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

["Micheal Sherrill" <micheal@beethoven.com>]

Hello Jeff:

I have replied to your answers below.  In order to keep things somewhat less confusing my first comments to Barbara are MS1, your response is JW, and my reply is MS2.

MS1.  The Whois database is not a rich resource for SPAMers.

JW.  And where and how do you come to this questionable conclusion when
a number of already self admitted spammers openly state that they
frequently use the Whois database for gathering E-Mail addresses
for marketing purposes?

MS2.  What are the SPAMers marketing and to whom?  The only email address I get from Whois is usually the sysadmin.  I cannot imagine SPAMers trying to sell something to sysadmins.  Kind of like a crook trying to fence bullets to a cop.

MS1.  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
gleanable source(s) for E-Mail addresses for UCE Spam purposes..

MS2.  I disagree, Jeff.  This would be the obvious choice.  Recent email and new postings means a warm body at the other end.

MS1.  Why the reluctance to provide your home address for a domain name?

JW.  Barbara answered that question already in her comments below.  Did
you not read her response in it entirety?

MS2.  Jeff, this was a rhetorical question as a lead in for the rest of my comment below.  Do not be so snippy.

MS1.  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,
and at least in both California, Texas, and 14 other states in the US, for a drivers
license no physical address is necessary or required.  For a mortgage, as
lending laws also do not require you to provide your physical address under
the fir lending act.  In addition most schools, even private schools do not
require, and in most US states cannot require you to provide a physical address
to register your children in that school.   I also have two credit cards that
do not list or have my physical address home address in any fashion
as well.  Hence, Michael, as we have gone over before on this very
At-Large forum a few weeks back now, your contention here in response
to Barbara does not ring quite accurate...

MS2.  Your statement is only correct about one thing, Jeff.  We did, indeed, have a similar discussion a few weeks ago.  But you were wrong then and you are still wrong now.  The State of California absolutely requires a physical address in order to vote.  It also requires a mailing address if it is different from the physical address.   Go to http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_k.htm and see for yourself.  Both the downloadable hard copy and the online registration form require them.  And I do not know what you mean by “fir lending act” regarding mortgages.  I was not referring to loans for purchasing trees ;)  I was talking about a house.  If you buy a house in California, Jeff, the physical address of that house is recorded in the Office of the County Recorder and your name is placed in the same public document.  In addition, all children attending California public schools must register with a physical address in order to be placed in the corresponding school district.  No physical address, no placement in school.  I am not too sure where you get your information but I have lived in California for many years, vote, own a home, and send a child to school.  It all takes a physical address to do any of the aforementioned actions.

MS1.  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
you have made such an attempt, we could file a court action of invasion
of privacy.

MS2.  No, you cannot, Jeff.  It is leased information.  When you signed up to receive various utilities and services (such as electricity, natural gas, heating oil, water, sewer, garbage collection), applied for revolving accounts at department stores, or a myriad of charge cards, even local telecom, cable, and satellite dish providers, you also signed off on their intention to report your payment history to a credit bureau.  If I am a member of that credit bureau I can get your credit report.

MS1.  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
very hot water.  Lexis-Nexis, of which I am a member, has been sued
successfully for releasing opt-out credit information without the expressed
written consent of the individual which that information was requested
a number of times and forced to make restitution accordingly.  Check
Google on that for yourself for just the more recent cases...

MS2.  Again, Jeff, it is leased information.  I do not know what you are talking about concerning opt out.  The only opt out I find at http://www.lexis-nexis.com regards their marketing information.  But, in any case, you have strayed from my assertion.  Lexis-Nexis is a company that collects information about people and one pays them money to receive that data.  Whether or not they have been sued in the past for improper business practices is not the point.  They are still open for business selling that information.  Which I can purchase legally.

MS1.  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
should be no problem with providing a persons home physical address?

MS2.  Jeff, I did not state that there would not be a problem providing a physical address.  Please reread my sentence above.  Regarding children there are other means to providing a URL.

MS1.  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... 
Hence the very real concern.

MS2.  Are you referring to CyberNotes?  If so, I would much appreciate a pointer to that publication.

MS1.  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
for instance does a fairly good job.  However Verisign does not.  In any
event this part of your argument does not logically follow and therefore
is not germane to your conclusion...

MS2.  Jeff, I think you must be getting tired at this point.  Your last sentence is more for dramatic impact and less for making sense.

MS1.  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
evaluation of statement.  Unfortunately they are no longer rare, and
are on the increase.

MS2.  Show me the data.  They may be on the increase but I contend they are still rare.  Of all the email transmitted in a day I would predict that less than a thousandth of a per cent (<0.001) is used to stalk people.  Which means that 99.999% of all email is NOT used to stalk.  Because of that rare instance we should not have a Whois?

MS1.  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
Barbaras argument that listing someone Home physical address in the
Whois database in order to register a Domain Name and the present
legislation considering not doing so a felony is in effect using a facility,
such a Whois as a tool for terrorists, stalkers, and Spammers
much easier...

MS2.  The Whois is a tool for terrorists?  Come on, Jeff.  The Al-Quida have purportedly used the Internet for communications.  Should we shut the whole system down, too?  And they also used cell phones and ATM machines.  And automobiles.  Where will it end?

Regards,


Micheal Sherrill


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Date:  Tue, 18 Jun 2002 20:11:19 -0700

Michael and all stakeholders of interested parties,

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.

  And where and how do you come to this questionable conclusion when
a number of already self admitted spammers openly state that they
frequently use the Whois database for gathering E-Mail addresses
for marketing purposes?

> I would think that most SPAMers get email addresses from online discussions (just like this one) or postings to Web sites.

  Indeed this is yet another source.  However it is not near a good or easily
gleanable source(s) for E-Mail addresses for UCE Spam purposes..

>
> 2.  Why the reluctance to provide your home address for a domain name?

  Barbara answered that question already in her comments below.  Did
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.

  No "I" haven't, and I doubt, but do not know if Barbara has.  To my knowledge,
and at least in both California, Texas, and 14 other states in the US, for a drivers
license no physical address is necessary or required.  For a mortgage, as
lending laws also do not require you to provide your physical address under
the fir lending act.  In addition most schools, even private schools do not
require, and in most US states cannot require you to provide a physical address
to register your children in that school.   I also have two credit cards that
do not list or have my physical address home address in any fashion
as well.  Hence, Michael, as we have gone over before on this very
At-Large forum a few weeks back now, your contention here in response
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.

  Go ahead and try to do that.  If I or Barbara, in this case find out that
you have made such an attempt, we could file a court action of invasion
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.

  Again go ahead and try that Michael, and you will likely find yourself in some
very hot water.  Lexis-Nexis, of which I am a member, has been sued
successfully for releasing opt-out credit information without the expressed
written consent of the individual which that information was requested
a number of times and forced to make restitution accordingly.  Check
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.

  Ok than, why are you advocating and clearly inaccurately stating that there
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.

  Agreed.  But more and more according the the FBI NIPC are doing so...
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.

  Some Web Hosts do a fairly good job, but many more do not.  Earthlink
for instance does a fairly good job.  However Verisign does not.  In any
event this part of your argument does not logically follow and therefore
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.

  If they were just rare instances, this would of course be an accurate
evaluation of statement.  Unfortunately they are no longer rare, and
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?

  No, it makes the lack of adequate security a culprit, of course.  Hence
Barbaras argument that listing someone Home physical address in the
Whois database in order to register a Domain Name and the present
legislation considering not doing so a felony is in effect using a facility,
such a Whois as a tool for terrorists, stalkers, and Spammers
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

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