phone lookups

[Tom Thomson]

> > The difference is significant.  Some governmental agencies are
currently
> > able to obtain traffic data, others are not.  Anyone can purchase the
> > information on the CD; distributing some of the information on the CD
to
> > all does not make it available to people to whom it was not previously
> > potentially available, whereas releasing traffic data to those
agencies
> > not permitted to obtain access to it does.
> >
> > Personally, I don't think it wise to send random individuals' names
and
> > addresses to a public mailing list, even if you aren't actually making
> > available otherwise hidden information; however, the argument you pose
> > above is flawed, and the degree of damage done is much greater in the
case
> > that you release information to those not authorised to have it.
>
> Mmmm... the logic of that is suspect, methinks. How does the fact that
one
> is 'authorised' (by whom and for what purposes?) make one necessarily a
> 'white hat' whilst being 'unauthorised' makes one, of necessity, a black
> hat?
>

Well, that question may have some relevance to something.  However, I
can't find any occurrence of the word "authorised" or of any related word
in the quoted material to which the remark above purports to be a reply.
Just what is the relevance of your comment?

M.