[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposal take 2

Gregory Dillon gregorydillon at gmail.com
Wed Mar 12 22:48:02 UTC 2014

citation-   I think its not my duty to find and report the complete
citation-   But the root code is
I'd expect there is case law that describes this further, and I'm not deep
on this issue.

But the code section nearby, that may help understand this are
scroll to section 5000 with title


On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net> wrote:

> Gregory Dillon wrote, On 2014-03-12 15:13:
> > I think not.  But the structure of the State laws \ recognize that the
> > communication and accountability goals furthered by allowing access to
> > membership list are to be balanced against privacy interests of those
> > involved who don't want their phone numbers and home addresses given out.
> >    And if a member said to the secretary, I want the membership list, in
> > order to  publicly dox it,  I believe the secretary could validly say,
> no,
> > I am not providing the list for that purpose.
> Could you please cite this?
> Otherwise the consensus item is moot as it can be achieved with do-ocracy.
> Note I didn't use the word "solved" in place of "achieved" as no one has
> answered Naomi's very relevant question, what problem are you trying to
> solve?
> --
> Rubin
> rubin at starset.net

Let's stay in touch.  Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140312/75494e3f/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list