Joyce Park


The lightweight content management systems known as weblogs or blogs have enjoyed a massive popularity explosion in the past few years, more or less becoming a distinct literary form. But although the blog has proven itself technically capable of meeting the need for many kinds of information dissemination and archiving, numerous social and legal problems have emerged in the practice of real-world blogging. Many of these problems cluster around the almost totally public nature of online expression. Paradoxically, we may be reaching a point where greater expression can only be achieved through greater privacy.

Online privacy is ultimately a matter of law; but the law develops within an understanding of specific technical capabilities. Software implementors can, should, and increasingly do design towards social-engineering goals, such as the ability to withstand legal challenge. Design from high-level needs is particularly relevant in the case of blogware, where a large percentage of users are not themselves admins or developers and therefore usability is a primary concern -- perhaps the primary concern. The combination of sophisticated social goal and need for usability means that the state of the law must be baked into blogware tools themselves – a daunting challenge for any development team.

Another major area for improvement in weblog software is integration with other communications apps: other people's blogs, bulletin boards, Wikis, chat, IM, email, PIMs, external websites, and RSS aggregators. At the moment users are habituated to monitoring numerous apps – and ceding control over their private and/or copyrighted data to numerous external organizations -- to manage their personal communications, but it should be possible in theory to reduce the number of interfaces. This step would help move the web towards its ultimate goal of facilitating a seamless conversation regardless of the form in which data is presented. Integration of communication apps might also habituate people to the value of controlling their own data, being able to choose with whom and under what conditions to share it – which comes back to the overarching goal of using technology to enhance privacy.

We believe that asynchronous publish and subscribe messaging frameworks like mod_pubsub[1] could offer a substantially improved architecture towards the goal of carving out spaces of privacy on the Internet. Instead of monolithic public weblogs, semi-permeable blogging offers the promise of numerous levels of online privacy which can offer the preconditions for certain desired privacy protections. This paper will focus on the general problem of privacy in social software like weblogs; a follow-up paper will detail mod-pubsub's design for semi-permeable blogware.

I wish to emphasize that I am not a lawyer, nor are any of the members of the mod-pubsub group at this time. We are software developers who are interested in needs that come from “high on the stack”, in the social-engineering layers. Furthermore, many of the issues discussed in this paper have barely begun to work their way through the legislative and justice systems of our project's home (the United States of America). Therefore, much of what we've read about these issues tends to be promulgated by advocacy groups, law professors, and other interested parties whose interpretations may be incomplete, biased, unpopular, or otherwise unlikely to be implemented.

Privacy: social and legal challenges

Consider these common situations:

* Alice is the HR director of a small startup company. During a job search, she receives a resume from a highly qualified programmer -- whom she immediately looks up using a search engine. On the candidate's weblog, Alice discovers something that makes her think this person might cause problems for the company down the line: perhaps a chronic illness, recreational drug use, an employment lawsuit, or just an unprofessional moment. She chooses not to pass on the resume to the hiring manager.

* Bob is an MBA candidate and dot-com refugee who is writing a paper about the experience of working for a very young CEO. He would like to solicit the informed opinions of his circle of professional acquaintances on this topic, ideally even get a round-robin conversation going. A weblog-type page with comments would be by far the easiest technical means to accomplish this. However, Bob discovers that his informants are not willing to express themselves freely about this topic in a public forum – even one with security-through-obscurity and robots.txt files. He decides he must rely on the much more time-consuming face-to-face interview to get the information he wants.

* Carol and Dave start dating. Carol is not aware until too late that Dave maintains a weblog which describes his relationships with women, mostly in unflattering terms. When she discovers that he has revealed intimate details of their dates, and even posted a photograph of her without her consent, she sues him. A judge decides that she has suffered harm to her professional reputation, and forces Dave to take down the relevant portions of his weblog as well as compensate Carol for damages.

As these examples suggest, blogging in its current form constitutes fully public speech. Although this realm of expression is protected from certain forms of government suppression, at least in most advanced nations, there is no guarantee of freedom from criminal investigation, civil liability, subtle discrimination, or social ostracism resulting from information voluntarily revealed in public. In other words, there is no expectation of privacy on the Internet[2] at this point. As long as you can be tracked via a subpoena, you can be held liable for offenses ranging from terrorism and treason, to securities fraud, libel, and sexual harassment, to violating the terms of your employment agreement. Any information you reveal can also be used to your detriment if seen by potential or current employers, romantic candidates, people you're arguing with online, relatives, etc.

