>>>Yes, I've read that. It was ridiculously easy to get into his account and Andy should have not been so quick to imply she got his password via her privileges at the UT when he had such an easily guessable, completely laughable password. However, the concerns were raised and Michel - as far as I know - has failed to address them. To me, that indicates a disregard for his users.
>>>
>>
>>Another administrator has indicated that user passwords are only viewable by Michael (if that).
>>
>>Naomi no longer has administrative access.
>>
>>Sounds like the major points are addressed/handled.
>>
>>Works for me.
>
>Yeah, I knew that Martin (I think) had said that. I was not aware that Naomi's admin rights were removed. Where did you see that? The main thing is that Michel seemed to just blow off all these questions and has not to my knowledge directly addressed them. We've gotten information second-hand and that is not very professional or courteous on his part.

In this day and age you may not wish to create a thread or eMail that has not been approved by your attorney. Even then you could have a problem! :)

Last week I went to a new doctor (new to me). I had to fill out the customary half dozen forms including one related to "disclosure of information". After getting to the end of the document (two pages long), there was a disclaimer to the effect that the doctor could use the information as he wished and did not have to notify the patient. I do not think that we have many rights when it comes to security of any type. We have expectations and that is about all. :)