And the solution to counter it is not to better secure the data, but to suggest a second subscription... ironic isn't it?
For the sake of argument, what is ironic about it?
First, we have a scammer, who wants to make money. So he downloads publicly available data and then lies about how he acquired the data to make it seem that he is providing a "valuable" service that people will pay money to use.
Finally, we have a situation where some people think their right to privacy includes keeping the names of their alts private. And in response to that, SDG says: The account-wide ignore function links all the alts to one ID, so if you want to keep the name of your alts private, use different accounts.
So, how is "better securing the data" a solution to people downloading publicly available data, and in what way, shape, or form is any of this ironic?