On 01/09/2011 11:04 AM, Derek Smythe wrote:
How can you put all the responsibility and risk on one party, yet have no risk on the other side for those pill spammers/money mules/....
The argument you are making is one that essentially says "because there is a danger that some actors might use their free speech rights to do things that I do not like that, therefore, we must remove the 'free' from 'free speech'." I do not accept accusations as proof that a person is "spammers/money mules/". I kind of prefer accusation to be merely a first step in a process. Given events of the last few days in which people have been killed or shot for expressing opinions I see a greater need than ever to assure that those who use the internet to be able, if they chose, to have privacy protections that may be broken only upon fair procedures - certainly not on mere accusation (or, as today, mere curiosity.) Personally I'd have wished that I could have added to my list of steps that the accuser's statements and evidence be weighed by a human magistrate. But I left that out in a bow to speed over fairness. Was it you who mentioned law enforcement? I always forget to mention that parallel to the process I outline that there are other procedures available to law enforcement and governmental authorities; I generally assume that those exist and transcend the kind of private mechanisms that exist under ICANN. And I generally assume (increasing, it seems, incorrectly) that these law enforcement and governmental procedures honor some sort of due process. --karl--