On 8/30/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
No. There are plenty of matters on which I
disagree with Jayjg.
But I do believe he means well, and oversight is basically a Good
Thing (TM), quite usefull for protecting privacy. Letting me
know exactly what sort of information is being protected
would defeat the point of protecting it.
Knowing what _sort_ of information is being oversighted is a far cry
from knowing the information itself, I don't see how it defeats the
point. If I were to ask why something was oversighted there's a big
difference between getting the answer "because it contained personal
identifying material" and "it contained the home address of
User:Encyclofreak, who lives at 121 Big Tree Road in Seattle, NV".
To know what _sort_ of gems have been oversighted is, in effect, to
know whether one might, for personal amusement (or gain!), be bothered
to poke around for them in the previous database dump.
—C.W.