[Media/Legal] USA/NJ Making township email list subscribers public

[Andrzej Adam Filip]

https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/11/29/n-j-supreme-court-to-decide-whether-township-email-lists-are-subject-to-public-records-law/

N.J. Supreme Court to decide whether township email lists are subject to public records law
; November 29, 2023 7:05 am
[…] The appeal to the high court comes after nonprofit civil rights
group Rise Against Hate sued Cherry Hill, West Deptford, and
Bridgewater for fighting its 2020 and 2021 public records requests
seeking their lists of email subscribers. The Supreme Court took up
the case after an appellate court ruled in favor of the towns in
March.
The attorneys representing the nonprofit and the towns clashed Tuesday
over whether sharing subscribers’ email addresses would violate
privacy provisions of the state’s Open Public Records Act, and whether
releasing them would advance transparency goals. The justices,
meanwhile, shared concerns about the subscribers’ expectation of
privacy, and whether businesses or harmful entities would gain access
to distribution lists, prompting spam and phishing scams. […]

[tjoen]

Post by Andrzej Adam Filip
https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/11/29/n-j-supreme-court-to-decide-whether-township-email-lists-are-subject-to-public-records-law/

N.J. Supreme Court to decide whether township email lists are subject to public records law
; November 29, 2023 7:05 am
[…] The appeal to the high court comes after nonprofit civil rights
group Rise Against Hate sued Cherry Hill, West Deptford, and
Bridgewater for fighting its 2020 and 2021 public records requests
seeking their lists of email subscribers. The Supreme Court took up
the case after an appellate court ruled in favor of the towns in
March.
The attorneys representing the nonprofit and the towns clashed Tuesday
over whether sharing subscribers’ email addresses would violate
privacy provisions of the state’s Open Public Records Act, and whether
releasing them would advance transparency goals. The justices,
meanwhile, shared concerns about the subscribers’ expectation of
privacy, and whether businesses or harmful entities would gain access
to distribution lists, prompting spam and phishing scams. […]

That group Rise Against Hate wants email addresses? To spam?

[Andrzej Adam Filip]

Post by tjoen

Post by Andrzej Adam Filip
https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/11/29/n-j-supreme-court-to-decide-whether-township-email-lists-are-subject-to-public-records-law/

N.J. Supreme Court to decide whether township email lists are subject to public records law
; November 29, 2023 7:05 am
[…] The appeal to the high court comes after nonprofit civil rights
group Rise Against Hate sued Cherry Hill, West Deptford, and
Bridgewater for fighting its 2020 and 2021 public records requests
seeking their lists of email subscribers. The Supreme Court took up
the case after an appellate court ruled in favor of the towns in
March.
The attorneys representing the nonprofit and the towns clashed Tuesday
over whether sharing subscribers’ email addresses would violate
privacy provisions of the state’s Open Public Records Act, and whether
releasing them would advance transparency goals. The justices,
meanwhile, shared concerns about the subscribers’ expectation of
privacy, and whether businesses or harmful entities would gain access
to distribution lists, prompting spam and phishing scams. […]

That group Rise Against Hate wants email addresses? To spam?

It does not matter what they want it for from my perspective.
I an sure their lawyers can present an innocent enough excuse.
They want to make them publicly available *also for spammers* .

Anyway: I can accepts subscriber list as "a public record"
(with huge negative enthusiasm) *ONLY* if subscribers know it
(have been warned) *BEFORE* subscribing in triple handshake mode.

[danny burstein]

In <anfi+jkidunoiqf-***@wp.eu> Andrzej Adam Filip <***@onet.eu> writes:

[anip]

Post by Andrzej Adam Filip
It does not matter what they want it for from my perspective.
I an sure their lawyers can present an innocent enough excuse.
They want to make them publicly available *also for spammers* .
Anyway: I can accepts subscriber list as "a public record"
(with huge negative enthusiasm) *ONLY* if subscribers know it
(have been warned) *BEFORE* subscribing in triple handshake mode.

I've run into this personally when my e-mail address
was Hoovered from correspondence I sent to a NYC office
a decade ago. I had actually sent paper mail, but
included an e-mail reply option.

When I started getting garbage, they replied that
all this material was, indeed, publicly available
with no expectation of privacy.

(Fortunately I have my own Internet domain and
activate specific addresses, which I can then killl).

I'd *love* to see a decision saying that NOPE, this
quasi private material remains private.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by danny burstein
[anip]

Post by Andrzej Adam Filip
It does not matter what they want it for from my perspective.
I an sure their lawyers can present an innocent enough excuse.
They want to make them publicly available *also for spammers* .
Anyway: I can accepts subscriber list as "a public record"
(with huge negative enthusiasm) *ONLY* if subscribers know it
(have been warned) *BEFORE* subscribing in triple handshake mode.

I've run into this personally when my e-mail address
was Hoovered from correspondence I sent to a NYC office
a decade ago. I had actually sent paper mail, but
included an e-mail reply option.
When I started getting garbage, they replied that
all this material was, indeed, publicly available
with no expectation of privacy.
(Fortunately I have my own Internet domain and
activate specific addresses, which I can then killl).
I'd *love* to see a decision saying that NOPE, this
quasi private material remains private.

There must not be a decision. A state or provincial legislature or
national congress or parliament would have to amend sunshine in
government laws to create this privacy right.

Do we want there to be a privacy right? Are there repurcussions to this?