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

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 18 Jun 2002, at 18:04, 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.

Wrong.  It is mined all the time for that inforamtion precisely because it
is open and free.

I would think that most
> SPAMers get email addresses from online discussions (just like this one) or
> postings to Web sites. 2.  Why the reluctance to provide your home address
> for a domain name?  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.

This information is not published for the world, however, and legally, you
can opt out of their providing to any third party.  Schools will NOT give
out that information and you have to do some searching and paying to get
other "public" records.  Phone numbers can be unlisted, as mine is, and
banks, cable companies, DMVs and mortgage companies are also under the
same laws for opt-out provisions.  Credit card companies also, will not
simply give out information on my accounts and have password requirements
to deal even with me when I call or write.  There are requirements and
fees to obtain credit information as well.

The whois is a dangerous mechanism for those who wish to abuse, and there
are many who do abuse it - enough to scare me, as I was the one stalked
because of it.  My family and property were placed at risk just because a
segment of the commercial community does not want to have to search or pay
for information in order to harrass or sue an individual.

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.  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.

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.

There are many.  But does it really matter, if any child is put at risk
because a privately held domain has its registrant information published? 
That includes all small office/home offices as well.  Publishing that
information puts the entire family and property at risk.

  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.

Again, if you work from home, your child's information is published as
well, unless he doesn't live with you.

4.  Stalkers are not nice, I agree.  However, most do not use
> the Whois nor the Department of Motor Vehicles to find children.

That's quite an assumption, considering the pedophiles who use chat rooms,
whois and any other means for stalking children.

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.

You're making some pretty wild assumptions and leaving out the growing
segment of the population that have home businesses, run their own servers
in-house, etc.  People are traveling less and working from home more as
cost effective measures.

Relating some isolated and rare instances of
> information abuse is a scare tactic and is not necessarily relevant to the
> topic.  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?  Should we shut down the airlines because
> of this abuse?

No, but just try to find out who is on the manifest of any flight without
a court order, or try to bring a weapon onto a plane.  You don't shut down
the registry.  You just don't publish identifying personal inforamtion.

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.

Most of the documents you receive under the FOIA are redacted, too.  There
is some information that you just won't get.  Also, it takes work to
retrieve that information.  It's not on a website for you to just peruse. 
You have to fill out forms and wait a very long time to receive it.

>
> 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.

The whois may be necessary for the registry to maintain, but it does not
have to be published.  If there is abuse, the technical contact can be
reached.  Email can be forwarded via privacy measures to registrants as
well.   It does not have to be made public.  Most problems have to do with
spam and spammers can be found via IP addresses contained in headers.  All
of my ISPs determine how to use their spam filters via IP address, not
domain name holders, since most of the time the offending user does not
have accurate information in the email anyway and the whois, therefore,
does little or no good.  I receive spam every day that contains my own
name in the "from" and "to."  Look at at the header and see from where it
originates.  It's not from my ISP or from any servers I use.  Much of it
is from other countries, in fact.  Should I be harrassed because someone
has spoofed an email header?  I don't think so.

Leah


>
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>



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