Re: Vera Wallace: Earthlink "does not outlaw violation of privacy"

In article <3pqkh1$c1s@mars.earthlink.net>, Vera Wallace <vera@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
>> The earthlink people have responded on this one.
>> Vera has had _two_ formal warnings. She has been told that another
>> public "outing" by her would result in her account being terminated.
>>
>
>I wonder. If I have already outed someone on the net - Carroll Houser
>alias Tarla Star - can I post the same information back up here as to her
>address and phone number or would this be considered a violation of the
>rules?
>
>I don't know if anyone realizes it, but I also outed two other people
>around the same time as Houser.
I don't know Vera. I think perhaps that the best way to find out is by cross-posting to some of the other newsgroups, so I've crossposted to alt.current-events.net-abuse and news.admins.net-abuse.misc in order to get the views of some of the more experienced net administrators and activists.

A bit of background here. Vera is a member of the Church of Scientology. Many of you will know about the Co$'s war against the net. They are currently engaged in a war of intimidation against people who post to alt.religion.scientology, which has included hiring private investigators to intimidate the 72 year old mother of one poster, sueing another and in this instance, digging up hard-to-find personal information about another female poster (who had taken steps to secure her own privacy) which was then posted to the net by Vera.

Vera's service provider has had frequent complaints about these issues and claims he has 'warned' Vera about her actions. However, Vera posts from earthlink.net - a site that is owned and run by a scientologist, that has a scientologist as a sys admin, that has registered all of the domain names for the Church of Scientology and many believe is actually a Co$ 'front' business, largely owned by the cult.

Here, Vera repeats her violation of netiquette, despite her 'warning' and her full awareness of the meaning of her actions. One is forced to conclude that she knows full well that earthlink.net is not going to pull her account for this action. My question, in addition to Vera's, is this:

Is it not about time that the net began to regard earthlink.net as a rogue site? Given what is known about the Church of Scientology, it's use of intelligence gathering and it's ongoing attempts to stamp out free speech by those critical of the Co$, can the net really afford to have data routed through earthlink?

Is it not also time to alert potential customers of earthlink about the type of organization that they are supporting?

Comments please?

-- peter@petermc.demon.co.uk "cool as fuck"

"the first amendment protects my right to ridicule, spit on,