OK, so CNN runs only second to the Department of Homeland Security when it comes to scaremongering, but this article will make you forget all your worries about people with almanacs…
Net map services spark stalking fears!
I especially enjoyed this part:
So, this woman doesn’t want anyone else to use online search engines to find out about her, but it’s OK for her?
While I’m on the subject of fearmongering…
Don’t you dare call an ambulance!
Be afraid! It’s your patriotic duty!
Hypocracy is an amazing thing, isn’t it?
Hey, if you’re not in a state of constant fear, you really hate America. We’re on Orange Alert, people!
I had a “situation” at work recently. An unknown individual mailed out a copy of a sexual harassment complaint to a lot of employee’s home addresses.
The complaints kind of surprised me, a lot of people were upset over receiving this in the mail (which I could understand) but they also seemed to think that there was some sort of law or something that prohibited or should prohibit anyone from sending them something they didn’t like.
A lot of people were surprised and upset about their address being on the internet and I believe that some were actually surprised that an indivudual could look up their name in the phone book and get their address - and mail something to their house. Terrorism was actually mentioned.
(Maybe they had been overlooking all that junk mail that found it’s way to their mailbox)
[pedantic]
hypocracy: rule by hypotheticals?
[/pedantic]
Heh, keeping your personal details off the Internet is amazingly easy. Just don’t own a credit card. That’s where most of the Internet address sites get their info from…places like Equifax. Oh, and of course keep your phone number de-listed from your local phone book, as those sites also purchase information from the phone company as well. For ten years I managed to keep my last traceable address as my parents’ home in Indiana where they didn’t even live anymore using those two rules.
Part of my job involves looking up people on the Internet, and you wouldn’t believe what you can find–we’re talking pictures of people’s houses, mortgage values, even what kind of car someone drives in certain jurisdictions. And that’s just what’s publicly available–if I had no scruples and was intent on wreaking illegal havoc, I could get a whole lot more.
People have a right to be worried, but this woman is a skunk. I’ll bet she tried to find out the size of her “suitor’s” wallet, and whether he still lived at home with Mom. No scrubs!
I forgot to mention:
She’s paranoid about her address being available on the Internet, but she let CNN include a picture of her sitting on her front stoop in their article.
:wally
Extremely minor nitpick: CNN (and many other news outlets) ran the article, but it was apparently written by some anonymous stringer for the AP.
Do you have one of those peep holes in your front door that allows you to see who’s on the other side but prevents them from seeing you? Or do you have a problem with that?
I agree. Kinda weak.
That’s a little different. Anyone can have those in their doors to see who’s at their door - they’re accessible to anyone who wants one. This woman wants to be able to search for info on other people, but doesn’t want anyone to be able to search for info on her. There’s a difference.
Ava
I remember, when my sister was growing up, that Dad always said, “If you like a guy, get HIS number, don’t give yours.” Good advice, especially now, right?
Damn you! I fart in your general direction. 
So what? Aren’t computers and the internet just as accessible?
Look, my wife protests when I bring home chocolate ice cream, but she’ll eat it. Doesn’t make her a hypocrite.
I find this woman’s attitude troubling, though. She is horrified - horrified at the extent of the information people can get on her. Yet she does the same to other people. The peephole analogy doesn’t work too well - it’s not the nature of the practice, but the extent of the information it can bag that she’s horrified at.
This woman wants HER information to be accessible to no one, yet she wants other people’s information to be accessible to her. That’s where your comparison breaks down. A peephole is available to anyone who wants one.
I’ll make it easier for you. Say this woman had a peephole. She goes over to her friend’s apartment, which also has a peephole. She doesn’t like the fact that her friend can see that she’s at the door. So she gets her friend’s peephole taken away. But she’s still able to keep her own peephole because she claims it’s for her own safety. She wants rights that she doesn’t want others to have.
Does that make more sense?
Ava
No. She’d only be a hypocrite when she brought it home. And that would put her on par with the subject of the OP.
Doesn’t make sense spooge. Who is she going to protest to then? Herself?
I did not detect a desire on the part of this woman that she and she alone should have access to other people’s information. She merely succumbed to curiosity by availing herself of an opportunity that she would rather not have available to anyone including herself considering the big picture.