<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mentioning someone by name on a web site</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/07/mentioning_some.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/07/mentioning_some.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mmm</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/07/mentioning_some.html/comment-page-1#comment-53109</link>
		<dc:creator>mmm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:40:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/07/mentioning-someone-by-name-on-a-web-site.html#comment-53109</guid>
		<description>Err... that&#039;s a horrible decision. Has it been cited as precedent? On the one hand, I can understand the temptation to read the directive this way: an otherwise non-public person&#039;s private details being made relatively accessible. But on the other, this would seem to encompass too much behavior the privacy directive was not aimed at curtailing. But, then again, it is drafted SO broadly.

Also, the result was really just a slap on the wrist ~$600, why would anyone want to pursue that claim that far?

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Err&#8230; that&#8217;s a horrible decision. Has it been cited as precedent? On the one hand, I can understand the temptation to read the directive this way: an otherwise non-public person&#8217;s private details being made relatively accessible. But on the other, this would seem to encompass too much behavior the privacy directive was not aimed at curtailing. But, then again, it is drafted SO broadly.</p>
<p>Also, the result was really just a slap on the wrist ~$600, why would anyone want to pursue that claim that far?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

