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

[Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org>]

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

--
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