Re: [GENERAL] Map of Postgresql Users (OT)

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Cc: "Claire McLister" <mclister(at)zeesource(dot)net>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tino Wildenhain" <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de>, "Arnulf Christl" <arnulf(dot)christl(at)ccgis(dot)de>, <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Brent Wood" <b(dot)wood(at)niwa(dot)co(dot)nz>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Map of Postgresql Users (OT)
Date: 2005-12-08 00:50:14
Message-ID: 200512071950.15175.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-www

On Wednesday 07 December 2005 17:35, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Well, I can speak for Sweden. In which case it's basically that you
> cannot put up *any* personally identifyable information that was not
> already *explicitly made public* or that you have written permission
> from the person in question, on any computer medium that can be used
> outside the EU (which pretty much means the internet, it's kinda hard to
> restrict it to the EU).
>

Well, it would pretty hard to argue that the information was not explicitly
made public since the bullet points were generated from a completly
autononomous 3rd party source.

> Putting up pins with locations are fine, because that's not personal
> information. When you put names on them, you are getting into a gray
> zone.
>

I odn't agree, but can't argue that you're opening up to more trouble by
including names.

>
> Anyway, to my point. If there was a big gain by doing this, it'd
> *probably* be ok, but I'm not sure. But as I don't see it adding all
> that much, I just don't think it's worth risking it.
>
> IP based locations are going to be far enough off that in most cases it
> won't really be useful to know who is there. And there's going to be
> loads and loads of them. But it may still be enough in *some* cases that
> ppl might complain. Therefor, doing the email based list without names
> makes sense.
>

I'd +1 this line of thinking. I don't see much argument against it.

> Then having a map with manually registered people that *does* put out
> names won't have as many pins on it, and the pins that are there will be
> more accurate (because they are actually submitted by the person who's
> there). As the information is provided by the person in question,
> there's also no question of wether it's legal or not.
>
> Bottom line: I think we should have two maps, fulfilling the different
> needs. That'll also buy us out of the possible legal gray-zone.
>

Well, I suspect we might actually have even more maps anyways, so it's no
problem to assume this out of the gate afaics

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

In response to

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2005-12-08 01:11:37 Re: Launching PostgreSQL KB Project Mark 2
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2005-12-07 22:35:33 Re: [GENERAL] Map of Postgresql Users (OT)