[At-Large] FW: Withdraw the gun database
h.raiche at internode.on.net
Sun Jan 20 00:11:47 UTC 2013
I am hesitant to buy into this, but this should not be about the privacy of owning guns versus the privacy issues involved in Whois data.
The 2nd amendment was all about the colonists protesting (finally rebelling) against a government regime where - as English colonists, which they were - they did not have the same rights that those who lived in England had. (as an aside, many of the Dutch living in what was then New Holland finally sided with the colonists because their only rights in relation to their Dutch overlords was as shareholders in a company run out of Rotterdam). Thus the famous ride of Paul Revere and the 2nd amendment, once the colonists managed to rid themselves of the overlords. So - please - it was about a situation in a colony where the locals did not have the rights they now have as citizens of the USA. So VERY different - both in the kinds of guns that the 2nd amendment was designed to protect over 200 years ago and the VERY different situation now - both in the nature of the guns being protected, and the rights of citizenship that were not available to the colonists then, but are now.
DIFFERENT QUESTION please about domain names. The Final Whois Review Team report explicitly recognises the tension between legitimate needs to access Whois data and the equally legitimate right of individuals to privacy. What is being developed by the IETF is the WEIRDS protocol which, amongst other things, will allow differentiated access to Whois data. This will allow those who want to exercise their legitimate right to privacy to do so, while also allowing those with particular need to access that data (particularly law enforcement agencies) to gain access. There are still issues in defining both the agencies that qualify as LEAs, and the process for access. But the principle is there - a balance between legitimate rights to privacy - against the equally legitimate need of those to gain access.
And please - no more about guns vs domain names
On 20/01/2013, at 10:49 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> On 01/19/2013 12:54 PM, Bill Silverstein wrote:
>>> On 01/19/2013 11:43 AM, Bill Silverstein wrote:
>>>> Which amendment to the constitution provides for the right to have
>>>> domain names?
>>> The First.
>>> Moreover the right to speech is found in many similar Constitutioal
>>> statements of rights around the world, which is something that one can
>>> not say about militias and infringement on bearing arms.
>> Having or the lack of having a domain name does not impact speech. There
>> are many services which allow one to publically speak on the internet
>> without a domain name.
> Really? It seems, therefore, that you would accept being banned from
> the internet because you would still have the opportunity to stand on
> the street corner and shout words into the wind?
> The point still stands, if the ownership of instrumentalities of great
> bodily harm (guns) is worthy of privacy protection than logic compels
> the conclusion that ownership of non-lethal instrumentalities such as
> domain names are worthy of even greater privacy protection.
> One can not consistently simultaneously argue for the current wide open
> WHOIS and sealed ownership of firearms.
> Only if one supports a privacy protected WHOIS can one consistently
> argue for privacy protected lists of gun ownership.
> 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