Karl Auerbach wrote:
On 01/18/2010 01:20 AM, Derek Smythe wrote:
Karl Auerbach wrote:
On 01/17/2010 07:58 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
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.
So, just so I understand, you think that there is a non-zero chance that pillz spam is advertising legal prescription drugs, and 419 spam is offering a legitimate business opportunity?
If a situation seems obvious then it ought to be easy to prove by evidence before an impartial trier of the fact. Judges and juries aren't so blind that they would take a great deal of time to bring a guilty verdict.
So why the rush to condemn on mere accusation?
And who's going to pay the court costs?
And who is going to pay the damage of vigilantism to the innocent who are harmed?
vigilantism? Pardon me, I have helped numerous victims become aware of their details being used in ID fraud. I have helped a bank identify the perpetrator where they we going to go after a US citizen.
Who is paying today for the damages, emotional and financial, that accrue through today's privacy busting "whois".
Sure, good law enforcement costs money. But we have become stingy and opposed to taxes. Is it fair to complain that we gotten exactly what we (didn't) pay for?
Does LE react to each and every spam/scam? No.
If it is high on your community's priority then your community can adjust law enforcement's priorities and pay the costs.
We do take care of our issues. Right now we have people committing identity fraud registering domains with US citizens details at a registrar in Australia. Then the party layers it with privacy whois. The only problem was that in two linked scams, one domain used a .US domain. The rest is history. However, you may wish to read up on the EFCC - not my country and the only reason certain parties can still run around brazenly stealing identities and credit card details of your fellow American US citizens and registering domains with them.
Add to that the jurisdiction issue. The issue does not always end on the shores of the USA. It is extremely easy to sometimes trace the perpetrators sitting safely in another country. In fact they brazenly advertise on the net (and no, it's not a joe job).
Let me get this straight - in order to ram a vigilante noose onto a foreigner who is merely accused you want to violate the privacy of internet user?
If you believe that the legal system, particularly the international legal system, is slow, unresponsive, or expensive then the solution is to find ways to speed it up, make it respond to your community's concerns, and reduce the cost, not to create a new Committee of Public Safety with every one of us a Robespierre sending those we accuse, without trial, to Madame Guillotine?
Not "my" community ...
You could argue the brand owners must press charges.
Those of us who have trademarks (myself included) tend to be among the more affluent and we have access to lawyers and a mildly mature system to obtain foreign response to our complaints.
Those who have trademarks have no elevated right that allows them to run roughshod over the rights of others.
Could I suggest we pass ten spams and/or scams to you and you show us how you handle it as per your processes and then we measure it's effectiveness?
This isn't about spam, it is about every self-justifying cowboy penetrating all of our privacy.
No - I am saying that you also take responsibility via your defined acceptable channels for resolving ten issues. We are representing the users after all. So do you accpt the challenge or not?
Again and again history has shown us that sacrificing justice on the altar of expediency often leads to very unpleasant effects vastly worse than the original problem.
So I guess then their is no cure for an issue that starts at the time of domain registrations (unverified domain registrations - provention vs cure) and we should just give up and sacrifice the casual user to each and every internet miscreant. I think not! Derek