  <snip>  [S]everal weeks later you
see a notice in the "Post" stating that the directory compiler does not feel
that he has received an adequate response to his initial query, so he has
received permission from the "Post" management to include the entire
subscriber list in his directory.  Since the directory compiler realizes that
this may not please everyone, he suggests that any "Post" subscriber who does
not wish to be included in his city directory send a note to the "Post"
stating the fact.
 
I believe that this is a reasonable analogy to what has been proposed for the
use of the membership list of MUSEUM-L.  Would those who cannot understand
our objections to this use, also feel perfectly comfortable with the
compilation of the "Washington City Directory" described above, either from
the viewpoint of privacy, or the accuracy of the resulting data?
 
----------------[quote ends]----------------
 
No, ma'am, I don't see how your analogy is reasonable. Because there is an
essential difference between compiling information that is in the public
domain and collecting information from private contracts, an argument that
equates the two is intellectually dishonest: such an argument implies that
the compiler of public information, by so doing, invades the public's
privacy.
 
We ought to be aware that we're in the public domain when we join the
Internet and we are warned again by LISTSERV when we join its lists; that
very freedom of access is what gives the Internet its vitality. Were we to
subscribe the the Washington Post, on the other hand, we create a contract
between one private party and another; it is a question restricted to those
two parties alone whether any information about that contract may be made
public. (Nothwithstanding, I shouldn't be surprised to learn that the Post
will happily sell information on their subscribers predicated on their
subscribers' tacit or constructive permission.)
 
Let me observe also that the compiler's ethics and the compiler's methodology
are two separate issues. He has an unequivocal right to material in the
public domain. The manner in which he collects this material, as in our
present case, may sully the resultant directory with entries who are not
professional museum people; if that doesn't please you, though, just don't
use his directory.
 
I doubt that it is in the charter of MUSEUM-L to entertain ongoing complaints
about the nature of privacy on the Internet: that is too broad an issue and
belongs elsewhere. I also doubt that we have any business chivvying one
fellow for using a time-honored feature of the Internet, that is, the ability
for anyone to ask WHOIS, FINGER, or REVEAL.
 
The outrage that has been directed at poor Mr Montgomery is both naive and
churlish: it tarnishes the otherwise scholarly tone of this group. I
sincerely hope that we can read about something else fairly soon. Fondly,
 
Robert Biddle
San Marcos, California
[log in to unmask]