USA vs. .US

[athelind]

quelonzia and I have our domains registered via Go Daddy, the domain registrar with the best service and the lowest prices. Today, Quel got this e-mail from the company:

Dear Valued Go Daddy Customer,

Today I have the unfortunate responsibility of informing you that there has been a decision made by bureaucrats of a Federal agency that takes away your right to privacy as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

This decision was unilaterally made by the National Telecommunications and Information Association ("NTIA") -- http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ -- without hearings that would determine the impact on those affected, and delivered without notice -- in short, the NTIA decision was made without due process of any kind. This is exactly how our government is not supposed to work.

The effect of this decision is to disallow new private domain name registrations on .US domain names. In addition, if you already own a private .US domain name registration, you will be forced to forfeit your privacy no later than January 26, 2006. By that time, you will need to choose between either making your personal information available to anyone who wants to see it, or giving up your right to that domain name.

I personally find it ironic that our right to .US privacy was stripped away, without due process, by a federal government agency -- an agency that should be looking out for our individual rights. For the NTIA to choose the .US extension is the ultimate slap in your face. .US is the only domain name that is specifically intended for Americans (and also those who have a physical presence in our great country). So think about this for a moment. These bureaucrats stripped away the privacy that you're entitled to as an American, on the only domain name that says that you are an American. I am outraged by this -- you should be also.

If, like me, you are outraged at the NTIA's decision to strip away our constitutional right to privacy, the Web site http://www.TheDangerOfNoPrivacy.com will provide you with a petition to sign. (Only your name will be published, your address and email information will be kept private.) This Web site also provides a very easy way for you to send either a fax or an email, expressing your outrage, to your Congressperson and Senators. This is all provided at no cost to you. All that is required is for you to take the time to visit http://www.TheDangerOfNoPrivacy.com sign the petition, and send the fax or email to your legislators.

On my personal Blog -- http://www.BobParsons.com -- there are a number of articles where you can learn more about the NTIA's unfortunate decision and what you can do to help get it reversed.

I also will be talking about our right to privacy on Radio Go Daddy, our weekly radio show that debuts today, March 30, at 7 PM PST. To find out how to listen in, please visit the Web site dedicated to the show, http://www.RadioGoDaddy.com

You can be sure that I, and everyone at GoDaddy.com, will do everything in our power to get the NTIA decision reversed. However, we need your help. Please visit http://www.TheDangerOfNoPrivacy.com to sign the petition and express your feelings to your Congressperson and Senators.

Sincerely,

Bob Parsons
President and Founder
GoDaddy.com

This sucks -- and Parsons and his company rock hard for bringing this to light.

Comments

[shavastak.livejournal.com]

*sigh* November 2006, you cannot come too quickly. I only hope we can do a decent job of mobilizing people to vote the bastards out of office. Surely there are dissatisfied Republicans all over the country? The party of small government has been betrayed by its own leaders; can that have gone completely unnoticed?

[arcturax.livejournal.com]

The party of small government has been betrayed by its own leaders; can that have gone completely unnoticed?

It can and it has.

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

I'm being contrarian.

But this is a good thing. You have put something out for public consumption. You are doing something in public, not private. A website is not a private thing.

Let's say you, not that you would but for a hypothetical, put on a website that Shavastak was a whoremongering satanist homosexual smoker who diddles young boys.

How exactly is Shavastak going to be able to take action against you if he can't find out who you are?

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Ah, the old "privacy only matters to people who have something to hide" argument.

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

I disagree entirely. This has nothing to do with what is hidden, but what is shown.

You are not engaging in private acts on the World Wide Web, no matter how are you pretend you are. You are in public. It's a privacy issue if if it's a secure site (i.e. https://). But it's not if it's http:// and anyone can see it.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Let's rephrase that as "anonymity only matters to those who have something to hide", then. Does that sum up your view more accurately?

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

Once again no.

Let's restate your theory by similar methods.

"Only people who get in car accidents should have licenses or insurance."

[athelind.livejournal.com]

You're reaching, sir.

Please, clarify the logic behind your "restatement". I see no need to do the same, since the links in the above letter clearly indicate the value and desirability of privacy to individuals uninterested in using their website for defamation or fraud.

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

I am not reaching, because speaking in the privacy of your own home is not the same as speaking in public.

A website is not your house. It is not even a gathering of your friends. A website is a street corner. A website is a news network.

A website is even more powerful than many of those because the information never "disappears" the way a news broadcast isn't shown again or the sound waves eventually break up in the cacophany of competing ones.

You have the right to say whatever you want, whether it be true or false, but you have the responsibility to take ownership of that speech. You have to take it as yours. Without some legislation there is nothing to stop you from avoiding it.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

You seem to be operating according to the all-too-common assumption that, because some individuals may abuse a right, then that right is "too dangerous", and must be revoked.

Thomas Paine originally published "Common Sense" anonymously, and with good reason.

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

No right is being revoked, because what you are doing is not private. There is no privacy because you are being public.

