On 01/17/2010 01:47 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Well, I have to admire your dogged creativity in defending the privacy rights of criminals
What I object to is the leaping to the conclusion that someone is a criminal and thus, without any process or third party review, stripping that person of fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment protections. In our US Constitutional system the proper path is for a search warrant that specifically describes the place and scope of the search to be issued by a court of competent jurisdiction and upon evidence of probable cause that a crime has been committed. One of the problems with the ICANN system is that it is a proxy for police action but does so without the Constitutional protections that guide police activity. We've already seen how enforcement bodies, such as the FTC, that perfectly well know how to obtain subpoenas, get lazy and use ICANN and whois to operate outside Constitutional constraints. You might think spammers are bad. They are. But governmental police powers exercised without controls are much, much worse. I'd rather have spammers than Oceania (from Orwell's 1984). --karl--