[oclug] Privacy violation & recipient delimieter "+"
bb at L8R.net
Fri Aug 30 10:19:28 EDT 2002
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:46:30 -0400
"Francis J. A. Pinteric" <linuxdoctor at linux.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:35:20 -0400
> Brad Barnett <bb at L8R.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:15:13 -0400
> > "Michael P. Soulier" <msoulier at storm.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > Personally, I would contact them, and write up a small article
> > > to both /.
> > > and the local newspapers. Plus, any newspapers close to the physical
> > > location of this company, and any privacy advocate groups that might
> > > apply.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > An excellent suggestion, but I'd like to add one cautionary note. It
> > is(remotely) possible that these two companies are owned by the same
> > person.
> > In that case, it's not really the same issue (although it is
> > annoying). Whois information doesn't seem to back this up, but I have
> > seen people that have more than one company name...
> It doesn't matter who owns the company as essentially they are two
> separate entities under the law.
Yes, it does matter who owns the company. When I said "by the same
person", I didn't mean any other variation of that theme.
If John is doing business as a proprietorship named company A, and I tell
John, "I live on 22nd Street", it is not really a violation of their
Streeet" with his letterhead from proprietorship named company B.
Secondly, if Company A _owns_ company B, it is not a violation for them to
tell the company they own, although this isn't what I was talking of at
the time. I think you need to re-read the original message, which
On the website they say : "coolwheels.com is totally committed to
protecting your privacy. We use your personal information only to process
orders and provide you with an enhanced and personalized shopping
experience. We do not sell, trade, give, or rent your personal information
to any third party." (http://www.coolwheels.com/newvisitor.cfm#privacy)
> A corporation is a distinct person
> under the law so coowheels selling your name to (the other name), if
> if they were both owned by the same person. However, if these two
> companies were actually persons "operating under the name of ...." then
> you have a slightly different problem, but nonetheless worth exploring
> legally. Of course if these were corporations and they WERE owned by
> the same person, be certain that he would argue the negative in this
> case. But that's what the courts are for, to sort out these precident
> setting issues. :-)
> Did I hear the word "potential rat's nest here?
I don't know why you do. In both cases listed above there is no breach of
their own policy, since in both cases both incidents of spam can be
handled by the first party, not a third.
far, all you can do is take them to civil court. I am aware of no law in
the US that prohibits such activity.
Heck, even up here (where your right are better protected), the only law
on the books to protect privacy on the internet has absolutely no teeth.
If a company breaches the "suggested" policies of the new law, the privacy
commissioner "asks" you to rectify the situation. Yes, he asks.
Wow, that'll stop them in their tracks!
More information about the OCLUG