Identifying people
Having identification data on someones person in the system without:
A) Explicit consent from the person in question (recorded where? how? when?)
- Good questions. We must determine how to determine someone claiming to be someone is really that someone.
or
B) The person being a publicly known person (eg. executives (VP, CEO...) that can be looked up by shareholders or in the media or company registers, or shareholders that can be looked up in stock exchange information systems or company registers or other people appearing in well known publications (tv, radio, magazines, news papers or well established digital sources.)
is something I oppose up to the level of causing a fork, which would be very unfortunate should it come to that. --Juxo
- We all view some of someone else's behaviour as amoral purchasing, i.e. "evil". But we accept some political economy to limit those liabilities and tell us when something is "done". You do not need to agree what is "good" but to some degree you must agree what is "safe", "done", and "evil" to agree what is "fair". Because it is also good to ignore and forgive. So there must be a debate on all six of those words I think. Those who agree on when all six must be used can agree on anything else and form a sort of faction that cooperates to coordinate the data. Fair?