On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 22:12 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 05:11:01PM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote: > > > > i fully agree that generally an opt-in system is better, but in this > > case it is far more complicated to implement, and it's not really > > anything big that we are talking about here. if you want to hide where > > you are living from the public, you'll have a lot bigger problems than > > this entry that you can edit yourself. > > > > so the question should be more like "do you really have a problem if > > this field would be public"... > > Some people are not comfortable with having that kind of information > easily available on the Internet. The default must be opt-in, or not > at all. While I wholeheartedly agree that the d-d's coordinates and/or address should only be public on an opt-in basis, what about city or region. For example: Greater Boston, San Fran Bay Area, London, etc. That's non-specific, but is specific enough that if a $USER happens to be traveling to $CITY, and sees that a d-d lives there, "Hey, I'll be in $CITY next week. Let me buy you a pint or 3 in thanks for your hard work." -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. The enemy thinks and plans and strategizes, too.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part