[At-Large] Impressions from the Whois-Review
evan at telly.org
Mon Jan 31 23:11:50 UTC 2011
On 31 January 2011 16:53, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> > It's only become that way because privacy advocates want
> > to obfuscate domain ownership (using proxies, etc) in such a way that
> > require intervention through law-enforcement methods (ie, court orders).
> I would not call that obfuscation. I would call it protecting our rights.
"Our" meaning registrants, at the expense of the rights of end-users. I get
> And why shouldn't due process be required?
Why should it?
Why should law enforcement -- and the need to acquire legal assistance (ie,
$$) be a requirement of getting in contact with someone who may have done
something as simple as a small factual error or as major as call for you to
be killed (hate crime is not recognized in all jurisdictions)?
Why shouldn't third parties who are not law enforcement be able to verify
the accuracy of the information provided?
> By law in many countries, my telephone number and address are private and
> there is no way i can be forced to tell them to the world as a private
> individual unless the court agrees that there is a good reason.
In most of these same countries, contact information for corporations, NGOs,
trademark owners and registered business names are publicly searchable. I've
used some of these search facilities myself. Some require payment for the
search but none requires law enforcement support.
Most governments and people can understand the distinction between the level
of rights afforded individuals and the rights given disembodied entities. In
this debate, it seems that advocates for registrant privacy deliberately
blur the distinction.
The key is to make sure that registrants give accurate info and that proxy
> operators and registrars respond to lawful due process.
How will you deal with bad actors who go jurisdiction shopping, seeking
environments for registrars and/or proxies where due process is so
prohibitively expensive as to be effectively impossible to all but the rich?
More information about the At-Large