Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

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

George and all assembly members,

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
>
> Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think we're getting somewhere after
> the longer posts, which might have cleared up some of the problems in
> the shorter posts that were left open to wacky interpretations.

  LOL!  Good point here George!  >;)

>
>
> Here's my main point: there are benefits AND costs to privacy.

  Very true.  I personally feel that the benefits far outweigh the costs
however.  The supreme court in the US has ruled in this direction
as well many more times than not.  It is also a guaranteed right to
personal information be private and kept so should the individual
wish it to be i.e. Privacy Act.

>
>
> If one does an online search, one can verify this is a topic of huge
> debate. For example, one scholarly papers is:
>
> http://www.aei.brookings.org/publications/working/working_01_14.pdf

  Yes I have read this several times.  Our members scoffed at it
mostly as it is a "Scholarly Work" it hardly could reflect the
real life experiences.

>
>
> Or in pop-media:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,43654,00.html
>
> (those particular articles aren't directly relevant to domain
> registrant WHOIS info, but shows that there's passions on both sides)

  I have a huge database of URL's full of these debates in the media,
and at a number of public forums including the DNSO GA mailing
list long before you were involved and other ICANN related forums.

>
>
> No one is advocating that we be publishing private medical records in
> the WHOIS.

  Well this is a bit of an extreme comparison George.  And I wasn't coming
close to even suggesting that such was even being considered of course...

> But, the arguments of some camps are at the opposite
> extreme, saying no information whatsoever should be published about a
> registrant (yet the proponents of this argument don't seem to realize
> that it is at the opposite extreme, an absolute).

  If it is personal information, I and all of our [INEGRoup] members
would agree.  Such information is not needed.  For instance, a persons
personal E-Mail address,  physical address or personal Phone Number
for example would be considered and have been legally upheld as
"Personal Information".  In many states, a persons Drivers license
Number is considered private personal information and not legally
able to be required to be made public.

>
>
> > for my own hobby, for instance.  Hence my or any other registrant
> > has a right to their personal privacy.  The current data structure
> > used
> > in WHOIS records for a Domain Name registration is violating
> > the 1st amendment right to my privacy and unduly restricting me
> > as a result if I should choose to register a domain name(s)...
>
> Now here's a chance to help me -- we've seen in Marilyn's post
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00337.html
>
> just a few of the "costs" that would occur if there was absolute
> privacy for domain registrants (in addition, the criminal element would
> tend to value that ability to be anonymous much more than a typical
> registrant).

  Well this contention is a matter of conjecture.  I, along with every
single
one of our [INEGroup] members value our privacy very highly.  The EU
commission has also passed two resolutions that must be included in
any and all trade agreements, including ecommerce trade, that personal
information that is up to the registrant/individual as to it's use by
expressed written consent and may not encumber them in equally
participating actively in such trade...

>
>
> Folks on the "pro-privacy" camp should provide a list of the benefits
> of greater WHOIS privacy.

  Already been done on this very forum on more than one occasion.
See archives.

>
>
> On a pragmatic basis, if the benefits of the greater WHOIS privacy
> exceed the costs, then I'd be more convinced that greater privacy is
> desirable.

  I am fairly sure that this could not be proven either way George.
As such, this argument is really not solvable and therefore moot.

>
>
> > > If someone truly wants anonymity, they can appoint a lawyer or
> > someone
> > > else to hold the domain name "in trust" on their behalf.
> >
> >   Yes they sure can.  But such is also an undue restriction upon the
> > potential registrant.
>
> Even folks that want to become unlisted in the telephone book typically
> pay extra fees to do so.

  I don't pay not to be listed here in Texas.  In fact I pay if I am to be
listed.  Currently my home phone and two of my office numbers are
NOT listed.

> Is every small cost an "undue restriction"?

  No of course not.  But the danger of persons personal information
being public also is used by criminals for Identification Theft, amongst
other crimes.

> In
> many states, it's illegal to drive a car without insurance. Is that an
> undue restriction?

  Yes this is true.  In Texas for instance this is true.  However
insurance cards or proof of insurance in texas allows for privacy
protection as they do not list a persons Physical address, Home
Phone #, or personal E-Mail address.

>
>
> I've not advocated absolute disclosure, or publication of DNA/health
> records -- the first amendment doesn't advocate absolute freedom,
> either (it's tempered by various laws, like trademark infringement,
> defamation law, etc.).

  Again I was not referring to nor did I mention DNA/Health records
as even a remote possibility one way or the other.  So this comparison is
non secular to the issue of Registrant persona information Privacy
and the Privacy Act as it applies to a Registrant.

> There's a natural balance, with society weighing
> the costs and benefits. Folks are giving up some more freedom these
> days, for instance, when they visit the airports, due to costs
> associated with terrorism.

  I just returned from a trip for a court hearing.  I did not need to
provide
any personal private information to board the aircraft I boarded.  I
purchased
my ticket online as I usually do.  My privacy was guaranteed from the
Web site I purchased my ticket from and was not made public as is
currently done in the WHOIS.

> One isn't searched entering a public bus,
> but is when boarding a public airline.

  Yes I was searched.  But that is not a public disclosure of my
personal private information so this comparison is again not
applicable to the issue at hand here which is personal information
in the WHOIS such as my personal physical address, personal
phone number, ect...

>
>
> >   I am not advocating anonymity by any means.  Just simple personal
> > privacy regarding personal information such as home address, home
> > phone Number and personal E-Mail address.
>
> I'd argue that basic information, such as name and contact info, are
> quite sensible and balanced compromises.

  As long as a E-Mail address that is a working one and is reachable
or and admin. e-mail address is all that is really needed.

>
>
> However, as I said above, I'd be swayed more if folks can tell me what
> possible benefits there are to being able to register a domain name
> without providing such information.

  That is easy to answer.  Personal safety!  (Also see above)

> Marilyn, I and I'm sure many others
> can easily supply examples of costs associated with blank WHOIS data,
> but perhaps if others would supply some of the benefits, and try to
> quantify them, we can move forward and undertand each other better.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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


--
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