[atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLSproposal

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Don and all assembly members, stakeholders of interested parties,

Don Brown wrote:

> Jeff, No one can protect everyone from everything.

  I nor anyone else is suggesting such, or even proposing such Don..
So I must admit to a bit of confusion as to where you got the idea
for this remark.  ????

>
>
> The highjackers are in the news, so we are focused on a Military
> presence and increased security in the airports.

  Yes.  But we had more than adequate protection in airports and other
areas of embarkation in the 1970's when Hijackings and other more
serious terrorists attacks started in a big way.  Than the Airline industry,
along with other sectors of the transportation lobbyist got those security
requirements relaxed to the point where we became very vulnerable
again...  Hence, 9/11 was a forgone conclusion even several years
before it actually happened.

> People have a
> tendency to zero-in on the negatives.

  Yes, some do far too much, some don't enough.  One has to look at
both the negatives as well as the positives.  But it is only good sense
to always give equal consideration for both, not more for one than
the other, Don.

>  Let's face it, you being a
> Military person, would you have attacked where they focused their
> strength?

  Yes I would.  But not only there...

> I guess you are probably smarter than that.  I'd bet they
> are, too.

  I hope I am.  I hope my answer above made that obvious.

>
>
> Conversely, if a major decrease in crime is in the news, we aren't,
> and should not be, focused on decreasing the head count in the Police
> Force.

  Agreed!  So you point here is?

>
>
> It is a balancing act, just like the Constitution.

  Exactly right!  That balance in the constitution and you left out the
Bill of Rights, is tilted towards the individual, not the state or its
other commercially related/associated organs...

>
>
> When the pendulum swings too much to one side, it generally swings
> back to the other side.

  This is sometimes true.  And just as true, when the pendulum swings
too much to one side without assistance, it may never swing back to
the other side.  70+ years of communist rule in the former Soviet Union
is one example of that also being true.

>  The downside is the amount of freedom that's
> been lost for the people during all of the swinging.  That's the
> danger and the reason I advocate an even keel.

  Agreed!  But it takes the vigilance of individuals, like our founding
fathers in revolutionary days, as was also true in both French
revolutions, that made the difference.

>  When we go overboard
> in our righteousness, we lose the big picture of individual freedom.

  Agreed here as well.  Conversely, when we slight or disregard that
same righteousness along with vigilance, we abandon our founding
principals of individual freedom altogether..

>
>
> I know this is exaggerating this thread, but is there someway we can
> figure out a way that I'm not in the IRS's WhoIs database?

  I don't believe that the IRS publicizes it's database or allows for
individuals of "Special Groups" to access you private residence
address either.  But what is being seriously considered with
the DNS Whois database is exactly that, and make it a felony
if as a registrant if you don't.  Is that reasonable?  I don't think so.

> You might
> be able to convince me to cross the isle to your side. :-)

  Well Don are in the registrar business, I am sure that any argument
I might provide would not effect your position...

>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tuesday, June 18, 2002, 10:11:19 PM, Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> JW> Michael and all stakeholders of interested parties,
>
> JW> Micheal Sherrill wrote:
>
> >> Whew.  There is a lot of pretzel logic and skewed information in your response below.  I will attempt to answer each argument in order.
> >> 1.  The Whois database is not a rich resource for SPAMers.
>
> JW>   And where and how do you come to this questionable conclusion when
> JW> a number of already self admitted spammers openly state that they
> JW> frequently use the Whois database for gathering E-Mail addresses
> JW> for marketing purposes?
>
> >> I would think that most SPAMers get email addresses from online discussions (just like this one) or postings to Web sites.
>
> JW>   Indeed this is yet another source.  However it is not near a good or easily
> JW> gleanable source(s) for E-Mail addresses for UCE Spam purposes..
>
> >>
> >> 2.  Why the reluctance to provide your home address for a domain name?
>
> JW>   Barbara answered that question already in her comments below.  Did
> JW> you not read her response in it entirety?
>
> >> You have already done so for your telephone, TV cable connection, bank account, driver’s license, mortgage (which is public information at the County Recorder’s office), charge cards, newspaper
> >> delivery, and to register your children for school.
>
> JW>   No "I" haven't, and I doubt, but do not know if Barbara has.  To my knowledge,
> JW> and at least in both California, Texas, and 14 other states in the US, for a drivers
> JW> license no physical address is necessary or required.  For a mortgage, as
> JW> lending laws also do not require you to provide your physical address under
> JW> the fir lending act.  In addition most schools, even private schools do not
> JW> require, and in most US states cannot require you to provide a physical address
> JW> to register your children in that school.   I also have two credit cards that
> JW> do not list or have my physical address home address in any fashion
> JW> as well.  Hence, Michael, as we have gone over before on this very
> JW> At-Large forum a few weeks back now, your contention here in response
> JW> to Barbara does not ring quite accurate...
>
> >> You are easily found, Barbara, already.  For approximately $25 I can get an enormous amount of information about you from any credit reporting agency such as Experian or Equifax.
>
> JW>   Go ahead and try to do that.  If I or Barbara, in this case find out that
> JW> you have made such an attempt, we could file a court action of invasion
> JW> of privacy.
>
> >>  For a few dollars more I could go to http://www.lexis-nexis.com and found more stuff than I, perhaps, want to know about you.
>
> JW>   Again go ahead and try that Michael, and you will likely find yourself in some
> JW> very hot water.  Lexis-Nexis, of which I am a member, has been sued
> JW> successfully for releasing opt-out credit information without the expressed
> JW> written consent of the individual which that information was requested
> JW> a number of times and forced to make restitution accordingly.  Check
> JW> Google on that for yourself for just the more recent cases...
>
> >>
> >> 3.  You point to one child’s URL and state that obviously there are quite a few out there.  I do not think so.  I find a lot of children’s Web sites that are commercial but, after using several
> >> search engines, could not find another private one.  I am sure there are others but not quite a few.  In any case, I would not feel comfortable purchasing a URL for my child’s personal use.  There
> >> are already other methods to get him online without a Whois of his home address.
>
> JW>   Ok than, why are you advocating and clearly inaccurately stating that there
> JW> should be no problem with providing a persons home physical address?
>
> >>
> >> 4.  Stalkers are not nice, I agree.  However, most do not use the Whois nor the Department of Motor Vehicles to find children.
>
> JW>   Agreed.  But more and more according the the FBI NIPC are doing so...
> JW> Hence the very real concern.
>
> >>  They follow them home from school.  So, should we stop stalkers by closing the schools?  Again, if parents are concerned about privacy they should go through a Web host.
>
> JW>   Some Web Hosts do a fairly good job, but many more do not.  Earthlink
> JW> for instance does a fairly good job.  However Verisign does not.  In any
> JW> event this part of your argument does not logically follow and therefore
> JW> is not germane to your conclusion...
>
> >> Relating some isolated and rare instances of information abuse is a scare tactic and is not necessarily relevant to the topic.
>
> JW>   If they were just rare instances, this would of course be an accurate
> JW> evaluation of statement.  Unfortunately they are no longer rare, and
> JW> are on the increase.
>
> >>  For instance, just a few months ago a handful of men abused the freedom of our skies by flying some airliners into some buildings.  Does that make jet planes the culprit?
>
> JW>   No, it makes the lack of adequate security a culprit, of course.  Hence
> JW> Barbaras argument that listing someone Home physical address in the
> JW> Whois database in order to register a Domain Name and the present
> JW> legislation considering not doing so a felony is in effect using a facility,
> JW> such a Whois as a tool for terrorists, stalkers, and Spammers
> JW> much easier...
>
> >>  Should we shut down the airlines because of this abuse?
> >> 5.  How do you equate free speech with Whois?  Your logic gets very fuzzy at the last.  Clark Kerr was maligned by the FBI and by Ronald Regan while he was California’s governor.  In fact, it was
> >> precisely the fight for openness called the Freedom of Information Act that brought the files to the light of day.  If people want to talk about the abuses of government they should do so out in
> >> the open to make it as available to as many people as possible.  Just as much as we demand that the government be open.  It reduces abuse.  If you want to hide yourself, do your protesting via a
> >> remailer.  But, I would bet that less people will pay attention.
> >>
> >> Overall, I think that the Whois is a necessary part of the Internet.  We are all using everybody else’s equipment for communication.  If someone abuses that privilege then we should be able to
> >> know how to find them.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Micheal Sherrill
> >>
> >> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> >> From: Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org>
> >> Date:  Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:15:53 -0700
> >>
> >> If you are opposed to spammers, then I would think that you would be really
> >> upset with the whois database, which is a rich resource indeed for spammers.
> >>
> >> Information about where I live has nothing to do with openness or the lack
> >> thereof.  I am quite happy to have my email address made available (but not
> >> to spammers - I wish).  But surely you would not accuse me of a lack of
> >> openness if I were to refuse to provide my home address to the world in
> >> order to obtain my own domain name.  (It is entirely reasonable, by
> >> contrast, to require that I provide an accurate technical contact).
> >>
> >> I have no idea how many children have their own domain names, but there are
> >> obviously quite a few.  You might want to check out Chris Van Allen, whose
> >> dad gave him the domain name pokey.org several years ago.  Chris became
> >> somewhat famous when he was sent a cease and desist order by the Prema Toy
> >> Co., the company that manufactures Gumby.  You can read about Chris'
> >> adventures at www.pokey.org.
> >>
> >> To state the obvious, if a child has a website that has been purchased by
> >> that child's parent, and if the parent is required to provide his or her
> >> home address, most folks will be able to infer the address of the child.
> >>
> >> Many parents seem to believe that information about their children should
> >> not be posted for anyone in the world to view.  Many adults feel the same
> >> about their own information.
> >>
> >> You might have made a similar argument about drivers' license records being
> >> held by the California Dept of Motor Vehicles.  That information was open,
> >> and as a result a young women's home address was located by a stalker, and
> >> she was murdered.  I have heard about a woman who was stalked based on her
> >> whois information, but I'm afraid I can't give you a reference for that.
> >> Maybe someone else on one of these lists can.
> >>
> >> As far as political speech goes, I'm sure you are aware of countries and
> >> times during which criticism of one's government can be life threatening.
> >> And you don't have to go outside the US to find multiple examples of abuses
> >> and harassment of law abiding citizens by some law enforcement agencies.  If
> >> you have not been following the most recent revelations about the FBI and
> >> its obsession with UC Berkeley, the Free Speech Movement, and Clark Kerr,
> >> the then President of the University of California, I shall be happy to
> >> forward to you a very detailed set of articles published a couple of weeks
> >> ago in the San Francisco Chronicle.  If the '60s are ancient history for
> >> you, there are recent abuses by the LA Police Department, including the
> >> framing of innocent people, that date back only a few years.  I can send you
> >> some references for those as well.
> >>
> >> Openness does not mean that we must relinquish all notions of privacy if we
> >> are to own a domain name.  Rather than forcing people to provide information
> >> about where they are located, Congress should be requiring ICANN to
> >> institute meaningful privacy protections on the whois database.  Maybe then
> >> we could discuss whether or not the domain name owner's personal information
> >> should be provided.
> >>
> >> Barbara
> >>
> >> P.S.  The early incarnation of the Internet, ARPANET, was about maintaining
> >> communications after a devastating event such as the dropping of nuclear
> >> weapons on the US.  It was *not* about openness, nor was it about commerce.
> >> The openness that you and I both cherish came into being because of the
> >> small clique of researchers and academics who were the original ARPANET
> >> users.  I share your desire to maintain that openness and to prevent the
> >> Internet from being regulated and restricted to the point that it becomes a
> >> jazzed up Home Shopping Channel.  If the Internet is to continue to be the
> >> open communications channel that it has become, then it is critical that
> >> people have the ability to speak without fearing that everything they say
> >> and do can be monitored.
> >>
> >> On 6/17/02 10:46 PM, "Micheal Sherrill" <micheal@beethoven.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wait a minute.  I am all for protecting abused wives, children, and those
> >> > seeking political asylum.  But, what does this have to do with the Whois
> >> > function?  I agree that perhaps a felony conviction for a first time offense
> >> > is harsh but please do not forget what this Internet was, and is all about,
> >> > openness.  At this time this (openness) is being clogged by a proliferation of
> >> > SPAMers that will, eventually, plug the pipe for any meaningful communication.
> >> > If we do not have the means to track accurate information of those that seek
> >> > to take advantage of all the resources that others fund how will we survive?
> >> > Your arguments pluck at our heartstrings but they also try to pluck my
> >> > pocketbook.  I mean, how many children have their own domain name?  And if
> >> > they can afford it, why do they need to hide their identity?  It would seem to
> >> > me that most children are trying to reach other children.  So why protect them
> >> > from each other?  Besides, the children do not register the domain names,
> >> > their parents usually do.  It has nothing to do with discovery.  Even more so,
> >> > what Internet sites are dedicated to battered women that would somehow lead
> >> > angry, misguided men to a safe house?  I do not think that any support group
> >> > would purchase a domain name but would be smart enough and economical enough
> >> > to go through a Web hosting company.  And what is even more perplexing is the
> >> > reference to free speech.  Free speech is about openness.  We talk about
> >> > things in the open!  So why the need for subterfuge?  If we have free speech
> >> > on the Internet what makes sense about listing a false address for our cause?
> >> > Anything else is already illegal, even via the USPS.  Plus, I have no idea
> >> > what you are talking about in reference to trademark holders sending out cease
> >> > and desist letters.  Overall, the logic of your complaint does not compute.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Micheal Sherrill
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> >> > From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> >> > Date:  Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:55:34 -0700
> >> >
> >> > Barbara and all,
> >> >
> >> > We [INEGroup] agree with you here Barbara, and are in process of
> >> > contacting the appropriate senate and House members that are
> >> > involved in this rather arcane and misguided legislation being considered.
> >> >
> >> > I personally would suggest that anyone concerned about their personal
> >> > safety, and privacy that are Domain Name holders do likewise without
> >> > delay...
> >> >
> >> > Barbara Simons wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I agree that accurate information should be provided for the technical
> >> >> liaison.  What I'm saying is that a law that makes it a felony to provide
> >> >> inaccurate information for the domain name holder creates major problems
> >> >> regarding political speech, shelters for battered women, children who own
> >> >> their own domain name, etc.  The whois database is an open invitation for
> >> >> massive privacy invasion of domain name owners (as opposed to technical
> >> >> contacts).  HR 4640 would make it a felony in the U.S., punishable by up to
> >> >> 5 years in prison, to provide false address information for the owner of a
> >> >> domain name.  This would be a boon to trademark holders who are eager to
> >> >> send out large numbers of cease and desist letters, and a blow to people who
> >> >> care about protecting our privacy.
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't mean to start a discussion about HR 4640, though I hope that this
> >> >> has helped to make our US based members aware of this misguided legislative
> >> >> proposal.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Barbara
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
> JW> Regards,
>
> JW> --
> JW> Jeffrey A. Williams
> JW> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> JW> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> JW> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> JW> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> JW> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> JW> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> JW> --
> JW> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> JW> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> JW> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> JW> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> ----
> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
> donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
> ----

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de