Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for tomorrow/Burden of proof

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think that this position is apriori. It is a given. Therefor I think there is 
a burden of proof upon third parties to overcome this assumption. At this point 
the discussion seems to be equal and that would require a finding in favor of 
privacy extension not retraction.
   
  Eric

Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
  Hi,


On 24 maj 2007, at 04.09, Palmer Hamilton wrote:

> Second, in the case of identity theft, the consumer certainly 
> experiences the serious and often devastating adverse 
> consequences. Anyone who has been the victim of ID theft can 
> easily speak to this. It is fine for us to talk about these issues 
> in the abstract, but talk to a victim of ID theft, and he or she 
> will likely not be too impressed some of the arguments we have been 
> hearing.


I may be confusing the topics somewhat, but one of the reasons I have 
for having as little of the information about registrants available 
to as few as possible is indeed to avoid giving ID thieves the 
information they need to steal the ID. So considering that the vast 
majority (anyone have an idea of the real %ages?) of registrants are 
good law abiding folks and only a very few are ID thieving bad guys 
isn't the greater good served more by keeping the information as 
restricted as possible?

a.



 
---------------------------------
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.