Works for me.  :-)

As for reducing cybercrime, it's unclear to me just how much of this really
requires special exceptions to due process in piercing the veil of privacy
in the DNS registration system.

The point is not that criminals deserve privacy, but that the rest of us
deserve it, and you can't distinguish up front which registrants may or may
not be a criminal.  IMO, to violate the privacy rights of all of us
preemptively in order to hope to interfere with some cybercriminals earlier
in the enforcement process is a dangerous trade-off.

What we're looking for here is genuine due process as opposed to fake due
process.  It makes a big difference, because the fake kind is importantly
open to abuse, which those of us who don't call the shots (which is most of
us) will come to regret.

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



At 9:53 AM +0700 10/15/11, nhklein wrote:
>Thanks, Dan.
>
>I would even re-phrase your sentence saying "we want to reduce
>cybercrime *while also* protecting free speech " - having some
>experience suffering from both, I would rather prefer to say: "we want
>to protect free speech reduce *while also* reducing cybercrime."
>
>Agreed about this sequence of priorities?
>
>Norbert
>
>
>On 10/15/2011 06:00 AM, Dan Krimm wrote:
>> One may of course respect a diversity of views, but when a single policy
>> requires implementation according to the principles of a single view,
>> there needs to be some resolution of diversity to (if possible) a
>> consensus position.
>>
>> I guess then it would help to define what "as much as possible" means --
>> to me that sounded like "at any cost" (including the unfounded impugning
>> of innocents, since that inevitably will happen if you want to address
>> *all* malfeasance, however defined).
>>
>> If what you really meant was "as much as possible without stomping on the
>> rights of innocents without power" then I would begin to agree with you in
>> principle, though the devil is in the details because there is a trade-off
>> required here.
>>
>> The fundamental question is: how do we want to arrange that trade-off?
>> That is to say, we want to reduce cybercrime *while also* protecting free
>> speech.  To express only one half of this trade-off is to miss the real
>> issue before us, because we cannot have both in perfect degree.
>>
>> The fundamental difference of opinion here seems to be which goal has
>> priority, security or expression?  Ideally we would want "balance" here,
>> but until we can find that balance, how do we proceed in the near term?
>> Personally, I side with Wendy.
>>
>> Best,
>> Dan
>--
>A while ago, I started a new blog:
>
>...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia
>http://www.thinking21.org/
>
>continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia.
>
>Norbert Klein
>[log in to unmask]
>Phnom Penh / Cambodia