Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Chair

[Michael Froomkin <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Aug 09, 1999 at 09:24:26PM +0200, Michael Froomkin wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > This is not a movie.  No one has died, and I hope no one will (although
> > it is not inconceivable that a result of the requirement of open whois
> > is that someone with an unpopular web site will be found and killed;
> > this worries me).
> 
> Does it worry you more than someone running an unpopular newspaper
> being found and killed? And aren't you confusing "web site" and

I don't get this: of course both scenarios worry me the same. 
Oppression is oppression.  What differentiates them, of course, is that
it's nearly trivial to protect the internet publisher and very, very
hard to protect the samizdat publisher. This seems like a feature, not a
bug: We have a technology that offers to remove a great danger faced by
dead tree publishers, and yet we deploy it in a way that undercuts this
advantage.

> "domain name"? Finally, why is this problem not simply solved by
> someone (for example, you) providing an anonymous domain registration
> service? Is it that you would prefer that the domain registrars be

Lots and lots of reasons: liability, ease of access, potential mistrust
on the part of the registrant, potential abuse on the part of the
purposrtedly trusted third party.  Why build a system that needs kludgy
work-arounds when we can build it right to begin with.

Also, what's the default: privacy or not?  I think privacy is a human
right.  It is not absolute, perhaps, but a darn good default.  The DNS
should reflect that default, not require people to go to great efforsts,
and at time additional expense, to exercise their right to privacy.

> the ones who are would be killed, instead of the person actually
> responsible for the material in question?
> 
> > Get a grip.
> 
> OK.
> 
> > What he have here so far is a simple story of various economic
>                                 ************
> 
> I haven't had such a good laugh in a long time...
> 
> > interests trying to make rules that favor them
> > and disfavor consumers, while others seek to preserve a monopoly.
> > Meanwhile, various governments seek to encourage the construction of
> > systems that favor law enforcement and taxation authorities, at the
> > expense of privacy and (in some cases) political freedom.  Various
> > supra-national organizations seek to insert themselves into the process
> > for various high and low minded reasons (in some cases, the source for
> > power and revenue).   The usual complicated mess.
> 
> And you, of course, are the only altruist in the bunch?

No, not the *only* one. ;>  But I don't have any financial interest in
the outcome, if that's what you mean.  One of the nice things about
being a tenured academic is that you have the financial freedom, and
some of the time, to do this sort of thing.  Of course, I recongnize
that one person's altruist is another's fanatic.  But again, that's
life.

-- 
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                -->   It's hot there.   I'm elsewhere.   <--