Scott Adams has a Clearview investor on his podcast (ep. 798). Tone deaf really doesn’t adequately describe this investors level of concern about critics. When I was a teenager I once asked a musician what he thought of a certain store for musical instruments, his response is that he supposed someone has to sell peavy gear but he certainly wouldn’t want to see the special room in hell reserved for such a person. That’s kind of how I feel about involuntary biometrics.

Your friend was not very smart. Peavy gear is phenominal made in USA stuff, just not pimped by any popular rock bands. Tone deaf indeed.

You’re right I shouldn’t pick on a company like that but the conversation would have been meaningless if I had just said he’d been referring to a USA musical company without musician endorsements.

Would it be a good idea to capture all the investors names, address, photos, etc. and put them online for all to see?

That seems illegal, which illustrates the point well enough already.

Legally? Maybe not. But ethically and morally? Hell yes!

We need a Robin Hood of privacy. Extralegal justice for the common people, for whom official channels are contemptuous.

What if you were mistakenly or maliciously targeted?

If you wish to avoid vigilante justice, you need to provide something better. The government is meant to handle matters like this to protect anybody who might be wrongly accused, but the government is abdicating their duty to do so. When the government abdicates their duty to the common people, the common people have a moral and ethical right to take matters into their own hands.