Wednesday, June 12, 2002, 3:10:12 PM, Robert L Mathews wrote: > At 6/12/02 12:35 PM, Derek J. Balling wrote:
>>I'm still not convinced that the registrant - a tenant of a shared >>namespace - has any NEED of privacy. There does not yet to seem to be >>a demonstrated need for such, thus making this statement as a factual >>statement and not just an opinion would be unwarranted. > I have to strongly disagree with this statement. > Nobody has to demonstrate a "need" for privacy. Confidentiality of > personal information is a fundamental right and a reasonable default > assumption. It is the law of many countries (you'll note that the .uk > WHOIS does not reveal contact information), and even in the United > States, which has weaker privacy laws, courts have long held that > government must keep the records of individuals private unless there is a > compelling societal interest served by making the information public. An incorrect assumption. Property ownership records are public, and ANYONE can search them. Companies even purchase bulk access to the data from the county hall of records and sell access to their combined databases with advanced search options. -- Best regards, William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- OpenSRS installation and customizations Payment Processing Integration Apache Installation and Support Services http://www.wxsoft.com/
