By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
burninmylight on 19 September 2013
Edit Thread
Max King of the Wild said:
burninmylight said:

No, it's private information unless and until he makes it public himself, i.e. if he would have said it loud enough for the other customers to hear it. Otherwise, he has a reasonable expectation of privacy that she was threatening. His poor choice of wording in a moment of anger/frustration doesn't change that.

And I can't say whether she's required to give her full name when he demanded it, but I can say that as  a store manager, she represented Gamespot very poorly and unprofessionally. Managers deal with complaints and unhappy customers on a daily basis and have to be ready to present themselves and their credentials all the time. If she really didn't think she did anything wrong, then why wouldn't she give him her information so they could move on? She knew she was out of line, and she knew she would be in big trouble once he got in touch with corporate, hence her unwillingness to comply. The guy filming this who was trying to get laid didn't do her any favors by putting the video online.

Sorry, business cards are not personal. The sole purpose of them is to disseminate information. Also, yes, he did give out his info while surrounded by many people. It would be dilusional to think his information should be kept private while in that enviorment.

I can say she isn't required to give out her last name. She is probably told not to give out her last name. That is why she didn't give it out. Would you want a lunatic with your first and last name? I wouldn't. Her unwillingness to comply? LOL he doesn't even need her name. Come on... you cant be serious

Watch the video again, and show me the part where he shows his business card to the rest of the customers, or gives out any of his PERSONAL information to them. You're so caught up on the part where he says "Public" information to the manager. Wow, he uses the wrong word in a moment of frustration... It doesn't change a damn thing. It is his PERSONAL information that he gave to an employee at a business with the understanding that it would be kept PRIVATE. She violated that trust. Is that such a hard concept to understand?

I work in a public library. I deal with customer records and private information every day. People hand over applications to me every day, along with driver's licenses, state ID cards, and various ways to proof their address (apartment leases, car insurance, check stubs, etc.). I have access to a million different names with phone numbers, addresses, emails and birth dates. By your logic, I'm allowed to then diverge that information with anyone I damn well please because a customer willingly gave it to me, even though it was given to me with the understanding that it would be kept private. If a sexy lady walks in, I can give a guy her name and number if I see him checking her out. If you piss me off, I can give my buddies your name and address to go give you shit at home. I could take your email to stalk you online on your various social networks.

It sounds to me like none of that would be wrong to you, but yet you're the same guy who said, "Would you want a lunatic with your first and last name?". Do you not see the contradiction in your logic? You're saying it's OK for her to be giving out his personal information, but when he demanded her full name, he's the one crossing a line.

As far as whether she's required to give her name as the store manager, I'll have a better idea tomorrow when I ask my boss the policy concerning privacy for store managers.