I'd also like to direct you to the link below. It has an image of the original cover to Common Sense, with Thomas Paine's name on it.

http://www.federalobserver.com/words.php?words=1299

[athelind.livejournal.com]

You also seem to be operating under the assumption that the right to privacy and anonymity is limited to one's home.

I find the current assumption that American citizens are obligated to produce identitdy papers on demand from authority figures to be equally egregious, if not more so, than the assault on digital rights.

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

BTW..

What you're probably thinking of (and please feel free to correct me I'm making a conjecture here) is the Federalist Papers.

The Federalis Papers, published 1787-1788, were written by Publius (really a combination of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay) discussing the merits of the Constitution (largely over the Articles of the Confederation). But these were post Revolutionary War.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

I knew the Federalist papers were published anonymously, but I wasn't sure about "Common Sense".

However, I wouldn't have made such a statement without checking Google first. The first edition of "Common Sense" was, indeed, published anonymously.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

If I write a letter to my local newspaper, they will publish it with my name attached. They will not, however, publish all my contact information so that anyone can come by and harass me about my views. Basically, this law appears to make it mandatory that your views come with contact information all the time. It would be like publishing the mailing address of everyone who wrote for a newspaper. (BTW, no, my contact information is not in the phone book. I'm unlisted for some very good reasons.)

I have the right to keep that information private if I want to. I have the right, also, to publicize it if I want to. Forcing someone to make personal, web-based information public is a violation of those rights.

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

Given that the petition site provides no more information than "has disallowed private registrations for .US domain names." and the original poster (Parsons not Athelind) has been decidedli ambiguous on what it means in his own blog, I was forced to go to the links he had.

Quoting from the Wired news article Parsons has on his blog

"The U.S. Commerce Department has ordered companies that administer internet addresses to stop allowing customers to register .us domain names anonymously using proxy services."

So essentially this is not publicizing their information, as you view it, but instead it is forcing them to attach their name. This is making sure Go Daddy has accurate information from people who register with them.

In fact that is what this is really about.. this is about Go Daddy not wanting to take on the cost/lose business from the change. Indeed, if you read further this only applies to .us registrations, you can still register .net, .com, .org, freely with anything you want.

Your information isn't going to be out in public on your domain. But Go Daddy has to have real information if you register through them.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. You raise good points.

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

Well I admit I'm taking some leaps, reasonable I believe, on what the Commerce department is saying.

Parsons only linked to the NTIA's main page, not their actual policy, which leaves me skeptical in two directions, a)the Bush Administration is notoriously tight fisted in what they release so there may be something "bad" in there, b) There isn't anything "bad" in there but Parsons doesn't want you to know it.

If it's as bad as some here have stated.. where your name and address is on every page of a domain.. yes that's a problem. That's something to be concerned about.

If, however, the face value of the Wired article statement is the truth, then I think this more in line with what I'm thinking and is not a bad thing.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

How can Shavastak diddle young boys if she doesn't have a diddler with which to did?

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

Can you confirm or deny the existence of the diddler? :-)

[shavastak.livejournal.com]

I can, and have watched the previous exchange with amusement.

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

So which is it? Flamers are waiting with baited breath? :-)

[shavastak.livejournal.com]

Pyat knows who I am, and he used the proper pronoun. :)

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

Yeah but there's no guarantee that Athelind knows.. ;-)

[shavastak.livejournal.com]

True, although he's probably guessed over the years in the Ironclaw mailing list...

I dunno, maybe not. Athe, did you know I was female?

[athelind.livejournal.com]

It matters?

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

Not really. :-)

[shavastak.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure there are already procedures in place allowing me, should Athelind do such a thing, to ask the police to find out Athelind's identity, which is the way it should be IMO. The police, with warrants and probable cause and all that, can talk to Athelind's service providers and get the information from them.

On the other hand, what's being done here is, to follow the example, Athelind's information being made available to *everyone.* Say some Random Stranger decides that, because Athelind called me a satanist, Athelind's lawn needs a new burning ornament? So they look Athelind up and know his home address! When really, it ought to be between me and Athelind.

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

Because right now Athelind doesn't have to supply that information. I could have, for instance, used completely false information when I signed up for Live Journal. I could have said I live in Nova Scotia with my three cats.

I don't.. but nothing, right now, prevents me from doing that.

So when you come back because I said you were a.. aw hell.. what i used above.. they'll say.. Oh he lives in Nova Scotia, go talk to the RCMP etc and they'll get 'im

[shavastak.livejournal.com]

Ah. Perhaps an intermediate form of legislation is required, then; one that requires you to provide correct information when you set up a website, but not one that makes that information immediately public knowledge.

I agree it's a tricky situation, but I don't like the way they've gone about solving the problem.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

There are procedures like this in place for anyone who knows their way around a computer server. That's how the abortion-doctor-killer, James Kopp, was eventually found and captured. They were tracking his emails, their origins, etc.

[cargoweasel.livejournal.com]

Between this and the new proposed campaign finance reform laws around political speech on weblogs, is it me or is this slope getting awfully slippery around here

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to debate the Campaign Finance Reform Laws assertion because I don't know enough about it.

