[Foundation-l] Note regarding status of privacy policy

[Dan Rosenthal]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> SlimVirgin wrote:
>   
>> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>>> In the UK, for
>>>> example, the Data Protection Act may require that the information be
>>>> handed over on request, and that the UK chapter (insofar as it's a
>>>> separate organization) take steps to ensure that it's not used in a
>>>> way that causes damage or distress.
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> What does the UK chapter have to do with it? It *is* a separate
>>> organisation and is in no way involved with checkuser results...
>>>     
>>>       
>> I don't know how or whether the Data Protection Act would apply, but I
>> think if members of the UK group were involved in retaining checkuser
>> information (and I have no idea whether they are), it would kick in if
>> a request were made under the Act. I mentioned it only as an example.
>>
>>     
<snip>
>> The legal sleight of hand hasn't worked with animal liberationists and
>> I don't see how it can work here either. The courts do find a way to
>> hold people and groups responsible for the damage and distress they
>> cause, so the best thing is to avoid the damage ahead of time by
>> making sure the checkuser and privacy policies are strictly enforced.
>>
>>   
>>     
>
> This is not even a proverbial (builders will know what part
> of the human integument I am talking about) apart from
> threatening in a legal fashion on the mailing list to
> accomplish a result. Please desist. I ask in the nicest
> possible way.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
>   
I agree with Jussi-Ville. These combined statements read very much like 
a veiled legal threat aimed at David Gerard. At the very least it's 
fearmongering by analogy. 

ps. Sorry for the brevity or abbreviations in any previous emails today, 
they were written on my phone at 85 mph on the highway on the 13 hour 
drive from South Florida to D.C.

-Dan