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. […]

--
A. Filip

On 11/30/23 10:46, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
> 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?

tjoen <tjoen@dds.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/30/23 10:46, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
>> 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.

--
A. Filip

In <anfi+jkidunoiqf-nc15@wp.eu> Andrzej Adam Filip <anfi@onet.eu> writes:

[anip]

>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.

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>Andrzej Adam Filip <anfi@onet.eu> writes:

>[anip]

>>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?