[At-Large] 9th Circuit Court ruling on ICANN Contract.

Karl Auerbach karl at cavebear.com
Sun Jan 9 23:31:40 UTC 2011

On 01/09/2011 02:49 PM, Derek Smythe wrote:

> Let us do a quick reality check:

> http://www.mediaon.com/Real-Whois-Protection

>> 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 website.)

> 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.


More information about the At-Large mailing list