So, just for peace of mind, I'd suggest they change them, simply because that info is "out there." I would.
I've been following all of this quietly, but I have a question. Suppose that, instead of Webnode, it was just another internet-based bulletin board company collecting the exact same data -- for online purchasing, email, or whatever. It would be "out there", just as much, would it not?
Unless one posits that the, ah, Webnode 3 intended to criminally collect and sell this information, there is no exposure larger than that concomitant with regular e-commerce, neh? I don't have a difficulty with that. Nothing about the prank implied a further use for the info.
It seemed to be an apt demonstration of the old proverb, "Never underestimate the power of human gullibility". It also seems to me that much of Silicon Investor furthers this demonstration, sadly...
One other point appears worth mentioning. The Webnode fracas has been widely published, particularly within the world of these threads, for nearly a month, and has a very large visibility. I am intrigued that the wholesale condemnation of the "Webnode 3" prank has only appeared after Business Week's announcement that they were pursuing legal remedy for this prank. How is it that this has influenced your, and some others', opinions of this event?
Business Week may wind up, as a result of bringing this action, somewhat responsible for the content of press releases published through them in general. This would in many cases be an improvement; I see much in the way of fraudulent releases, and if that is how all of this falls out, we may owe these folks a debt of gratitude on that basis alone. But there is another variant of likely outcome that troubles me, and that is a general increase of censorship of a sort.
It's a shame that the ability to communication widely does not carry with it an ability to communicate well, or ethically.
Level Head |
