[ncdnhc-discuss] [atlarge-discuss] SPAMMING ISSUES - was WLSproposal

[todd glassey]

Actually Barbara - I would disagree. Whois is only a good spam address
database for people that operate domain names and there are only a few
million of us globally at this point. And as to the maintenance of Whois
itself and the doling of its addresses, while Whois is supposed to be a
pre-built email address list, technically it should be ICANN's mailing list
and only available to individuals  in a "Domain Administration Mode" or a
"Complaint" situation to the ISP perhaps.

Whois was a tool built so that Systems Admins and Network Points of Contact
could keep track of each other. Nothing more.

As to the real spam issue, the real issue is the addresses of the general
users of the Internet and not ours, and for the largest part they are
collected through the Browsers we all use to traverse the web. The concept
of integrated desktop environments and personal privacy have been at odds
with each other for quite some time now, and I still see no one slamming the
Browser Manufacturers - the only people that can really stop SPAM by the
hiding of our personal CV's rather than their being easily readable from any
site.

If you have a problem with it, then start writing Microsoft and Netscape
that they should not publish the default user information from any browser,
but rather should allow the user to set whatever information they want.

Todd

From: "Barbara Simons" <simons at acm.org>
To: <micheal at beethoven.com>; "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>
Cc: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>; <nc-transfer at dnso.org>;
"NCDNHC" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>; "General Assembly of the DNSO"
<ga at dnso.org>; "atlarge discuss list" <atlarge-discuss at lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 12:15 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss]
WLSproposal


> 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help at lists.fitug.de
>