Consider also the childrens' emergency procedures. Any future conflict that might leave an ex in the position to want to social engineer around a child's trust, and the school's requirements for emergency release procedures is likely (a lot of it) in that blog.
I did much the same data gathering with a G+ profile and open sources of a Google exec during the hot phase of the nymwars, proving that real name policies present real harm (particularly when company execs violate company policy and make their kids secret Google accts, but that's another story). I published none of the data I discovered except to a VP involved in G+ who was urged to get his coworker to tighten procedures. <dusts her mostly white hat> We generally operate in the US on a boolean oscillation with children's safety. We operate in denial assuming that it's better for them to live in paradise intact (which is a romantic lie - no school child lives in paradise if they have to share it with age-peers) until injury, sexual abuse, abduction, substance, running with scissors - or baaaaaad things on th net rears up; at which point the world is all one mass shooting, and no child is safe and all liberty is on the chopping block. Between the first and second condition, if you "protesteth too much" you are suspect - far more than the behavior you are trying to call into review. Tant pis... We could stand more thoughtful dialogue. SN
-- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
