On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 08:01:05PM -0500, Alan S. Harrell wrote:
>
> No Privacy statement is secure so long as there is a possibility of a
> disgruntled employee. It only takes one disgruntled employee to
> compromise privacy security measures.
This is essentially true of any organization, from banks to credit
card issuers to insurance carriers to libraries. While I do believe
that you are not trying to single out eGroups as being worse than
any other "dot com" in this regard, I do get the sense that you
are implicitly singling out technology industries as less respectful
than more traditional and boring industries. I don't think I agree
that we can assume that Mastercard, say, is immune to the siren
song of identity trading. They are certainly going to be in a
better position to do it quietly, for what that's worth.
> No Privacy statement is secure when companies are sold or merged into
> another company.
When one company buys another, it inherits their legal obligations
and responsibilities. If a privacy statement means anything at
all, if it has any legal weight whatever, then the larger company
is legally obliged to honor the other's privacy policies. The only
way that this could not be true is if the privacy statement is
legally meaningless -- in which case you never had any assurance that
eGroups would abide by its own privacy policy to begin with.
--
Regards,
Tim Pierce
RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator
and Chief Hacking Officer
