[77137] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Window of "anonym
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland )
Fri Jan 14 07:18:24 2005
To: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, brunner@nic-naa.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:08:37 EST."
<20050113150837.GA1867@gsp.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:16:19 +0000
From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> The current pretense of "privacy" is nothing more than a convenient
> mechanism for registrars to pad their wallets and evade responsible
> for facilitating abuse.
As an aside, I used a (wicked big) competitor's "privacy" service to
regsiter a domain for a political worker who wanted to whistleblow
but not be identified.
My customer could now use a web log service such as Duncan Black did
under the name of "atrios", and obtain casual (but not subpoena-proof)
data protection (non-publication of customer profile data).
Broadly I agree that "privacy" as a product under contract law is not
a better solution than data protection as a right under human rights.
However, data protection isn't as available to all potential registrants.
