Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

George,

With respect,
I think you have it backwards.
Society is not where someone enumerates all the rights and whatever is 
not on the list....you have to fight for.
Its the opposite.
Society is an aggregation of people and other entities...who decide by 
majority or force of someones bigger guns, or whatever...to agree to 
certain limitations on the basic right to do whatever you want.

If you start by framing the discussion about the 'right to privacy' as 
something you have to fight for...you may as well argue about:
the right to breathe
the right to have sex
the right to own ugly pets
etc

Society puts limits on our rights...when...it is necessary.
So you should be talking about 'the right to take away the right to 
privacy' cause...we already have it...(except in limited exceptions 
already dictated by law). In general, you have no right to know what I 
had for dinner, normally. but there are exceptions...right?  If there 
were a spread of food poisoning....or some other consideration, public 
policy might dictate that you...or someone wearing a particular *hat* or 
role..might have a right to that information.  But in general, no.

Now if you frame it that way...
what economic value do you place on the right to take away my privacy? 
Name the annual dollar benefit and identify who else would benefit and 
how it would over alll ...benefit our society?
Can you do it this way?





George Kirikos wrote:

>Hello,
>
>--- Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>The legal system has been able to deal (albeit sometimes slowly) with
>>anonymous and hidden identies.  Essentially the one who claims that
>>his/her rights are being infringed initiates a legal proceeding that
>>    
>>
>
>I have to agree with Marilyn's position, and disagree with others who
>seem to expect an "absolute" privacy right. The above is pushing the
>costs of the desire by some for privacy onto the victims, and
>protecting the perpetrators.
>
>Pragmatically, those who legitimately seek greater privacy, because
>they want to protect their children, or for other reasons, and find
>their privacy "priceless" can go for Domains By Proxy, or other
>solutions. Some may say that this is one more step of indirection, and
>they want to "control" their domain, but they don't -- they already go
>through a registrar, and in many cases a reseller, and then through a
>registry, which is beholden to ICANN, which is ultimately created by
>the US government, so they're 4 or 5 steps away from "control". Adding
>one more step only hurts their pocketbook by a couple of bucks a year.
>
>So, for those who are arguing for greater privacy:
>
>1) What economic value do you place on that privacy? Name the annual
>dollar benefit you think you'd receive if you didn't have to publish
>your personal info in the WHOIS, compared to the status quo.
>
>2) a) If that value is greater than the premium charged by Domains by
>Proxy, etc., what's the big deal? Why should others (society at large)
>have to suffer increased legal costs, and other problems, due to your
>personal desire to save a couple of bucks?
>b) If that value is less than the price of Domains by Proxy, then you
>have no leg to stand on, i.e. privacy isn't really important to you.
>
>Amongst those who value "privacy" the most are those who seek to commit
>abuse on the net (others have legitimate desires too, but they can go
>for 2.a)). The abusers wouldn't last long as Domains by Proxy would
>become responsible for their activities, so they'd be shut down, or
>revealed.
>
>So, ultimately, folks who want greater privacy should show:
>
>1) that the social costs of greater abuse, legal costs, greater
>uncertainty over who one is dealing with, etc. due to that proportion
>of "privacy seekers" who will abuse their hidden identities are
>outweighed by the benefits of extra privacy.
>
>2) Since the benefits of extra privacy can be achieved by low cost
>mechanisms such as Domains by Proxy, where there is a published and
>responsible legal entity (or through publication only of a "Legal
>Contact", which I've argued for before), why society at large should
>pick absolute privacy, over this existing mechanism? 
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>http://www.kirikos.com/
>
>P.S. The whois.txt stuff was unrelated to privacy, as it was entirely
>optional, just another way to help others who want to be "found" build
>connections with others.
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca



--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html