The above is about taking ownership of your public speech. It is about being a responsible citizen and acknowledging that speech is a very dangerous weapon, see Richard Jewell (I think that was his name) the alleged and Centennial Park bomber who was later exonerated (after losing his job and more).

Speech is a right, but like the right to swing your fists, it ends when it meets someone else's face (or ear, or in the internet eyes).

I live in Maryland (notice.. not Nova Scotia :-)) where a Governor's aide had been spreading unfounded rumors about Baltimore's Mayor enganging in marital infidelity. He happened to be caught, but imagine the power of that if it wasn't?

[lynn-onyx.livejournal.com]

Your full name and home address aren't listed in your LJ user info.

Should we be worried about you?

Should you be required to reveal it to the public?

You know, just in case?

If speech is that dangerous, should anonymous speech even be allowed?

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

They should have the means to obtain the information to confront me upon it. Absolutely.

As to your question on Anonymous speech, anonymous private speech or anonymous public?

Athelind is big on the fourth amendment issues associated with the legislation. And, assuming the general agreement that we're going to take a broad interpretation of said amendment which I'll quote,

"right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause"

Where I believe Athelind and I disagree is whether what is put on the internet belongs to "their persons, houses, papers, and effects,". Athelind believes that what is put on the web is private. I argue, since anyone can see what Athelind puts on the web, it is not.

Meanwhile I bring out the sixth amendment, since we're talking broad interpretations here, where a person is entitled, "to be confronted with the witnesses against him,". In this case, the ability force someone to take ownership of what they write. The ability to challenge it upon the merits of what is written.

A newspaper can be charged with libel because they take ownership of everything they write. A website owner can avoid that by not providing real information.

[lynn-onyx.livejournal.com]

(a) What is your definition of private speech vs. public speech?

(b) What's your constitutional basis for making such a distinction?

(c) There's a proud American tradition of anonymous speech. Do you think that anonymous speech should be banned, therefore, and the government should require all persons making statements to reveal their identities?

To what extent would this provide the government with the tools for quashing dissent, since that is really what the Bill of Rights is about -- putting limitations on government, not granting the government the right to "force someone to take ownership of what they right." (I'm not a lawyer, but I've never heard the 6th amendment as outlawing anonymous speech.)

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

There are good times and bad times to force people to take ownership of what they write.

A good time, for example, would be the situation in my grade 5 class today. Two kids wrote a very derogatory note and left it on another kid's desk. The authors signed the note. When it was brought to my attention, I marched them both down to the office and gave the rest of the class a lecture about being careful what they sign their names to, because if it has your name on it, you can be held accountable for it.

It should be possible to find out who wrote something if the something written was illegal in any way, i.e. slanderous or threatening. It is already possible to do that, usually. It is certainly possible to get warrants to do that. Even threats which are expressed in private are illegal, so nothing has changed there.

The problem I have with this legislation is that it forces people to reveal their identities when they might have very good reasons for hiding them. For example, if an anonymous blog reveals police corruption at high levels, the author who signs his name to it BEFORE it is common knowledge and has been brought to the attention of the authorities who can deal with it, might be putting his life in danger. An extreme example, certainly, but still a valid one.

I use the internet to keep in touch with far-flung friends and family. Why should I have to share that with people who do not need to see it? Should my locked posts, which are locked for very good reasons, be public property? My answer is: I wrote them with the intention that only people I knew and trusted would see them. If you aren't on that list, you have no right to them. Yet this law would say that you do. That is wrong.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

I do not belive that "what is put on the web is private". I do, however, believe that anonymous public speech is an important component of the FIRST amendment rights, and protected by the ELEVENTH amendment. As Lynn says below, the purpose of the rights enumerated in the Constitution is to limit the Government's ability to quash dissent.

I should note further that the issue is not merely whether or not forcing domain holders to reveal their personal information is a violation of the right to privacy. It is the fact that the NTIA unilaterally and sweepingly imposed this ruling without any form of public review or hearing.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

...protected by the ELEVENTH amendment.

Pardon. That should read "NINTH amendment".

[jeffxandra.livejournal.com]

If you're really going to argue the 9th amendment, which by that logic means that a) You can call Shavastak the above, and b) (ignoring the feasability issues) Shavastak is free to be all those things,

Then I'm going to counter with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 which gives Congress the authority, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Unless you live in the same state as Go Daddy (you've got a 1 in 50 shot congratulations) you're engaged in Interstate Commerce when you purchase your domain name. They have the authority (which they have legislated to the NTIA) granted in the Constitution itself to regulate how you do business in such a fashion.

Thus you have, according to the Constitution, no right to privacy in this matter because you are engaged in public commerce.

[quelonzia.livejournal.com]

Something that I discovered while following up on the email I received from Go Daddy (which I forwarded to Athe):

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainhome.htm

I like Go Daddy - they've given us excellent service at an exceptional price...for registering domains.

However, I trust no one...except Athelind. ;)

I mainly forwarded this to Athe as something to chew on. Being informed is better than being armed - you can do more damage. :)