On 12/23/2010 03:31 PM, Bill Silverstein wrote:
On 12/22/2010 10:40 AM, Bill Silverstein wrote:
It is not vigilante justice to know the identity of the owner of a domain name.
Oh yes indeed it is. It is most definitely vigilante action to take away the right of an accused - merely on the basis of that accusation. In this case the rights are those of privacy and due process.
Oh no. You are inserting a right here where there is none. The right to privacy regarding the ownership of a domain name. Anonymous speech does not equate to anonymous domain name registration.
That makes no sense - people have a Federal Constitutional right to privacy - See Griswold v Connecticut. The method you are espousing takes that right, runs it through the shredder, and dismisses the loss on the basis that the ends justify the means.
The registration of a domain requires the owner of the domain to correctly identify oneself to the public when registering the domain name.
"requires" - sez who? A non-responsive answer would be "a self-proclaimed regulator such as ICANN". Self-proclaimation hardly constitutes a legitimate form of "requires". Otherwise I could hereby proclaim myself as the emperor of the universe - with equal legitimacy. --karl--