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.
I didn't state or imply they intended anything criminal, although it sounds like you have inferred it. All I know is that certain members of that group have posted personal information on people from time to time. So if I had submitted any info at their site I personally would not feel comfortable about having done so.
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?
I've also observed more comment (pro & con) since the suit announcement too. Quite frankly, I had not cared to pay attention to what they were doing. When the announcement came out, well, it sure brought attention to it, including from me. The suit certainly is a major case.
Interesting that you ask how the suit announcement "influenced" my opinion. I hadn't and still haven't expressed my opinion on what they did. I have asked questions though. And, I have to ask, what would my opinion matter anyway? In the big scheme of things, it doesn't. To answer your question though, the suit & its announcement doesn't "influence" my opinion. Can't speak for anyone else, of course.
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.
Bringing censorship into it is going too far, in my opinion. The case is not about that. Yes, we've all seen fraudulent and/or misleading releases on news services from companies. The companies, however, did actually exist and WebNode does not. From the complaint, as posted on SI, WebNode's representative provided assurance as requested to BW that the release was factual which, at minimum IMO, would indicate that at least the company did exist.
Maybe it will and maybe it won't, but with so very many releases being made every day, I just can't see it leading to the burden of responsibility for all content being put onto every news service for every release. The volume is too massive.
It's a shame that the ability to communication widely does not carry with it an ability to communicate well, or ethically.
Yes, it is. |
