[PC-NCSG] PPSAI comment ready for endorsment

[Edward Morris]

Hi,

I'm sorry for getting to this late, appreciate all of the hard work put
into the document, but I have trouble endorsing a statement that "strongly
supports" a requirement that places registrants in a position of having,
without a court order,  to chose between surrendering their free speech
rights (domain name) or their personal data. I hardly think we should be an
enthusiastic about a position that could, for example, force a domestic
violence victim to lose his or her domain name linked to a page about
 abuse rather than reveal his or her name to his or her abuser,  or force
someone who supports LGBT rights from losing his or her domain name linked
to LGBT rights, or anything else for that matter, rather than reveal his or
her identity and location.

If I've misstated the situation please correct me. I recognise that this
might be better than the alternative but I don't think it is something we
should "strongly support". As someone with an active restraining order
against an ex I would hate to be placed in a situation where I would have
to lose my domain name rather than reveal my personal data to a third
party. One does not go through a process of being issued a new government
identity numbers, getting court orders restricting release of drivers
license and passport  information to LEA, changing portions of ones name,
to then be forced to chose between safety and speech. Although it may be
better than the alternative under this completely reckless attempt by LEA
to shred online privacy, it still is a choice I don't believe we should
endorse. If I'm wrong please tell me why - I stand ready to be educated.

Thanks,

Ed





On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

>  I apologize to all, I was delegated to do a final cleanup edit and I have
> just done that.  I am doing a last re-check of the document to make sure we
> did not miss anything.  Kudos to Kathy and James for doing the heavy
> lifting on this set of comments.  I have made two rather substantive
> recommendations....I do not think we should even think of compromising on
> the issue of commercial/non-commercial, we are winning that battle with the
> petitions so no need to concede any ground.  We need to be ready for a
> battle royal when we get back in committee, as the IPC are still
> complaining about astro-turfing.....and are likely doing some of their own
> by now.
> cheers Stephanie
> PS comments on the website now up to 10680, but the last 20 or so appear
> to be bogus....can we figure out who is doing what??  I would hate to have
> a really good campaign tarnished by some kind of trolls...
>
> On 2015-07-01 7:55, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
>  Hi everyone,
>
>  we got the comment for  Privacy/Proxy Accreditation Services
> Issues  report ready for review and endorsement, it is also ready to get
> individual signatories to give it more wieght.
> the deadline for submission is 7th July so we should review it within next
> days before that date .
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/15zxapM4tA7fOUVd7f_7Syyn-f-k4Pj-iLRcQYGKsbys/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>  this is work done the 3 active members of the WG James, Kathy and
> Stephanie.  thanks for their leadership here and all their efforts to raise
> the concerns and awareness about the report outcome.
>
>
>  Best Regards,
>
>
>  Rafik
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150705/99955c03/attachment.html>