The full publicness of the web has been exacerbated by the predelictions and interests of the pioneers. Early blogging, for instance, was marked by the heavy overrepresentation of three groups that are atypical in their privacy needs: academics, who basically cannot be fired for intellectually meaningful public statements[3]; independent web developers, who can be helped by controversy more than they are hurt by lack of discretion; and individuals who are interested in experimenting with publicness as a quasi-artistic theme, like webcam operators. At the same time, commercial websites encouraged users to contribute as much personal information as they could be persuaded to part with: product reviews, personal profiles, email archives, wishlists, evaluations of other users, etc. By a confluence of these factors, the gut-level assumption was established that the web was somehow “naturally” an arena of fully-public discourse. At this point, many people who desire even a modicum of privacy in online exchanges have been cowed into apologetic submission by numerous curt admonitions not to express themselves online at all if they aren't prepared to deal with the consequences of a public medium.

Stepping back from things as they currently are, it should be clear that fully public speech is not the only imaginable or even the optimal level of privacy necessary on the Internet. The vast majority of people express themselves in greater quantity and often greater quality if they are allowed to freely choose the level of publicness of each of their utterances. In the real world, you almost certainly feel more comfortable discussing certain topics – political controversies, or the shortcomings of your company's management team, or your marital problems – in an environment where you can control who hears you, for instance at a dinner party with old and trusted friends; or in an environment where you have legal guarantees of confidentiality, as in a therapist's office. Why should the Internet be different? Privacy in the real world results in greater and truer expression, and it may do so in the online world too – if we application developers can build the proper environments to enable it.

The various levels of online privacy that should be handled gracefully by social software include:

The desire to carve out these various levels of privacy in an essentially public medium has bred a plethora of cute, if largely ineffectual, strategies. The most common is simple anonymity (usually actually pseudonymity, but why quibble), or privacy through obscurity. It's surprisingly common for someone who has developed a strong online persona to find that identity confining, and wish to start afresh in some other patch of Blogistan -- generally by starting a completely separate and unpublicized blog. Other novice bloggers start out anonymous from the beginning, although many of them break cover later.

Unfortunately, anonymity turns out to be almost infinitely frangible and certainly incompatible with any significant amount of visibility. Numerous bloggers have lost their jobs due to their writing activity[4] -- although it must be noted that none of these bloggers attempted to lie or stonewall, which might have shifted the burden of investigation to the employer, or to seek redress after the fact; and most of the employers were small businesses which tend to have less sophisticated HR policies because they incur less employment-related liability. Other bloggers have evidently been threatened with loss of employment[5], or even in the most extreme cases political prison[6].

Probably the major issue with pseudonymous blogging is that the community tends to discount the opinions of those who explicitly want to avoid all the consequences of having expressed them in public, or even to suspect such individuals of troll-like intentions. This scorn is particularly marked in the realm of political blogging (aka warblogging), where the refusal to stand behind one's opinions for all to see can leave the writer open to endless personal imprecations. Anonymity and pseudonymity are also especially unappreciated by sites which rely heavily on personal reputation within a community, such as WikiWikiWeb (which maintains a “RealNamesPlease” policy) and Slashdot (which famously forces unregistered contributions to be signed “Anonymous Coward”). When the reputations of those using real names can be harmed more than those using pseudonyms – who can always walk away from a particular identity, and establish a new one; or even use multiple identities to game the system – social trust mechanisms are liable to break down in a classic iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.

The difficulty of discretion is increased by search engine caching and the Wayback Machine, which ensure there is no definitive mechanism to change or delete a post permanently. Once a blog entry has escaped from the private sphere into the wild, there is no way to guarantee that every trace of it has been eradicated from the public realm. Also, some corrective mechanisms that have evolved in the context of journalism or academic publishing to reduce liability, such as editing or retraction, have not yet found any firm legal footing in the world of weblogs. Generally a public retraction will stave off a libel or defamation lawsuit in the world of journalism, but no one yet knows whether it has the same effect in the blogging world. In fact, some netizens are vociferously opposed to the practice of editing electronic content in place.

Invisiblog is a recent technical twist on the anonymity strategy. It employs PGP and anonymous remailers to effectively erase the tracks of the writer. The staff of Invisiblog never knows the identity or even (definitively) the IP address of any given blogger, although obviously if one is foolish enough to use one's public PGP key all bets are off. However, Invisiblog does warn its users that it will comply with court orders as technically possible – for instance, those directing them to remove content from their servers.

Another strategy to deal with different levels of privacy is the use of multiple weblogs, or multiple sections of one weblog. This may be combined with some kind of disclaimer[7] and/or robots.txt files, as means to indicate that a particular section contains material which should not be spidered by search engines or read by those whose relationship with the author is strictly professional. Unfortunately, this strategy entirely depends upon voluntary compliance by viewers; and human nature being what it is, identifying and segregating one's juiciest blog posts is not exactly the most efficacious method to discourage snoops.

A third privacy-seeking technique is to restrict access to other registered members of an online community. The problems that arise from this technique are generally not legal, but social ones caused by a violation of the writer's assumption that what is said inside the group should stay inside the group. There is no technical means of preventing a bona-fide member of the group from revealing the details of your weekend in Vegas to your girlfriend. Small communities being what they are, the anonymous letter -- or rather the anonymous printout or cut-and-paste of a screenful of weblog text – seems to have (re)emerged as the technique of choice for in-group payback.

Because these problems occur in the context of a service it's generally not possible for the blogger, who does not control the machinery of the server, to identify potential rats well enough to deter or punish them. In some cases it's also not clear who effectively controls these expressions. The actual service provider is usually considered a “publisher” or common carrier in the United States, and thus assiduously shuns the legal burdens of content ownership by means of disclaimers; but almost always retains the power to pull offending posts if presented with a legal demand to do so. Some websites also reserve the right to reprint their users' content in various forms – potentially exposing it to a wider or different audience than the author intended -- or even sell it back to the user under certain conditions.

A restricted-access blog is considered undesirable because it limits the potential egoboo afforded to bloggers. There is a very clear tension experienced by every novice blogger between the payoff of openness -- the thrill of knowing strangers could be reading your words -- and that of discretion -- reducing legal and social liability. It must be noted that restricted-access blogs are currently seen as platforms for the very young to maintain trivial online diaries -- sort of a blog with training wheels, for people who are not quite ready for the risks and responsibilities of truly public speech. Only a few blogging communities (notably LiveJournal) offer any means to restrict access on a per-post basis to a list of chosen viewers, while maintaining all the advantages of an otherwise public blog.

As far as anyone can tell, it has not become common to preserve privacy by loading blog software onto only locally-accessible machines for a true "Dear Diary" experience. Although this is technically feasible, it probably requires a level of technical sophistication that appears to still be uncommon in the blogging world. Also, perhaps truly private blogging by itself is too cut off from the rest of the world to be a compelling application of the technology. People who sincerely want privacy write in locked notebooks, they do not put messages into tiny virtual bottles and cast them upon the waters. Obviously it's hard to get hard numbers on how many people use blog software locally, but the fact that so few talk about it in their public blogs would seem to indicate the rarity of the practice.

We want to re-emphasize that although there are certainly bloggers who could potentially face criminal prosecution for online activities, the vast majority merely seeks protection from civil liability or social sanction. Blog software can and should meet the felt needs of individuals who wish to bitch about work without risking termination, discuss technical issues without being slapped with a DMCA violation, gossip about mutual acquaintances without incurring of a libel suit, or record their struggles with mental illness without fear of being judged an insurance liability. All of these forms of expression are legal, common, and usually enjoy some expectation of privacy on the telephone or in face-to-face conversation in one's home, where generally only a criminal warrant can penetrate the expectation of privacy. Although ultimately the question of privacy on the web belongs to the courts, technical experiments must be built before legal theories can be tested.

Privacy: technical challenges

Thus far, the few weblogs that make any serious attempt to ensure privacy do so by means of simple password protection: either web server access control, or database plus cookie/session authentication. However, the law has not yet definitively decided whether this type of access control establishes an expectation of privacy – and if so, how much and under what circumstances.

The main case to make it to a higher court in the United States thus far, Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, resulted in a notably confusing decision which is still being argued over by legal scholars[8]; but the original case has still mostly not been decided on its merits, the defendant has now entered bankruptcy, and the plaintiff has indicated that he might appeal part of the circuit court decision[9]. The opinion seems to hold that unauthorized access to a website which requires unique usernames and passwords provided by the site operator, and also requires all viewers to accept a click-through user agreement prohibiting disclosure to third parties, can constitute a violation of the Stored Communications Act, which allows the website owner to bring suit against the intruder in Federal court. However, the SCA may not apply if a legitimate habitual user of the site allows an unauthorized third party to use his or her username and password to access the site. Also, the content on the password-protected website may still potentially be found defamatory – it was not in Konop, but that may have been specifically due to the fact that the two parties were engaged in a labor dispute. Finally, even if content is obtained from a web server illegally, a recent case called US v. Jarrett suggests that it might still be available as evidence in a criminal case. As this account should make clear, this is very much a developing area of the law -- and no one can be certain exactly how it will develop. Even if the courts eventually decide that password-protection affords some privacy, there are numerous means of circumventing this intention in practice for those willing to risk the possible penalties.

The Supreme Court may (or may not) make online privacy possible, in the sense of offering some protection from lawsuits and prosecution under certain conditions -- but strong crypto lets you be sure. Rather than relying simply on authentication, more privacy may be gained by the use of two-way encryption. In addition to the technical advantages, this strategy takes advantage of an unintended consequence of the DMCA, which criminalizes any attempt to break a cryptographic system intended to protect copyright. Since a blogger's intention is to prevent any unauthorized user from reproducing his or her words in any form -- especially in an indictment or subpoena -- presumably DMCA could apply to weblogs.

But given that basic auth is too technically challenging for the vast majority of bloggers today, cryptographically-based blog privacy will never get any traction unless software is written that handles all the machinery of cryptography transparently. Also, we should mention that crypto may be about to undergo a period of rigorous testing by both legal and technical means, with a possible result that the USA will try to exert control over strong crypto schemes such as PGP again soon. Militating against this, crypto has become big business and it's difficult to see how Washington's untechnical minions will craft legislation of sufficient fineness to distinguish between a legitimate business use of cryptography and any other use.

There are two main technologies for encrypting Internet data: SSL and PGP (there's also SSH, but that is tied to user accounts and will not be considered here). For these purposes, SSL suffers from requiring a separate user-authentication system. It also is not fully anonymous if used two-way: certificates must be issued for both server and client by a third-party which verifies certain information about both sides. SSL was largely designed to help the browser user trust the host website enough to transmit private information to the server, not the other way around. And finally, SSL certificates are not very portable, being deliberately difficult to transfer between applications and hosts.

PGP has not yet been applied to web communications on any large scale, but in theory it offers some advantages over SSL. In effect, it provides a built-in authentication system -- possibly a higher level one since social trust mechanisms can theoretically be applied. However, for maximum privacy it would be better to use only keys not registered with the public key servers – the lack of intermediaries being another virtue of PGP. PGP keys are portable and easy to transfer from one application or host to the next, because they are tied to an individual or identity rather than to a domain.

It should be mentioned that the laws affecting compelled disclosure -- forcibly turning over PGP keys, passphrases, and decrypted messages -- have yet to be settled in the USA. So far, the few test cases that have emerged have all been criminal investigations (notably US v. Scarfo) rather than civil offenses. The balance of opinion at this time seems to be that in the USA one cannot be compelled to self-incriminate due to the Fifth Amendment, but probably can be compelled to provide plain-text copies of subpoenaed documents, especially in cases where one is not oneself the defendant. In the UK, residents can be compelled to turn over PGP keys in a criminal investigation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which also prohibits the key user from revoking or otherwise reporting the invalidation of the key.

Another factor affecting privacy is the architecture of the web, particularly the fixed location of the web server and of content on that server. Because web servers are almost always found at fixed IP addresses, it's childishly easy to pinpoint the party to be served with a legal demand. One subpoena, or sometimes just a WHOIS lookup, is all it takes to identify the entity that can pull the plug[10]. Given that security is less about absolutes than about increasing the level of difficulty, it might be helpful for a system to be designed which is more distributed and easy to move around. Ideally, the physical location of a blog could be changed frequently to elude surveillance, or it might exist in multiple locations, or in pieces scattered throughout a distributed network. When an authorized visitor connects with a valid PGP key, the web server might forward a request to some other location without actually storing or vending any content itself. Content on the wire may have more legal protection than content inscribed to a disk, as it may require a wiretapping warrant to access[11]; therefore, making it more difficult to identify and seize a physical copy of the content could be a potentially useful tactic.[12]

There is no easy way to prevent authorized users from printing or cutting-and-pasting text from a browser. One could potentially deliver a blog page in PDF or other binary format, which makes cutting and pasting more difficult, but this does not deter printing. This issue really lies in the realm of social engineering, and therefore is resistant to technical solution. It's possible that some kind of restrictive terms of use might have legal force, but so far this idea has not been fully tested in court. The best a piece of blog software can do is make it easier to narrow down the specific user who violated the veil of privacy.

Although we have mostly focused our discussion on individual privacy, the kinds of changes we are proposing could have benefits for businesses also. For instance, if software could be designed which carved out a certain level of legally-tested privacy for users connecting with known PGP keys, IT security concerns could be squared with the ease of the outside-the-firewall Internet. Currently a mass of proprietary data – HR documents and forms, buglists and version control systems, Wikis and knowledgebases – must reside behind the corporate firewall because it contains proprietary information. The technical solutions to this problem, which include VPNs and ssh, are difficult to implement and monitor properly. The kinds of architectural changes we propose could potentially enhance the security of proprietary corporate information as well as private personal data.

Integrating blogging with other applications

The current distinction between communications applications is not fully necessary, and leads to numerous inefficiencies. A given user may need to monitor and employ email (including Trackback/Pingback and comment notifications for his or her own blog, as well as emails sent by readers and update notifications from other people's blogs), a chat window, numerous IM windows, multiple weblogs and Wikis and individual threads from those blogs and Wikis, one's own blogware system, a PIM, other websites (for instance those that accept copyrighted product reviews), and possibly an RSS aggregator to participate in the full range of desirable online conversations.

For instance, at the moment there is no truly elegant way to track comment activity on other people's weblogs, or even to keep track of which posts you've commented on recently -- much less get some kind of quick notification when someone specifically replies to one of your comments. Of course, one can see why the makers of current weblogs might not want to implement systems which might result in tons of spam flying around, much of it from their own servers. Email is undergoing a phase where it has become a victim of its own success, in that spam filters are now totally mandatory, but they tend to assume that lots of email from any given address increases the likelihood that it's being used by a spammer.

There is no technical reason why an individual could not sit in front of a single application window and interact with all the different kinds of communication software mentioned above in near-realtime. It's all just data and endpoints, and once these two become decoupled the necessity for multiple viewing applications can disappear if desired. Of course this deconstruction is much simpler in a publish and subscribe architecture than in the inflexible display-oriented architecture of current weblogs.

It would also be highly desirable to extend the kinds of privacy protections under discussion from weblogs to other communications applications. The state of privacy practice in other communication applications is truly deplorable. Blogs are at least understood to be public by most people, even if perhaps they don't fully grasp all the implications. In contrast, the vast majority of users of IM, email, and chat apps behave as if these channels of communication are equivalent to the telephone. Even telephone conversations have a reduced expectation of privacy in certain situations, such as in the workplace; but email and IM have absolutely none. Email in particular, but also IM and browsing, are fully susceptible to surveillance by the employer and potentially by the third-party owner of the server, and increasingly constitute important evidence in legal cases. Nevertheless, many employees transmit confidential and private information over these channels routinely with no attempts at concealment or discretion.

The good news is that considerable work has already been done to enhance privacy in email and IM, if not necessarily to make it user-friendly. As we will discuss in the the followup technical paper, it should be possible to build blog privacy on the foundation of technologies proven in other applications.

Finally, one particular way in which we believe pub/sub will enhance privacy is by returning control of an individual's data to that individual. People – not users, people – should be able to choose with whom and under what circumstances they wish to share their personal details and insights. They should also be helped in keeping track of what they said where. As individuals establish long-lived online identities with contributions scattered all over the Internet, the slippage between copyright and control becomes ever more apparent: in theory an individual owns his or her own expressions, but in practice they have become part of the body of a website owned by another person or entity – and therefore under the control of that person or entity, and possibly subject to foreign law. Only by personal archiving, independent of the original publisher of each contribution, can an individual maintain control over his or her online identity over time.

For instance, it is fairly well established that all my comments on various US-based community websites exist under my copyright; but those website operators can sometimes choose to edit or be compelled to delete my copyrighted material[13] – and I will not even be able to contest the action in public without a copy of my original post. A website could also go out of business or be shut down, causing the loss of all content contributed by me. By simply being able to route my comments through my own server, which would post it to my own blog and then transparently forward a copy to the website in question, I could make sure that I had a copy of every single thing I posted to any website anywhere on the Internet. If for some reason I wanted to share that same piece of writing with some other person or website, I could do so with another subscription. In this way, integrating blogs with other web applications could enhance individual control over personal data – which is also an important privacy concern.


Simon Winchester, in his recent book Krakatoa, mentions a telling fact about the development of undersea telegraphy in the 19th century: despite the fact that overland cables were already available and cheaper, demand for undersea telegraph grew rapidly. The real value-add of submarine cable, according to Winchester, was privacy and security: the deep-sea lines were thought to be impossible to tap and less likely to be susceptible to operator theft of secrets, unlike overland cables which passed through a multitude of jurisdictions and through numerous hands before reaching their destination.

A similar story can be told about the growth of private postal services (meaning those carrying non-governmental mail) in Renaissance Europe. By the turn of the 15th century, successful merchants were exchanging around 10,000 letters a year with business associates in multiple countries[14]. One of the factors accounting for the explosive rise of letter-writing at this time was the development of private postal services (most notably that run by the Thurn und Taxis family) which were considered neutral networks. The vast and enduring success of these private postal services indicates a demand for a common carrier that was subject to neither governmental snooping nor competitive industrial espionage. One of the reasons centralized European governments later nationalized postal monopolies was in fact to maintain better surveillance on possible dissident elements.

As these historical examples suggest, in the past the promise of privacy in communication media has led to an increase in expression. For this reason, we think it rather unlikely that increased privacy would lead to a disastrous closing off of the great conversation that is the Internet. Instead, it will create more rooms in the mansion: those who wish can still shout their ideas from the street, while others will choose to unburden themselves only to trusted friends in their own living rooms. Obviously everyone hopes that bloggers will choose to keep much of their expression public and free – but it should be each individual's choice to make, aided by software that recognizes the eternal tension between the human needs for freedom and privacy.

[The following individuals commented on drafts of this paper: Timothy Converse, Tim Cullen, Scott Andrew LePera, Adam Rifkin, Ben Sittler.]


2Although there is a limited right of pseudonymity in the United States. See Anonymous Internet Communication and the First Amendment: A Crack in the Dam of National Sovereignty by Michael H. Spencer (Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, Spring 1998) for a brief overview.

3However, academics can be asked by their universities to distance themselves somewhat from their professional homes. For instance, no less an academic and Internet luminary than Lawrence Lessig was recently asked to move his personal site and weblog off the servers of Stanford University on very short notice.

4Some well-known examples of termination for blogging include:,,,, For more on how blogging may affect employment law, see Paul Gutman's very helpful paper “Did You Just Say That?: Blogging and Employment Law in Conflict” (Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts, vol. 27 issue 1).,,

7See Gutman for a discussion of the pros and cons of disclaimers.

8The main point of contention is whether web content is subject to the more stringent Wiretap Act (as argued by the EFF) or the Stored Communications Act (as argued by, for instance, law professor Orin Kerr – although he then goes on to suggest that perhaps neither should apply). The 9th Circuit originally ruled unanimously on this case in January 2001, but withdrew their decision in August 2001 after two of the three judges apparently changed their minds. In August 2002, they issued a split verdict with one judge maintaining his original opinion while two reversed themselves after the filing of an amicus brief by the Department of Justice which maintained that application of the Wiretap Act to the web would hinder their ability to catch pedophiles.

9USA Today 6/4/2022.

10Generally, the “publisher” or common carrier of a piece of content (the hosting website or owner of the actual physical server) must comply immediately with orders to remove or block content on grounds such as DMCA violation, copyright or trademark violation, or publication of trade secrets. Further legal action can be taken against the individual who posted the content.

11See this EFF discussion of Steve Jackson Games v. Secret Service.

12This tactic requires that ownership of a domain name remain separate from legal controls based on content hosted at that domain. If a webhost can be forced to disallow a domain name owner from changing to some other host, this tactic may be less effective. In the meantime, use of a third-party DNS provider, separate from the webhost itself, can never hurt.

13This practice has been greatly increased in the United States by the strictures of the DMCA, which limits an ISP or publisher's liability for intellectual property violations if the ISP or publisher agrees to immediately remove content which a complainant alleges violates their intellectual property rights. Some well-known cases in this regard are Slashdot's response to Microsoft's trade secrets case regarding Kerberos; Universal City Studios v. Raimerdes, the so-called 2600 DeCSS case; and various cases involving the RIAA and MPAA in their fight against file traders.

14Lisa Jardine, Worldly Goods: a new history of the Renaissance (Doubleday 1996), p 103.