• [Media/Legal] USA/NJ Making township email list subscribers public

    From Andrzej Adam Filip@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 30 10:46:10 2023
    https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/11/29/n-j-supreme-court-to-decide-whether-township-email-lists-are-subject-to-public-records-law/
    N.J. Supreme Court to decide whether township email lists are subject to public records law
    ; November 29, 2023 7:05 am

    […] The appeal to the high court comes after nonprofit civil rights
    group Rise Against Hate sued Cherry Hill, West Deptford, and
    Bridgewater for fighting its 2020 and 2021 public records requests
    seeking their lists of email subscribers. The Supreme Court took up
    the case after an appellate court ruled in favor of the towns in
    March.

    The attorneys representing the nonprofit and the towns clashed Tuesday
    over whether sharing subscribers’ email addresses would violate
    privacy provisions of the state’s Open Public Records Act, and whether releasing them would advance transparency goals. The justices,
    meanwhile, shared concerns about the subscribers’ expectation of
    privacy, and whether businesses or harmful entities would gain access
    to distribution lists, prompting spam and phishing scams. […]

    --
    A. Filip

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tjoen@21:1/5 to Andrzej Adam Filip on Fri Dec 1 07:47:12 2023
    On 11/30/23 10:46, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
    https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/11/29/n-j-supreme-court-to-decide-whether-township-email-lists-are-subject-to-public-records-law/
    N.J. Supreme Court to decide whether township email lists are subject to public records law
    ; November 29, 2023 7:05 am

    […] The appeal to the high court comes after nonprofit civil rights
    group Rise Against Hate sued Cherry Hill, West Deptford, and
    Bridgewater for fighting its 2020 and 2021 public records requests
    seeking their lists of email subscribers. The Supreme Court took up
    the case after an appellate court ruled in favor of the towns in
    March.

    The attorneys representing the nonprofit and the towns clashed Tuesday
    over whether sharing subscribers’ email addresses would violate
    privacy provisions of the state’s Open Public Records Act, and whether
    releasing them would advance transparency goals. The justices,
    meanwhile, shared concerns about the subscribers’ expectation of
    privacy, and whether businesses or harmful entities would gain access
    to distribution lists, prompting spam and phishing scams. […]

    That group Rise Against Hate wants email addresses? To spam?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andrzej Adam Filip@21:1/5 to tjoen on Fri Dec 1 08:06:19 2023
    tjoen <[email protected]d> wrote:
    On 11/30/23 10:46, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
    https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/11/29/n-j-supreme-court-to-decide-whether-township-email-lists-are-subject-to-public-records-law/
    N.J. Supreme Court to decide whether township email lists are subject to public records law
    ; November 29, 2023 7:05 am

    […] The appeal to the high court comes after nonprofit civil rights
    group Rise Against Hate sued Cherry Hill, West Deptford, and
    Bridgewater for fighting its 2020 and 2021 public records requests
    seeking their lists of email subscribers. The Supreme Court took up
    the case after an appellate court ruled in favor of the towns in
    March.

    The attorneys representing the nonprofit and the towns clashed Tuesday
    over whether sharing subscribers’ email addresses would violate
    privacy provisions of the state’s Open Public Records Act, and whether >>> releasing them would advance transparency goals. The justices,
    meanwhile, shared concerns about the subscribers’ expectation of
    privacy, and whether businesses or harmful entities would gain access
    to distribution lists, prompting spam and phishing scams. […]

    That group Rise Against Hate wants email addresses? To spam?

    It does not matter what they want it for from my perspective.
    I an sure their lawyers can present an innocent enough excuse.
    They want to make them publicly available *also for spammers* .

    Anyway: I can accepts subscriber list as "a public record"
    (with huge negative enthusiasm) *ONLY* if subscribers know it
    (have been warned) *BEFORE* subscribing in triple handshake mode.

    --
    A. Filip

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From danny burstein@21:1/5 to Andrzej Adam Filip on Fri Dec 1 13:57:08 2023
    In <[email protected]> Andrzej Adam Filip <[email protected]> writes:

    [anip]

    It does not matter what they want it for from my perspective.
    I an sure their lawyers can present an innocent enough excuse.
    They want to make them publicly available *also for spammers* .

    Anyway: I can accepts subscriber list as "a public record"
    (with huge negative enthusiasm) *ONLY* if subscribers know it
    (have been warned) *BEFORE* subscribing in triple handshake mode.

    I've run into this personally when my e-mail address
    was Hoovered from correspondence I sent to a NYC office
    a decade ago. I had actually sent paper mail, but
    included an e-mail reply option.

    When I started getting garbage, they replied that
    all this material was, indeed, publicly available
    with no expectation of privacy.

    (Fortunately I have my own Internet domain and
    activate specific addresses, which I can then killl).

    I'd *love* to see a decision saying that NOPE, this
    quasi private material remains private.

    --
    _____________________________________________________
    Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
    [email protected]
    [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam H. Kerman@21:1/5 to danny burstein on Fri Dec 1 16:28:23 2023
    danny burstein <[email protected]> wrote:
    Andrzej Adam Filip <[email protected]> writes:

    [anip]

    It does not matter what they want it for from my perspective.
    I an sure their lawyers can present an innocent enough excuse.
    They want to make them publicly available *also for spammers* .

    Anyway: I can accepts subscriber list as "a public record"
    (with huge negative enthusiasm) *ONLY* if subscribers know it
    (have been warned) *BEFORE* subscribing in triple handshake mode.

    I've run into this personally when my e-mail address
    was Hoovered from correspondence I sent to a NYC office
    a decade ago. I had actually sent paper mail, but
    included an e-mail reply option.

    When I started getting garbage, they replied that
    all this material was, indeed, publicly available
    with no expectation of privacy.

    (Fortunately I have my own Internet domain and
    activate specific addresses, which I can then killl).

    I'd *love* to see a decision saying that NOPE, this
    quasi private material remains private.

    There must not be a decision. A state or provincial legislature or
    national congress or parliament would have to amend sunshine in
    government laws to create this privacy right.

    Do we want there to be a privacy right? Are there repurcussions to this?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)