[At-Large] 9th Circuit Court ruling on ICANN Contract.
icann-list at sorehands.com
Wed Dec 22 18:40:26 UTC 2010
> On 12/22/2010 09:33 AM, Bill Silverstein wrote:
>>> On 19 Dec 2010, at 19:51, Derek Smythe wrote:
>>> Yes we all know there are criminals out there, but there are plenty of
>>> other ways to get to them other than WHOIS of a domain name.
>> Ok. How? And why should there be a need?
>> If you buy a house, but put it under my name to avoid a judgment against
>> you, can you cry when the IRS (the US taxing authority) seizes the house
>> because my outstanding tax bill?
> Are we going to become an internet of vigilante justice?
It is not vigilante justice to know the identity of the owner of a domain
> One can always construct a case to justify the destruction of privacy,
> particularly the privacy of natural people. And for each of those cases
> there are probably thousands of counter examples that are never uttered.
> Civil plaintiffs and criminal prosecutors ought to be required to
> initiate proper judicially overseen discovery or obtain proper
> subpoenaes and warrants asking "whose your daddy". Unless they do they
> don't, at least in my book, get much credit for arguments that privacy
> gets in their way.
The problem is, especially when trying to track spammers, is that is this
a misguided bad actor sending spam from advertising one site, or is this
a criminal organization sending advertising for thousands of sites?
While both may be in violation of the law(s), the efficient use of
resources would be to go after the criminal organization. If you cannot
determine the difference, ie. using the proxy services, it impedes
enforcement. If your wallet was stolen, would the police do anything more
than take a report? Now, if your wallet was stolen by the same person who
stole 50 other wallets, would the police take action?
> I've heard too many internet vigilantes justify the metaphoric noose
> because proper procedure and trial would be too slow and troublesome.
How is having the court holding the registered domain name holder (the
proxy service in this case) liable be considered vigilantism?
What is the purpose of section 188.8.131.52 if it is not to hold the registered
name holder (the proxy service) liable for the use of the domain name, if
they have provided some evidence to the proxy service that the domain name
is being used for illegal activity?
> I'm all for hanging the evil doers high - see
> http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000236.html - but only after
> proper and fair process.
> 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