On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Barnett, Phillip < phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Barnett, Phillip < > phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk> wrote: > > Well, this is a sideshow to the main debate, but you are still not > revealing personal data, merely a fact about some or all members of a group. > You are clear to do this under the UK Data Protection Act. I can say '"Most > of the voting population of the UK live in this country" and you can > cross-refer to the UK electoral register, for names and addresses, but that > doesn't mean I've released the personal details of 40 million people! > > In this instance, Cloudmade were releasing personal data. But since > they're not under UK law, the fact that they released their own employees > names and faces and email addresses is presumably between them, their > employees, and the US government. > > The data point that we would have been revealing is that these people were members of OSMF. Membership of an organisation is personal information and we did not want to leak that information in any form whatsoever. Like you say, it's a sideshow. We didn't reveal the facts at the time and I believe that was the correct thing to do. There's nothing irregular about a co-ordinated signup from one company. We verified that the people joining were real individuals, not sockpuppets, and that was that. What I am surprised about is that Jim Brown continues to insist that these people signed up because they were passionate about OSM when the evidence suggests it was a co-ordinated act probably for the purpose of block voting. Jim, there is nothing wrong with doing such a thing, and I'm puzzled why you make some other excuse. 80n
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk