Comments on: CCR Symposium: Practical Aspects of IP Logging http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/ccr_symposium_w.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:18:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Privacy Source » Identifying John Doe: It might be easier than you think http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/ccr_symposium_w.html/comment-page-1#comment-67748 Privacy Source » Identifying John Doe: It might be easier than you think Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:26:29 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/04/ccr-symposium-practical-aspects-of-ip-logging.html#comment-67748 [...] the picture was very grim for would-be plaintiffs, writing that it should be simple for “even a non-technical Internet user to engage in effectively untraceable speech online.” I still think it's feasible for most users, if they make enough effort, to remain [...] [...] the picture was very grim for would-be plaintiffs, writing that it should be simple for “even a non-technical Internet user to engage in effectively untraceable speech online.” I still think it's feasible for most users, if they make enough effort, to remain [...]

]]> By: David Robinson http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/ccr_symposium_w.html/comment-page-1#comment-43282 David Robinson Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:04:10 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/04/ccr-symposium-practical-aspects-of-ip-logging.html#comment-43282 Note: I just realized that I was making an incorrectly broad use of the term "traceable anonymity" which, as its name would suggest, applies to only the first of Danielle's three-pronged standard of care. I've now corrected that above. I regret the error and won't repeat it. Note: I just realized that I was making an incorrectly broad use of the term “traceable anonymity” which, as its name would suggest, applies to only the first of Danielle’s three-pronged standard of care. I’ve now corrected that above. I regret the error and won’t repeat it.

]]> By: David Robinson http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/ccr_symposium_w.html/comment-page-1#comment-43281 David Robinson Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:03:59 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/04/ccr-symposium-practical-aspects-of-ip-logging.html#comment-43281 Note: I just realized that I was making an incorrectly broad use of the term "traceable anonymity" which, as its name would suggest, applies to only the first of Danielle's three-pronged standard of care. I regret the error and won't repeat it. Note: I just realized that I was making an incorrectly broad use of the term “traceable anonymity” which, as its name would suggest, applies to only the first of Danielle’s three-pronged standard of care. I regret the error and won’t repeat it.

]]> By: Steven M. Bellovin http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/ccr_symposium_w.html/comment-page-1#comment-43280 Steven M. Bellovin Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:29:20 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/04/ccr-symposium-practical-aspects-of-ip-logging.html#comment-43280 For those who want a detailed look at some of the technical issues in traceability, let me refer them to Richard Clayton's PhD dissertation "Anonymity and traceability in cyberspace" (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-653.html), especially chapters 2-3. For those who want a detailed look at some of the technical issues in traceability, let me refer them to Richard Clayton’s PhD dissertation “Anonymity and traceability in cyberspace” (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-653.html), especially chapters 2-3.

]]> By: David Robinson http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/ccr_symposium_w.html/comment-page-1#comment-43279 David Robinson Thu, 16 Apr 2009 01:11:10 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/04/ccr-symposium-practical-aspects-of-ip-logging.html#comment-43279 All points well taken. There would indeed be some cases, perhaps a large number, where technically unskilled or uncareful Internet harassers, operating from home, would be easier to find thanks to this policy. And those cases might justify the policy. I guess the main thing I was trying to illustrate is that even if Danielle would prefer traceable anonymity to be comprehensive, the policy she has suggested would not come close to making it so. This also responds to Prof. Froomkin's claim; I'll take it up over there. All points well taken. There would indeed be some cases, perhaps a large number, where technically unskilled or uncareful Internet harassers, operating from home, would be easier to find thanks to this policy. And those cases might justify the policy.

I guess the main thing I was trying to illustrate is that even if Danielle would prefer traceable anonymity to be comprehensive, the policy she has suggested would not come close to making it so. This also responds to Prof. Froomkin’s claim; I’ll take it up over there.

]]> By: Paul Ohm http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/ccr_symposium_w.html/comment-page-1#comment-43278 Paul Ohm Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:53:59 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/04/ccr-symposium-practical-aspects-of-ip-logging.html#comment-43278 I think you raise a lot of excellent points, David, and I'm very glad you're participating. I will counter, however, that you might be overstating the NAT point. Many, many harassers are probably not obscured by NAT in this way. Most home users--even the ones behind NAT routers--are traceable to someone with their IP address and a civil subpoena. If the law does nothing but cause would-be harassers to scurry to open access points, Internet cafes, and the benches outside the Princeton CS building, while forcing them all to stop harassing from home, that's still a major accomplishment, as far as I am concerned. I'd also recommend you look at the growing comment thread to Prof. Froomkin's post, if you haven't already, where we're debating related topics. I think you raise a lot of excellent points, David, and I’m very glad you’re participating. I will counter, however, that you might be overstating the NAT point. Many, many harassers are probably not obscured by NAT in this way. Most home users–even the ones behind NAT routers–are traceable to someone with their IP address and a civil subpoena. If the law does nothing but cause would-be harassers to scurry to open access points, Internet cafes, and the benches outside the Princeton CS building, while forcing them all to stop harassing from home, that’s still a major accomplishment, as far as I am concerned.

I’d also recommend you look at the growing comment thread to Prof. Froomkin’s post, if you haven’t already, where we’re debating related topics.

]]>