On Saturday 16 February 2013 15.14, Jørgen Hovland wrote:
<html><body><div>>> The idea that publishing these reports makes abuse of the reporting system less likely - where the attack *is* the publishing of these reports - is laughable.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I prefer not to get my name published on the web referencing something negative like that. </div><div>There are reasons why unverified complaints should never be published in detail: Collateral damage is one. </div><div><br></div><div>>> As a possible compromise, I could accept the publication of reports where the NCC has found that a violation was indeed committed.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Yes, perhaps. I still don't want my name in there.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>>> A big problem I have with reporting something to the police is that you never see if action has been taken, and that gives the feeling that reporting is useless, even when it is not.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I believe the right to privacy is mentioned in the constitution. Even for criminals.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div><br> At 21:23 15/02/2013 (UTC), Sander Steffann wrote:<br>
Could someone resend this in text form ??html is considered "for spammers only" <html spambody snipped> <br>
Not that exciting...<br> <br> Cheers,<br> Sander<br> <br> <br> <br> </div></body></html>
-- Peter Håkanson There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it again ... and again ... and again ... and again. ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )