Slashdot Mirror


US Treasury to Post Previously Private Email Addresses Online

An anonymous reader writes "After receiving around 10 thousand comments about a government proceeding and after promising not to reveal personal info from those comments online, the US Treasury department decided to post email addresses of those who commented online. Sounds like they don't want any more comments about government proceedings. The email harvesters are going to have a great time."

11 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. And the FTC explicitly advises against... by Eyah....TIMMY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's a consumer alert from the Federal Trade Commission on why you shouldn't post your email address online... how ironic!

    Maybe people whose address is posted should file a complaint with the FTC against the U.S. Treasury Department. I know, the Treasury dept is technically not a "business" (although it's arguable) but it would be funny if the FTC received tons of complaints because of this.

    --

    It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well. - Rene Descartes (1637)
  2. Thanks for nothin' by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aside from the rather obvious gold mine for Spammers that this would provide (thanks to the knuckleheads in the Treasury Department), this is an example of openness in government which could be good except that the problem is that they are breaking a promise. Most disturbing is this little item "we will post comments received on that notice on our Web site in full, including any street addresses, telephone numbers, or e-mail addresses contained in the comments." It seems that nobody is allowed privacy in this White House administration except GWB and friends.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Thanks for nothin' by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey now, just because you cant afford your own "undisclosed location" dont be player hating our VP.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  3. You neglect one important point... by clifgriffin · · Score: 5, Funny

    We have anti-spam laws now.

    Those will stop the spammers and email harvesters.

    Clif

  4. Capitalism at work by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just show the treasury you disaprove by not using their products. If enough people do this they'll get the message and change their policies.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  5. I Protest. by Murmer · · Score: 5, Funny
    I, for one, plan to boycott money.

    Of course I'm a student, so I'm pretty much doing that anyway.

    --
    Mike Hoye
  6. COPPA (Child Online Privacy Protection Act) issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I assume they aren't going to post the names, addresses, and e-mails of children?

    I assume they ensured everyone posting was of legal age?

    I assume they know the rules of the Child Online Privacy Protection Act?

    If not, they're dumb.

  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. They Say it's Because they CAN'T Remove Them by ReadParse · · Score: 5, Funny

    For crying out loud. Please tell me you're compelled by the law or by a Supreme Court decision. Tell me you didn't notice. Tell me you don't care about privacy. Tell me it's an April Fools Joke. But please, please, don't tell me you're posting them because you can't get rid of them. It just makes you look silly. The answer is Perl and a competent scripter. Send the data to me after I sign a nondisclosure and I'll clean it for you. It's not that much data anyway.

    For Pete's Sake!

    RP

  9. Hidden email addresses on FTC.GOV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Have a look at the front page of ftc.gov

    If you highlight the section just below Last Updated: Thursday, January 8, 2004 10:05 AM you'll see two "hidden" email addresses (font color set to white.)

    Anyone know what this is about? Spam trap?

  10. Re:Mm, feds. by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You assume the dictator is the same person as the chief. Consider how long some of the current administration heads have been working in the government. My favorite example is Jack Valenti. He gets onto the radar of these young nerds because of recent dealings in the entertainment industry. But how many realize that he'd occupied a position of authority for 4 decades? How many know he was in the JFK motorcade?

    Consider Ashcroft's career. Did you vote for Ashcroft? He had power 8 years ago, and he will probably still have power 8 years hence, even though Mr. Bush will be quietly enjoying his retirement.

    How about Rumsfeld? He didn't just fall off a turnip truck in 2000 either -- he's been pulling strings in Washington DC since the Eisenhower administration! Did you vote for Rumsfeld? Why didn't he disappear after 8 years in the executive team?

    The people fucking up the State are NOT elected, and they do NOT have finite limits on how long they can stay in power. Some of the most important people making some of the most significant decisions in the history of the country, weren't even elected by the people.

    Too bad the misdirection works so well, making everybody point their blame the temp worker who occupies the hot seat while the real power people stay under the radar for decades.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.