Just to take this point on the merits:

On Fri, October 14, 2011 12:43 pm, Alain Berranger wrote:
> Can we all agree that there is malfeasance on the Web and that it should
> be brought down as often and as much as possible?

Not necessarily.

One of the enduring realities of any real-world law enforcement regime is
that perfection is not an option.  Either you are going to impugn
innocents or you are going to let malfeasance slip through, or some
combination of both.  The question is one of balance (how many innocents
will you impugn in order to catch how many malefactors?), and usually the
answer to that in a modern democratic system is called "due process" (and
may involve ancillary principles like "innocent until proven guilty"
etc.).

The statement above constitutes a maximalist policy at the extreme, where
innocents will often get caught in the net, creating what might be
considered "unintended consequences" -- or even worse, it may provide
tools to those who hold power to abuse law enforcement privileges and
actively harass innocents, perhaps for political purposes.  The innocents
that will be most affected by this are the ones without power (i.e.,
without money, or friends with money).

We should be seeking to extend these principles to the Internet, not to
undermine them there.

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.