[At-Large] 9th Circuit Court ruling on ICANN Contract.
icann-list at sorehands.com
Mon Jan 10 00:05:56 UTC 2011
I have no objection to them doing this, if they are liable as the
> On 01/09/2011 02:49 PM, Derek Smythe wrote:
>> Let us do a quick reality check:
>>> We never ask for any personal details except an email address
>>> (which can be created anonymously like www.SecMail.in). Accounts
>>> are setup using usernames that are randomly generated. There will
>>> be no whois information if someone does a search on your domain
>>> name. We will not even show anyone the email address you signed up
>>> with. We accept a number of easy payment providers including
>>> accepting cash by post which gives you 100% anonymity.
> You missed an example even more close at hand:
> (It's still an unimplemented concept; there's no engine behind the
>> As for law enforcement, yes, I was the one that mentioned them.
>> For a minute, remember the world does not end on US shores
> A fact for which many people are thankful.
> We seem to be engaged in a game in which the needs of "law enforcement"
> are being used as an excuse to open personal data to everyone, law
> enforcement or not.
> Here in the US law enforcement bodies are hindered by some things we
> call the Fifth and Sixth amendments. Private people are not. If we are
> going to use the argument that "law enforcement" needs trump everything
> than perhaps here in the US we ought to dispense with the those
> constitutional provisions and let law enforcement act with the same
> unhindered abandon as private actors.
> Instead we compensate by giving law enforcement bodies special powers
> and procedures, procedures that are constrained by 'due process' limits,
> that are not available to private actors.
> As a consequence of these kinds of differences it is not a valid
> argument to use the needs of law enforcement to bootstrap the
> penetration of privacy by private actors.
>> The days when there was trust on the net is long gone and the
>> proportion of bad actors is growing, that small minority making it
>> bad for all.
> The road you are stepping onto is one that would shackle all speakers,
> whether on the internet or not.
> I am not disagreeing with you on many of the points you are making - but
> I am saying that those who accuse another must be subject to a process
> that gives the accused the presumption of innocence and a fair forum in
> which the accusation and defense may be measured.
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large