phone lookups

[John R T Brazier]

>> John replied:
>> I don't see the basic difference: traffic data is freely available to
some
>> Governmental
>> agencies. By your argument it shouldn't matter if it's available to a few
>> more.

> Julian replied:
>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.

Yes, anyone could purchase the CD, and then proceed to use/abuse its data.
However, I have not purchased the CD. Therefore I do not have a right to
use its data, and I shouldn't receive the data from the CD. The situation
seems to me to be analagous in terms of principle: agencies who have
a right to traffic data shouldn't "quote" its contents to agencies that
don't. In exactly the same way, people who have purchased the access to
Experian's mega-demographics databases shouldn't quote their contents to
people who haven't.

The fact that an agency that doesn't have a right to your traffic
data needs to follow a different route to get legal access as compared
to me to use BT's disk (ie they need a warrant or a statutory nstrument,
I just need to pay) doesn't, in this case, matter. Neither of us should
get quotes about the respective data sets at this time.

TTFN

John B