The whole privacy thing again...

[-DeaDLocK-]

Flemke, owner of "the blue one in Germany", posted the following on Pistonheads:

There is at least one website forum which has quite a few active members and no limitation on public access. The active members appear to focus on accumulating and posting almost every imaginable detail about every F1, including the identities of the owners.

If their activity were simply the sharing of this information amongst themselves via a private email users' group, that would be fine, and one would applaud them for their passion and their detective skills.

Because they make this information available to anyone and everyone, (and sometimes it is not accurate or confirmed) that transcends the boundary of fair, considerate behaviour and (unintentionally, of course) exposes innocent people to unnecessary risk.

No marks for guessing which forum he is referring to.

I know this has been discussed (and debated with some fervour) before, but I wonder if the forum has an official position on the issue of exactly how much we disclose on here. Erik?

I, for one, found out Flemke's real full name on here without actually looking for it, and I'm pretty sure he would rather I didn't have this particular nugget of information (because I, in all seriousness, could be a raving lunatic or stalker).

Now I know there's a question of where we draw the line (surely we can't go around blanking every number plate on every picture), and that if I try hard enough it's not exactly extremely difficult to find out identities of people, with or without this forum, but having a name published here gives me a starting point that makes it a thousand times easier if I wanted to give this guy a hard time in the real world.

I think the crux of the issue here is that regardless of how we perceive the importance of privacy, and whether or not there is a real risk to the owners if their names and/or locations are published, or whatever slant we would put on it if we were in their shoes, we quite simply are not in their shoes and shouldn't disclose anything personally identifable unless the owner gives us his/her express permission to do so.

Thoughts?

[mini magic]

Thats why i removed the names in the recap threads. Also, not all the info is accurate, in fact, quite a lot is simply wrong. I'll leave it at that.

I try not to post info here that isn't "public knowledge" (meaning i can show where i found the info either online or in print). A lot of info is shared with my privatley and i respect that and do not and will not share it.

[Peloton25]

If someone asks me not to (as in the case of the owner of #016/#042 or #036) I won't publish their names. Others are free to do as they wish. I am not here to censor anyone who is not being disruptive.

I really think the privacy issue is overblown by some.

You go to a show like Pebble Beach and the owners names are written right on the card left with the car and printed inside the program handed out to everyone who buys a ticket. The same has been true for other shows I have been to with cars displayed by millionaires and billionaires. If these people really had something to fear they might be a bit more concerned, don't you think?

flemke posts here under another name and I am sure he will chime in on this topic as he has before. Obviously if he had a real problem with this forum, he wouldn't be here though.

My

>8^)
ER

[-DeaDLocK-]

I just came across the Costa Rica thread:

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbul...d.php?t=582540

...and can see this has already been done. And dusted, for all intents and purporses. Apologies for raising this old cow.

[F1 monster]

Bit stupid to focus on plugging one hole in a sieve. The information that is posted here is not conjured up or invented, it already exists. And the reason people find it out even though they have no direct connection to the owner is because it is ALREADY in the public domain. Once it is in the public domain, it's very myopic to try and limit its sharing on one website. Bit like trying to stop a US newspaper from printing bad news about Iraq when it's all over the European press.

I find flemke's (and his sidekick, Joe911's) "concern" to have no merit whatsoever. I could say this nicely, and couch it in all sorts of legalese, but really, it's such an overblown, moot point that it annoys the heck out of me.

A hammer is a tool. It can be used to do good or bad. Same with information. We can't ban tools and we can't ban information or free speech. Laws and safeguards already exist to address whatever abuses flemke is concerned about. And people with ill-intentions go about hatching their plans with a bit more sophistication than monitoring an anorak website in the hope of coming up with something useful one day.

Final point: There is plenty of private information that people here are privy to, and which is indeed kept private out of respect for the owners' wishes.

[F1 monster]

Just read DeadLocK's second post. Agreed it's a dead horse...might be a good idea to lock this thread.

[Peloton25]

Ok - closing at the request of Deadlock. Please use the original thread if you have anything to add.

>8^)
ER