random discovery - name of owner in costa rica

[F1 monster]

I was at a homebuilding show today and came upon a stall that sold really amazing finished wall paneling that could be used for bars, bathrooms, etc. The panesl were truly amazing, you can get them with embedded stones, woods, tiles, all sorts of cool things.

So, I struck up a conversation with the salesman and it turned out the company was based in San Jose, Costa Rica. As often happens with us, I immediately started talking about the exotic car scene there and the one very special car that I had heard about. Luis, the guy I was talking to, happened to be good friends with the mechanic who looks after it, and said it was Richard Powers' car. So, that's the owner's name, so far as I know.

I don't know if it's common knowledge here, but I thought I would share in case some people didn't know.

Luis also mentioned that Mr. Powers used to own a Ferrari 355 and crashed it on the beach there. I didn't ask for details.

[BMW.WilliamsF1Team]

There are several people here who know his name and know him. I've never heard his name (I don't know/care for owner names) and I assume it's becuase he wants to keep private. Wouldn't be surprised if this gets deleted. It was a private convo you had, not really public domain.

[F1 monster]

sorry, but you weren't there, and you don't know exactly what was said and in what context. you are dead wrong. it IS public domain info. the name is common knowledge in car circles in costa rica. you don't have to see something published in a newspaper for it to be public domain.

nowhere was it mentioned that richard powers' name needed to be kept private. if it was, i would not have posted it. i was not told by anyone on here.

[Peloton25]

I guess it's my place to comment here.

This isn't the first time and I am sure it will not be the last that something I know (but can't/haven't/won't share) gets posted on the forum by someone else. In the case of #068's owner, I was introduced to him only by his first name and found his last name on my own a short time after we met. I guess I could have gone public with it since I discovered it on my own, but I chose not to. I know one other regular participant here has had Richard's name for quite sometime, but they also chose not to share even though I don't think the source they got it from asked them to keep it a secret.

The same thing actually occurred with the owner of #040 that most know as 'flemke', and when his name was finally posted here I was even asked by someone else via PM to remove it. I may be the moderator of this forum, but I'm not tasked with censoring anyone here who is not breaking the rules, so the post remained. I told the person who complained they could contact the original poster and ask them to edit their post, but that never occurred and it was the last I heard about it. If everything that was posted here had to be cleared through me first as to whether it should be public knowledge this would be a pretty pointless place to hang out.

I actually thought it was kind of funny that someone would learn the name of an F1 owner in such a strange encounter. It's a pretty small world as they say.

>8^)
ER

[F1 monster]

Thanks Peloton. My views exactly.

[BMW.WilliamsF1Team]

I guess no one minds then, my bad. The way I looked at it was this: I knew Erik knew/met the owner. I know a poster here who works on the guy's car. I'm pretty sure Teak360 knows (of) the guy. No one ever mentioned his name and the thing that reinforced it was that the American F1 recap fleet didn't mention the name even though Erik knew who it was. From all of this, I assumed the guy would want to keep his name private. I don't blame him. If I owned an F1, I wouldn't want people knowing my name if it wasn't already commonly known. Just my 2 cents.

[tortoise]

Originally Posted by BMW.WilliamsF1Team

From all of this, I assumed the guy would want to keep his name private. I don't blame him. If I owned an F1, I wouldn't want people knowing my name if it wasn't already commonly known. Just my 2 cents.

BMW.WF1, your point is well taken.
You can be certain that the majority of the "owners" (I use quotes because there are some mistakes on the lists) would prefer that their names not be made public.
It is interesting and impressive that the core members here have been able to put together as much information as you have. One does wonder, however, whether the results of your investigations really do need to be displayed to the world on this forum, rather than being shared privately among yourselves.

With all due respect, F1 Monster, it appears that your conception of "public domain" may differ enormously from what counts in the real world.
Public domain is not simply anything that is not a secret. For that matter, how can you know whether what you have heard was not in the first place intended to be a secret?

Let's leave aside the background and precise details of the owner of #068. You say that his name is "common knowledge in car circles in Costa Rica". How many people do you think those circles comprise? A hundred? A thousand?
Is there no difference between a name's being known - by word of mouth - amongst a few hundred car nuts on a small island and a name's being accessible to every ambitious embezzler, scumbag and crook in the world who might have a computer?

Even if the owner of #068 does not care whether his identity is publicized to the world, I promise you that many other F1 owners do care.

It is one thing if a person has chosen to publicize himself, as Larry Ellison has done; then he himself is in the public domain. If a person has taken the further step of publicizing the fact that he owns an F1, as Jay Leno, Ralph Lauren and Nick Mason have done, then the ownership itself is in the public domain.

But just because someone figured out (or, worse, thought that he had figured out, but actually had the wrong name!) that X owns chassis Y and then he, perhaps indiscreetly, told other people about it, does not mean that the knowledge is in the public domain.
Posting the knowledge here is what would put it into the public domain.
It is then an invasion of the privacy of the individual concerned. That may not sound like a big deal, but when someone's bank accounts are hacked into or his kids are kidnapped, it will be a very big deal.
Such things may be statistically rare, but it is indisputable that they have happened and will happen again.

I salute you guys for your passion, your insight and your investigative skills, but it's possible to take things too far. Making public the names of people when you have no reason to believe that they want them to be public is taking things too far.
If an owner's only "sin" is to have bought the car that you yourself would buy if you were fortunate enough to be able to afford it, does he deserve to have his name on a list of "Attention All Thieves! Check out these rich guys!"?

It would be a sad irony if the creative efforts of a group of well-intentioned F1 lovers were to facilitate a tragedy in the life of an F1 owner.

[F1 monster]

I love these long and impassioned pleas. But, I was told that Richard Powers' name and ownership of the car were disclosed in a local rag in Costa Rica. I am sure you would agree that constitutes being in the public domain.

Furthermore, a McLaren is well under $2 million. Major magazines regularly publish tables listing individuals with net worths many, many times that.

And any thief/crook/kidnapper/wooden-legged-pirate/warty-faced-individual knows that you just have to pay a private investigator around $300 to get *any* information you could want. Hackers charge considerably less and can be found on IRC. Well-heeled individuals also know this, unless they are named after the capital of France.

We had an individual on here before who claimed that McLarens somehow could be used to further terrorism. Now we have paranoia about kidnapping, theft, the bogey monster, what-have-you.

Please, stop the sanctimonious nonsense. I know plenty that I don't disclose on here.

[mini magic]

Sorry for the late reply, i just got back from the Caribean.

While some here appreciate the owners name being "out there" now, there are a few problems i see here. First, you had no proof that this was in fact the owner of the car. If it turned out that he wasn't, there could be a case for libel against you. I'm no lawyer but the definition of libel could cover this.

Second, there is a reason the owner's name hasn't come out yet and its probably because he doesn't want it out.

Lastly, wether or not you can post this info with or without permission, its common courtesy to ask first.


Just my 0.02

[F1 monster]

Not if it's already in the public domain. And having your name in the local paper makes it public domain info.

[joe911]

Originally Posted by F1 monster

Not if it's already in the public domain. And having your name in the local paper makes it public domain info.

I think you are really stretching the definition of "public domain".

For example - there's a very famous person lives near me - I consider it common knowledge where he lives many locals see him around and know which house is his. However, that does not mean that I think it appropriate to announce on a world-wide distribution forum precisely where he lives (with his wife and small children).

If I go out in public with my car (not that my car is very interesting) - does that make it "public domain" because I've been seen in public in it? How far to you take it?

What may be common-knowledge (whether published in the local press or not) does not IMHO mean that it is OK to shout it from the roof-tops. This is especially true when the person is not famous - there is no benefit in telling the world that Fred Bloggs has a McLaren (or whatever) - if you know the name, fine, but it neither benefits you nor the world spreading the information. It could (in extreme circumstances) however cause issues for the owner.

If you get a buzz out of publishing a list of cars with onwers names attached can you not have two lists - one for your own pleasure - and one that you publish that simply says "known" for those people from whom you do not have permission (or are not very well known).

If you have doubts whether the owner wants the information known - then why not have the good manners to ask them - it is simply courtesy, no?

[F1 monster]

Originally Posted by joe911

I think you are really stretching the definition of "public domain".

No, I think you are. You cannot get more public domain than the published press. You might be confusing celebrity status with public domain. You don't have to be a celebrity to be known in the public domain.

Originally Posted by joe911

For example - there's a very famous person lives near me - I consider it common knowledge where he lives many locals see him around and know which house is his. However, that does not mean that I think it appropriate to announce on a world-wide distribution forum precisely where he lives (with his wife and small children).

His address is not public domain. His identity is. You would be correct in not broadcasting his address. Why would you want to, anyways? Sorry, you are confusing address and identity.

Originally Posted by joe911

If I go out in public with my car (not that my car is very interesting) - does that make it "public domain" because I've been seen in public in it? How far to you take it?

I don't want to take it anywhere. I am abiding by existing standards and the normal evaluation of what information is appropriate for sharing on a public internet forum and what isn't. You seem to be muddying the issue(s) to suit your own agenda.

Originally Posted by joe911

What may be common-knowledge (whether published in the local press or not) does not IMHO mean that it is OK to shout it from the roof-tops.

Local press IS equivalent to shouting from the rooftops. I find it laughable that you think you can make this distinction. Completely ridiculous. And wrong.

Originally Posted by joe911

This is especially true when the person is not famous - there is no benefit in telling the world that Fred Bloggs has a McLaren (or whatever) - if you know the name, fine, but it neither benefits you nor the world spreading the information. It could (in extreme circumstances) however cause issues for the owner.

No benefit? There is no benefit from 70% of what we learn in school, so why bother completing school? You can argue that there is no benefit to knowing ANYTHING about the McLaren for 99.99999% of the world? Or about Porsches? Or Lamborghinis? Or virtually any topic? Why should you read the paper if you are not a politician? Why should you browse the web? What nonsense. We should shut down this whole forum then, because there is no tangible benefit from it. I can only imagine you are being obtuse and myopic on purpose.

