@alexross 204178 wrote:
???
I don’t understand the edit.
that info is publicly available via http://www.whois.net/
Yeah I know and it’s kinda borderline with whois, but the more often an address or phone etc is published on the web the more likely it is to be picked up by some weirdo or scraped and killed with spam etc. But then again, publishing whois can be effective to out someone hiding in the shadows and as such is a good tool. So I think we should do this on a “need to know” basis.
I still think thieves should be named and shamed. In this case though he didn’t steal from us but infringed on a program he works with – so it’s their call to name and shame, not ours. If Chipleader wants to publish his details, it’s their prerogative IMO.