Black Unicorn writes

...

I took it upon myself to poke around a bit and this is what I came up with:

The phone number and address are indeed belonging to one Jim Nalbandian in Tempe, AZ. They are listed, published, and publicly available. I guess the bottom line question is when is privacy the burden of the user? Is it Mr. Nalbandian's obligation to take steps for privacy? How much at fault can "nobody" be at for publishing information that Mr. Nalbandian could have shielded for pennies?

Would it be your position then, that, say, any woman who doesn't happen to have an unlisted phone number is fair game to have her name and number written in a toilet stall in Grand Central Station with the notation "For a Good Time, call..."? You wouldn't feel that to be an invasion of privacy?

Parade of horrors. Comparing this list to a bathroom stall wall is something of a short sell for all those on the list. If this woman had posted provocatively to the list (Intellectually, not sexually you smart guys) with her name and city in the signature, I think perhaps you'd be closer. Even that example strays far from the facts at hand. If your question then only differs in gender from the facts really at hand, then my answer is that there is no invasion of privacy.

(If indeed it is the same

...

Jim Nalbandian) Mr. N's signature held his state and city of residence. It is no great accomplishment for anyone to look up his published information. Posting it to the net might have been "sleazy" in the eyes of some, but no worse than circumventing copyright laws with the "Information Liberation Front." In fact one could argue that "nobody"'s actions were above this sort of criticism. (I should note that I do not express any personal opinion on the ILF one way or the other).

Sorry, but we clearly disagree here. I view it as a clear incitement to harassment, and, in my opinion, _that_ constitutes an invasion of privacy.

I guess we do disagree. You seem to want to assert Mr. Nalbandian's rights for him. He made no effort to conceal his identity or phone number in any meaningful way. Your version of privacy would forbid you from looking in the telephone directory to complain to the manager of Domino's pizza. If he was harassed there is an appropriate remedy for that in Tort law. File a harassment or stalking suit. Don't try to shield it with some far reaching extension of privacy rights. In fact it was Mr. Nalbandian who incited people (like "nobody") to harass him. Case in point, the many harassing messages posted to the list. Those were messages that scalded through the net and penetrated his very personal computer probably RIGHT IN HIS HOME! I think there's an invasion of privacy here! You never did answer my copyright coward question.

...

In short Lefty: Privacy comes to those who seek it.

No. Privacy is, or should be, the right of all. I don't have to do anything special to enjoy my rights to free speech or free assembly. I should not have to take special measures to enjoy my right to privacy, either.

You do have to exercise your rights. You have to comply with the regulations set out before you can assemble, or demonstrate. You have to demonstrate or assemble to exercise those rights regardless of those regulations. It's hard to claim your right of free speech has been violated when you haven't tried to speak. It's difficult to claim your right to assemble has been violated when you were at home all day. Look to the Supreme Court for a sample of the necessity of exerting an expectation of privacy over a thing to have that right protected. See e.g., _Florida v. Riley_, 488 U.S. 445 (1989); _California v. Greenwood_, 486 U.S. 108 (1988). Even so I think there are things that are per se private regardless of any attempt to protect them. Medical records for example. Having this apply to published phone numbers is a little excessive.

If I don't lock my front door, that doesn't imply that anyone can walk into my house. To do so would _still_ be an invasion of privacy.

Because the home is implicitly a personal realm. Extending this argument to the phonebook is more than a little out of hand.

...

Mr. Nalbandian got exactly what privacy he paid for: None.

This misses the point entirely. Even the indigent have a right to privacy.

And most phone companies provide waivers for those who cannot afford to pay for non-published or unlisted phone numbers. Are you alleging Mr. N is an indigent? In any event this does not speak to the basic question as to what type of privacy right does one have to a published and listed phone number and address?

...

"nobody" saved us all the $0.75 a long distance information call costs. Multiply that in the aggregate and you have some nice money.

I think it worth noting that Mr. Nalbandian hasn't posted since "nobody"'s letter. A considerable social gain in my view. Perhaps Mr. Nalbandian will take an interest in privacy now, another considerable social gain.

"Hey! The ends _do_ justify the means!"

And the means in this case were hardly offensive.

-- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

You'll not find one more for privacy rights when they are manifested than me. A person who seeks to participate in a semi-public forum bears to some degree the responsibility of keeping that information which he or she would not like exposed protected. Once there is the slightest effort to protect that information, any attempt to extract it is a violation of privacy in my view. You'll find this basic theory of privacy rights follows the root concepts that make up privacy law in the United States. But the U.S. law only goes so far. I even go even farther. So far as to insist there is a right of privacy in license plates because those are mandatory requirements for the operation of an automobile, among other things. But to assert that one who signs his name to a baiting post has an expectation or a right of privacy to his name and identity is silly. Had Mr. Nalbandian only signed his first name, I would be on your side. As it is, I cannot see it your way. I don't defend "nobody" because I feel he or she did something right. I don't in fact defend "nobody" at all. I only assert that Mr. Nalbandian has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his name and phone number when he all but hands them out. I think we both agree that Mr(s). Anonymous way crossed the line with the penet.fi release however. -uni- (Dark)