Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether Chumpsky’s posting of John Poindexter’s address and phone number belongs in Great Debates…
Is his position ethically justified? Is it right to give out this (admittedly within the public domain) information for the purpose of harassing Poindexter?
Should this be considered poetic justice, or becoming the enemy?
Questions, questions…
Well, TVAA, the information being mined by Poindexter’s TIA is also in the public domain.
I think that TIA is ethically unjustified.
Sadly, TIA has a better purpose (hunt terrorists) than Chumpsky’s (harrass Poindexter).
So Chumpksy is actually become worse than the enemy.
Sua
What makes you think that the TIA’s purpose is to hunt terrorists? (I mean, other than the fact that they say it is their purpose.)
And what makes you think that my purpose is only to harrass Poindexter?
umm, cite?
Just because it’s publicly available doesn’t mean it should be available here. There is a small chance it would be morally okay to post the information so that us right-thinking, morally unambiguous people could use it to set things right. However, the chance that the information would be picked up by a spambot or some sort of bottom-feeding yahoo who would make Poindexter’s life miserable for no net advantage other than making hate Chumpsky just a whole lot are much, much better.
Want to vent warp plasma at somebody? Take it to the Pit. That’s what it’s for. Too personal for the pit? Every post that person makes has a little button under it labelled “email.” Use it.
Then please enlighten us as to why you posted it. And do it quickly, cus I don’t think you’ll be around for long.
Ack! Vorlon, when your user name gets in two columns of the front page, thread titles wrap about one word per line! 
I was going to ask that, myself, since a threat is pretty strongly implied.
Does this mean we’ll be seeing Chumpsky on the evening news sometime in the near future?
What’s the problem? Poindexter wants to mine personal information of people who have committed no crime for some ambiguous use by the political police.
I don’t see why Poindexter’s home address and phone number should be considered private. He is attempting to make himself, again, a public figure. Thus, his information should be public. If he wants to make public policy, he should be accountable to the public.
And, of course, his home address should be San Quentin Penitentiary.
Point out the part where you answer my question.
It has been published in newspapers & such, so he has been “outed” in the public domain. Chumsky didn’t think of this all on his own- days before he posted it was in one of the SF weeklies.
I don’t know why it was removed from this, but if Chumpsky wanted to re-post it without even technically breaking a rule, all he’d have to do is post a link to one of the articles.
Now, should it have been “outed” in the first place? I really don’t know. Legally, he is certainly a “public figure”, by his own choice, so his rights to privacy are less that ours.
I don’t think it needed TWO threads , though. Maybe not even one.
Ah, he makes an implied threat and then attempts to weasel out of it when challenged.
Chumpsky: you should be in politics instead of writing about it.
As much as it pains me I have to defend chumpsky a little.
This was discussed eary in Plastic by way of Wired, they noticed an article in the SF Weekely:
http://www.plastic.com/article.html?sid=02/12/15/16562393;cmt=54
http://sfweekly.com/issues/2002-11-27/smith.html/1/index.html
They also notice that Verizon has that information in their people pages! That is, their version of the white pages.
[mr T]
I think I will let the chumpsky live this time!
[/mr T]
Just because it’s public record doesn’t mean it should be broadcast everywhere.
Just because someone is a public figure doesn’t mean that person waives all expectations of privacy. The privacy of public officials should be more cherished by our society than it is, and prying into that realm of privacy should be generally discouraged. The more we pry, the less likely talented individuals will seek office.
Public officials can be held accountable through correspondence to their business offices and through the ballot box. Whatever his views are, let him have the sanctity of his home.
That’s very moving, Bearflag. I agree that “prying into the realm of privacy should be generally discouraged.” Does Total Information Awareness discourage prying into the realm of privacy? The potential for abuse of this system is beyond my meager imaginings.
As for the issue at hand, I am of two minds. On the one hand, as has already been pointed out, it is a great breach of netiquitte and it smacks of becoming the beast you’re fighting. On the other hand, it’s a piece of political theater worthy of the great Abbie Hoffman–poetic justice, like throwing dollar bills over the balcony of the New York Stock Exchange and watching the traders scramble for them.
I don’t pretend to know the ethical ramifications implied by the act, but that free pint of Ben and Jerry’s that GIGO’s site got me was enough to sway my vote…I am as of this moment an offical wild eyed radical!
Viva la Chumpsky! Stick it to da Man! Forever your Politariot
Rand
I see that John Corrado has now removed the information, with the note, “We do not allow the posting of other people’s phone numbers and addresses, even for scoring debate points. The information has been excised. -JMCJ”.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=151055
How on earth was that post even remotely threatening? I have a home address, and it is of public record, and I am not threatened by it.
If it were not against board rules, I would post the home addresses of the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States, without further comment. That is in no way a threat.
The purpose of the post was to show the irony and hypocrisy of the TIA program, and to do a “how do you like it.” Apparently, many members of the SdMB do not object to having that kind of information public, or do not understand irony/hypocrisy, or just like to periodically assassinate the character of our only left wing poster with the completely fabricated charge that it is some kind of a threat.
I have never seem anyone recoil in fear from a telephone book before. Especially a <B>page</B> from a telephone book.
Obviously, telephone books are violating the 4th amendment. Wow. Some of y’all are even more liberal than I am.
For chrissakes, folks, go to Yahoo, do a ‘People Search’ for ‘Poindexter’ in Maryland. Took me 15 seconds. The functional equal of thumbing through the White Pages.
Either the public dissemination of private information is right or it is wrong.
The hypocrisy here is Chumpsky’s. He thinks what TIA is doing is wrong, and to demonstrate that, he does the wrong thing TIA is doing.
If it is wrong, it is wrong for Chumpsky, as well. But he claims that when he does it, it is not wrong.
That is hypocrisy.
I understand irony, and hypocrisy is not irony.
BTW, Chumpsky is not our only left-wing poster. If you think that, you don’t pay much attention.
And one cannot assassinate that which does not exist.
Sua