On 11/25/2011 07:27 PM, Bill Silverstein wrote:
I don't think that Karl is being paid, but is misguided.
If my dislike of vigilante methods is "misguided" then I am very, very glad to be misguided.
"vigilante" - a private individual who legally or illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker. From Oxford English Dictionary. Karl, you are misusing the term vigilante. The identification of a wrongdoer is not punishment of the wrongdoer. My using whois information as one part of the identification of a spammer so as to file lawsuits against spammers is not extrajudicial. My using whois information to gather information on a spammer, sufficient to bother law enforcement authorities is not vigilantism.
And I am very sad to learn that those who are, what is the opposite of "misguided"? "guided"? .. That those who are "guided" apparently believe that everyone not waving their flag is a presumptive criminal who deserves no protection or rights.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Why do you shy from a procedure in which those who accuse would be required to identify themselves, to be required to state their accusal, and be required to provide at least a modicum of proof to support that accusal? Because they are not accused. Because given the ease of having multiple domain name names, and that having to do this for each domain name is impracticable. This is moreso true where there is no requirement for validating this information, except in China.
Why do you shy from a principle which has been one of the foundation stones of western concepts of justice for centuries?
You are misstating the principal. As stated before, there are many places where there are requirements of compelled disclosure when securing the exclusive property rights rights, creating a new company, having a publicly traded company.