Lucy Caldwell, controversial Crimson columnist, recently got herself in the spotlight when she used her facebook.com credentials to reveal to the world that Rudy Giuliani's 17 year old daughter used to be part of a Barack Obama facebook group. She's since been kicked off facebook, aparently, for violating the ToS.
I've been reading blogs today, and man are people pissed. Here's a write-up of the whole thing that's gotten popular on digg.
The slime merchant at Slate, which started this scandalous behaviour, Lucy Morrow Caldwell, has the headline “Daddy Dearest: Rudy Giuliani’s Daughter is Supporting Barack Obama.” This pathetic excuse for a journalist even pasted a picture from the girl’s web site with her “story”. Here is what she left out. The girl didn’t want publicity and has not expressed any position publicly. She is a minor. She even used a different last name to avoid publicity. You wouldn’t know this since caustic Caldwell never mentioned that the girl was trying to keep her life private. She referred only to the girl using a slight variation of her name. How slight? You decide if the difference between Giuliani and .... Rose G is only slight. That is a big variation not a slight one. Ms. Caldwell is as honest as she is ethical. Slate took the page and blurred the last name making it hard to see that she intentionally used a different last name to avoid publicity and covering up the fact that the variation was not slight, as claimed by Caldwell.I hate that internet assholes everywhere are calling Caldwell names like bimbo and whore, and I think exposing her personal information was... well, actually, I'm having trouble on that one. It was bad. But it's a little bit funny. But it was bad.
Anyway - what do people think about this? Did Caldwell have a right to expose information visible to 40,000 people to 400 million people? Did the FreeStudents blog have a right to highlight information that was already publicly accessible on the internet in retaliation?