membership confidentiality

Lyn Dearborn (lyn@anchor.esd.sgi.com)
Fri, 4 Feb 1994 00:06:31 -0800


I suspect that most of us don't care if our names be made public ... I'm
also not sure that it is of any value, since it doesn't specify whether or
not we are native and why we are here. But it would certainly be simple
enough to settle the confidentiality issure: Give us 10 days, or 30 days
to notify you if we want our names kept secret. Anyone not responding
within that time frame would be relinquishing their right to remain
anonymous.

... thanks for your continued conscientiousness, etc....

lyn

"Do not meddle in the affairs of troff, for it is subtle and quick
to anger."

^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+
"We did not weave the web of life. We | Lyn Dearborn; Naturalist/Person
are merely a strand in it. Whatever | Turtle Clan Ojibwe
we do to the web, we do to ourselves" | dearborn@anchor.esd.sgi.com
^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+^+

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Comments from NativeNet moderator, Gary Trujillo (gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us):

Well, I don't actually intend to make the list of subscriber names public
under any circumstances I can forsee, but I am willing to work with others
to set up a database to which subscribers can voluntarily submit information,
as I mentioned recently. I feel that the defaults should be to maintain
confidentiality, with anyone wanting to provide information about themselves
being given the ability to do so. That's how I have things set up, and how
I intend to keep them. But I would like to make it easily possible for
anyone who wants to be able to find others with similar interests or any-
thing else that gives them a feeling of commonality to easily do so. The
database could include categories which permit people to tell of their
background, if they wish to do so, as well as their snail-mail addresses,
etc. But people should be aware that there are social-science types out
there who are eager to study these lists and to determine something about
how people are using them, which may be a good thing - but I can under-
stand how someone could reasonably object to being studied, or becoming
the target of unsolicited mass-mailings. The fact is that anyone who
posts to the net can already become a target for such things, but it
takes more work for someone to create junk mail lists if they have to
keep track of postings than if they have access to a raw list. Call me
paranoid, perhaps, but I don't feel I have the right to make subscribers
"easy pickings" for such things.