WikiLeaks publishes identities and information about ICE employees

[Endus]

And you bring up the important aspect: intent of posting. Posting on LinkedIn or Match.com would be my decision with an intent I decided on. A third party posting my details is posting for their own intent which may or may not sync with my own.

Yes, but you lost the right to complain about that when you posted that material publicly in the first place.

I'm a strong defender of privacy rights, but you can't throw open your curtains (so to speak) and then complain that passersby can see you when you're standing at the window, naked.

[callipygoustp]

Yes, but you lost the right to complain about that when you posted that material publicly in the first place.

Says who?
{10char}

[Endus]

Says who?
{10char}

The fact that you published that material publicly.

Also, the Terms of Use of LinkedIn, almost certainly.

[GennGreymane]

So has the forum done a full 180 and wikileaks are a champion to Americans after being a Russian stooge in the election?

Only ones doing a 180 loved the email scandal. Like you. I guess you pulled a 180 as well dexxxy?


also is @Endus correct in stating this was already public info?

[callipygoustp]

The fact that you published that material publicly.

Also, the Terms of Use of LinkedIn, almost certainly.

That doesn't answer the question.

You stated:

Yes, but you lost the right to complain about that when you posted that material publicly in the first place.

I would like to see something that backs up that claim.

[Sunseeker]

Says who?
{10char}

You did, basically, by putting them on a publicly-available resource.

It's amazing what people will put online. I don't know what I'd do if it wasn't for all the idiots who listed their jobs, phone numbers or new addresses on public media.

The fact that you don't want people to use it for things like, calling you at work and demanding you pay your past-due car loan, really is your problem.

[Endus]

That doesn't answer the question.

You stated:

I would like to see something that backs up that claim.

What, that public material is available to the public? This is like asking me how I know that apple pie is made with apples.

If you mean specifically in the case of LinkedIn, this phrase in their User Agreement covers it;

"Information and content that you share or post may be seen by other Members, Visitors or others (including off of the Services)."

Particularly that last bit.

[callipygoustp]

You did, basically, by putting them on a publicly-available resource.

What? If I put my info on LinkedIn I don't give anyone the right to publish that info somewhere for their own use.

The fact that you don't want people to use it for things like, calling you at work and demanding you pay your past-due car loan, really is your problem.

Again, intent is important. I don't have a problem with the above. I do have as problem with what wikileaks did.

[GennGreymane]

What? If I put my info on LinkedIn I don't give anyone the right to publish that info somewhere for their own use.


Again, intent is important. I don't have a problem with the above. I do have as problem with what wikileaks did.

You gave people the right to see it though.......

[callipygoustp]

What, that public material is available to the public? This is like asking me how I know that apple pie is made with apples.

No it's not. Answer the question of who says I gave up my personal information rights because I posted my personal information online.

If you mean specifically in the case of LinkedIn, this phrase in their User Agreement covers it;
"Information and content that you share or post may be seen by other Members, Visitors or others (including off of the Services)."

Particularly that last bit.

No, I was talking about Wikileaks and the difference of intent between me posting on LinkedIn and Wikileaks scrapping data and posting it on their site.

- - - Updated - - -

You gave people the right to see it though.......

Absolutely. No argument there.

I didn't give people, Wikileaks in this case, the right to post it for their own use.

[Endus]

No it's not. Answer the question of who says I gave up my personal information rights because I posted them, myself, online.

Asked and answered by yourself, right there.

[callipygoustp]

Asked and answered by yourself, right there.

That in no way supports the notion that I gave up my rights.

The idea that posting information publicly, in this case personal information, automatically means you give up your rights to that information is ridiculous.

[Endus]

That in no way supports the notion that I gave up my rights.

What "rights"? You lost your right to privacy when you breached your privacy by posting it publicly.

There's no other "right" in play, here. There might be, if someone were selling your information without permission (though I'm sure if you dig through LinkedIn, that permission's in there, likely the phrase I already cited), but Wikileaks wasn't selling anything.

[GennGreymane]

No it's not. Answer the question of who says I gave up my personal information rights because I posted my personal information online.


No, I was talking about Wikileaks and the difference of intent between me posting on LinkedIn and Wikileaks scrapping data and posting it on their site.

- - - Updated - - -


Absolutely. No argument there.

I didn't give people, Wikileaks in this case, the right to post it for their own use.

But u gave it to someone who said they will show it to others.

[Sunseeker]

What? If I put my info on LinkedIn I don't give anyone the right to publish that info somewhere for their own use.

They (viewers or 3rd parties) don't need your permission. Read Linkedin's terms and conditions.

Again, intent is important. I don't have a problem with the above. I do have as problem with what wikileaks did.

No, it actually isn't. Once it's public, it's public. See: the entire history of US law. No, I'm not going to cite you cases. It's your claim that intent matters, it's on you to cite case law showing intent matters.

[callipygoustp]

What "rights"? You lost your right to privacy when you breached your privacy by posting it publicly.

There's no other "right" in play, here. There might be, if someone were selling your information without permission (though I'm sure if you dig through LinkedIn, that permission's in there, likely the phrase I already cited), but Wikileaks wasn't selling anything.

You brought up rights, not me, I asked you to support your assertion:

Yes, but you lost the right to complain about that when you posted that material publicly in the first place.

I can't complain when someone uses my data for nefarious purposes?

There's a big difference between a LinkedIn post and a Wikileaks list of ICE employees. The intent between the two is significant: positive vs negative in my opinion. That difference is of concern to me, and, for no, as of yet, justifiable reason I would complain about it if I was on that list.

[Endus]

I can't complain when someone uses my data for nefarious purposes?

Verbally? Sure. Legally?? Not if you posted that info publicly, no.

[callipygoustp]

They (viewers or 3rd parties) don't need your permission. Read Linkedin's terms and conditions.

Not what I am talking about.

No, it actually isn't. Once it's public, it's public. See: the entire history of US law. No, I'm not going to cite you cases. It's your claim that intent matters, it's on you to cite case law showing intent matters.

I'm not talking law, I'm no expert. What I am claiming is that the intent behind the use is different and it is important.
This is my original comment:

Pretty fucked up. Its one thing to choose to put your personal information online. Its a whole other matter for someone else to publish that information.

My issue is that what Wikileaks has done is baity, and dangerous.

[Stormdash]

They can always choose not to work for the gestapo.

I know you're banned, but QFT (quoted for Tool).

BTW, this attempt to incite violence this way is much more likely to put Antifa types trying to act on it in the ground than ICE agents.

[callipygoustp]

Verbally? Sure. Legally?? Not if you posted that info publicly, no.

Getting away from my original purpose.

My original post was:

Pretty fucked up. Its one thing to choose to put your personal information online. Its a whole other matter for someone else to publish that information.

No discussion of laws. Merely expressing that I think what Wikileaks did, in the posting of ICE Employee's info in one location and calling attention to it, was "pretty fucked up." If I was on that list, I would be pissed. If you were on the list would you be okay with that?
(Again, I am not supporting, or in any way okay with, what is going on with Central American immigrants coming into the USA.)