Enthusiasts do things because they are enthusiastic about a certain subject. To suddenly feign a lack of understanding why we talk about the things we do is just asinine, and really not worth arguing about. If you don't like cars, simply go away. Don't come on here and tell others not to talk about them, or about things related to them. As long as laws are not broken, you really don't need to worry yourself about enforcing any rules, imagined or real.

Originally Posted by joe911

If you get a buzz out of publishing a list of cars with onwers names attached can you not have two lists - one for your own pleasure - and one that you publish that simply says "known" for those people from whom you do not have permission (or are not very well known).

If one chooses to, they can do this. In fact, that is how I am treating known but private owners on the site I am developing.

Originally Posted by joe911

If you have doubts whether the owner wants the information known - then why not have the good manners to ask them - it is simply courtesy, no?

You are ignoring a key point (I guess you are doing it on purpose): once the cat is out of the bag, it cannot be put back in, nor can it be "contained".

This might be a good idea, if feasible, and if the owner is not publicly known. Once the name is in the press, it's an exercise in pointlessness.

Tortoise and I had a couple of email exchanges. To use his words, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[joe911]

Originally Posted by F1 monster

To use his words, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Well, add me to the list of diagree'ers then.
Anyone else care to join us?

[tortoise]

Originally Posted by F1 monster

I was at a homebuilding show today and came upon a stall...

So, I struck up a conversation with the salesman and it turned out the company was based in San Jose, Costa Rica... Luis, the guy I was talking to, happened to be good friends with the mechanic who looks after it, and said it was Richard Powers' car. So, that's the owner's name, so far as I know.

I don't know if it's common knowledge here, but I thought I would share in case some people didn't know.

F1 Monster,

The essential concept seems to be that you had a conversation with a complete stranger whom you met by chance, who told you that he knows someone, and that that someone told him the name of someone else who owns an F1.

- How can you be certain that the stranger told you the truth as he knew it?
- Even if he did, how can you be certain that what he was told by the "mechanic" was factual?
- Even if what the mechanic said was factual, you do not appear to have any direct evidence that the information is in the "public domain" (leaving aside the matter of whether public domain is a black-and-white condition), apart from the stranger's having said that it was in the "local rag".
- You appear to have no knowledge of whether the reputed owner wants the information to be publicised or to remain as private as it can be.

With all due respect, this does not strike me as a compelling defense for asserting on a popular global website that "X in such-and-such a place owns an F1, and this is already in the public domain".
This man may own the car, his ownership may be widely-known in Costa Rica, and he may in fact welcome publicity. My point is that, based on what you've said, the evidence is far from water-tight, yet the man's name is here on AF for anyone to see.

A few questions for you, F1 Monster:

- Do you think that there should be a standard of proof before something about a third person is published on a website? If so, would that standard be met by a chance conversation with a stranger who (it seems) offered no evidence?

- If you knew that the reputed F1 owner wanted you to refrain from publishing his name, or wanted you to preclude someone else on your website from publishing his name, what would you do?

- If something personal and private about yourself or, say, your child, were to appear against your wishes in a local newspaper (such as in Costa Rica), would it matter to you whether the offending information were published nowhere else or, alternatively, were circulated widely on the Internet? Would you be indifferent between the two?


You don't have to own an F1 to appreciate that some people value their privacy and, even if they cannot have as much privacy as they would like, to them less privacy is worse than more privacy.
They may in fact have a perfectly good reason - perhaps a serious one - to maintain their privacy. If we are not in a position to know the contrary, is it not wiser and fairer to keep quiet?

[F1 monster]

You are confusing verification with privacy issues, which may be linked but are definitely separate concepts. Are you concerned about whether it may be true or not? If so, I can assure you, any and all info you read on the web could be false. That could actually be a good thing, in light of your worries!

If you are concerned about privacy, I have said plenty on it already. I will certainly bear your considerations in mind in the future.

There is a very low standard for "reporting" on the web, if you call this reporting. It is more of a opinion forum and gossip session, is it not? I don't believe there is any minimum standard of truthfulness that has to be met, although I don't try to spread false info, and neither do most of the others on here (so far as I know). It was not verified info. And there is no requirement for us to post verified info. only on here. In fact, a lot of it is acknowledged to be speculation.

What about this specific thread, though. Do you know Mr. Powers? Does he not want his information (if indeed it is correct) public, or publicized any more? If so, let me know and I will ask for this thread to be erased. If you don't know Mr Powers personally, I would appreciate it if you could let us all know that this is pure conjecture on your part, and we are all being made to jump through hoops simply because of your and Joe911's panty-bunching over a purely hypothetical tempest in a teacup.

To answer your question, obviously I would respect any reasonable requests by anyone, let alone McLaren owners. I may not exactly put them on a pedestal, but I certainly respect them as much as I respect anyone.