First - a disclosure of sorts. I am Konstantinos Komaitis's PhD Student.
"More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers. Perhaps, as JUSTICE ALITO notes, some people may find the “tradeoff” of privacy for convenience “worthwhile,” or come to accept this “diminution of privacy” as “inevitable,” and perhaps not.
I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection.
On 1/23/12, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote:That's right, and it was always the case (until fairly recently) that
> The devilish details will have to be with framing a balancing act
> between privacy and network operations.
to have an Internet resource one was
http://www.icann.org/en/faq/#gltdrules
>
> Which brings me back to a previously unanswered set of questions
> regarding facts crucial to think about the appropriate balance to be
> sought between privacy and network operations.
>
> I asked (with apologies for naivety/ignorance):
>>
>> In the interest of seeing what could be done to alleviate the
>> challenges of network operators, could someone be kind enough to
>> present a digestible summary (or accessible references) that groups
>> the usual things that are sought by operators from registrants when
>> dealing with typical classes of network problems, as well as the
>> purpose for which they are sought after.
"Information about who is responsible for domain names is publicly
available to allow rapid resolution of technical problems and to
permit enforcement of consumer protection, trademark, and other laws.
The registrar will make this information available to the public on a
"Whois" site"
Reasons vary, but can include a multitude of issues, DDOS attacks, DNS
abuse of various kinds, botnet mitigation, blacklisting, zone walking,
etc, etc.
Perhaps
>>
>> Perhaps the possibility of certain actions on account of a registrant
>> (or the possession of certain information) could be transferred to [a]
>> proxy service offering hard anonymity, so that it could cooperate with
>> operators under certain classes of context?
Which balance? today's (which IMHO is skewed towards "privacy") or
> Any ideas on how to preserve the balance, McTim?
that of the earlier halcyon days of the network which were too
transparent for today's tastes (apparently)?
If you use Internet resources you have a responsibility to be
contactable regarding the (mis)use of that resource. We (ICANNistas)
are not ensuring that responsibility is being upheld lately.
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel