But the Court said, "Based on the plain meaning of the relevant terms discussed above, private registration for the purpose of concealing the actual registrant’s identity would constitute “material falsification.” makes it illegal. "
WRONG. Why don't you quote the entire article ? What the Court said was within the context of the case and in response to the defendant attorneys stupid argument about material falsification in relation to the constitutional vagueness of some terms and how the Court interpretation of those terms would affect innocent people. The Court exactly said: "[15] Defendants also argue that the definition of “material falsification” renders § 1037 unconstitutionally vague specifically as to whether it would criminalize private registration of a domain name. As testified to at trial, private registration is a service that allows registration of a domain name in a manner that conceals the actual registrant’s identity from the public absent a subpoena. We fail to perceive any vagueness on this point. Based on the plain meaning of the relevant terms discussed above, private registration for the purpose of concealing the actual registrant’s identity would constitute “material falsification.” Defendants assert that many innocent people who privately register without the requisite intent may be subject to investigation for violation of § 1037 until their intent can be determined, allowing for abuse by enforcement authorities. This may be so, but it does not make the statute unconstitutionally vague. As we recently noted, “ ‘[w]hat renders a statute vague is not the possibility that it will sometimes be difficult to determine whether the incriminating fact it establishes has been proved; but rather the indeterminacy of precisely what that fact is.’ ” Shales, 546 F.3d at 973 (quoting Williams, 128 S. Ct. at 1846). While determining as a factual matter whether the requisite intent for culpability under § 1037 exists may prove difficult, this does not demonstrate that the concept of intent as used in the statute is an entirely indeterminate, subjective one. Hence, the problem Defendants identify is irrelevant to the vagueness inquiry. " Hence, again you can not take just a sentence out of context and from 35 pages and create a blank statement saying "makes it illegal", CAN-SPAM does not said that, the Court Order after the trial does not said that and the response to the appeal does not said that. The defendants' argument is as stupid as when during trial the defense attorney argued for a new trial because they complained that one of the jurors that ended being the jury foreman was looking too much in the direction of the prosecutor's table and computer. You have to put this entirely in the context of the case, these two crooks engaged in an illegal biz before CAN-SPAM, intentionally they tried multiple times and via multiple means to conceal their identity and obfuscate any records pointing to them, they committed fraud and money laundering, they were very aware of how CAN-SPAM was going to affect their biz and with clear intentions (at this instance you also can say "criminal intentions") they increased their efforts to isolate their practice from US law, they provided false statement, they impersonated other people, they obstructed the investigation, they intimidated people. I don't believe it was very difficult for the prosecutors to present the case and for the jury to reach a decision, and they got convicted. Obviously they appealed the conviction and tried to play the unconstitutional trick, it didn't work, they also tried the clerical and procedural error trick, it didn't work either. The Court of Appeal not only affirmed the conviction it remanded it since they had to follow procedure and investigating the claim that there was an error they remanded to correct the error changing three of the counts to felonies instead of a misdemeanor. In summary, no the Court didn't say that keeping your WHOIS data private is illegal. Stop looking for flying pigs or excuses to defend a particular set of interests within ICANN, it's despicable. Got to go, my alien ship is departing. Cheers Jorge