RE: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

George, your assumption is that privacy is an option that people desire
in the same manner that they lust after consumer goods.

My view is slightly different - the data is mine and you can't use it
unless you ask me first. This is substantially different than privacy or
lack thereof and goes directly to my fundamental rights as a consumer
and human being. This "data" is not in the public domain - it belongs to
me. Continuing to adhere to policy (not just ICANN) that prevents me
from commercially exploiting (or otherwise exploiting) the value of my
data is just fundamentally wrong. Why should a registrar benefit from
the sale of *my* information - why shouldn't *I* benefit from the sale
of my information? You don't have a right to spam me, you don't have a
right to resell my data and you certainly don't have a right to
repackage it up and sell it off to the highest bidder. Why? Because
these are the terms of use, the license, that I choose to attach to *my*
data. 

Again, I ask if this level of control holds true for corporate
interests, why does it prove false for me?

In my mind this is just as fundamental as my right to walk the streets
at night without being accosted. Its foolish to think that I can do this
in some neighborhoods without first taking back the streets, but this
doesn't make the right evaporate. I believe that my rights in my data
are similar to those rights enjoyed by corporate interests. Just because
it is foolish for me to walk these streets at this point doesn't make my
rights go away - it simply means we need to take back our data first.



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf 
> Of George Kirikos
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 10:07 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> --- Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com> wrote:
> > The legal system has been able to deal (albeit sometimes 
> slowly) with 
> > anonymous and hidden identies.  Essentially the one who claims that 
> > his/her rights are being infringed initiates a legal proceeding that
> 
> I have to agree with Marilyn's position, and disagree with 
> others who seem to expect an "absolute" privacy right. The 
> above is pushing the costs of the desire by some for privacy 
> onto the victims, and protecting the perpetrators.
> 
> Pragmatically, those who legitimately seek greater privacy, 
> because they want to protect their children, or for other 
> reasons, and find their privacy "priceless" can go for 
> Domains By Proxy, or other solutions. Some may say that this 
> is one more step of indirection, and they want to "control" 
> their domain, but they don't -- they already go through a 
> registrar, and in many cases a reseller, and then through a 
> registry, which is beholden to ICANN, which is ultimately 
> created by the US government, so they're 4 or 5 steps away 
> from "control". Adding one more step only hurts their 
> pocketbook by a couple of bucks a year.
> 
> So, for those who are arguing for greater privacy:
> 
> 1) What economic value do you place on that privacy? Name the 
> annual dollar benefit you think you'd receive if you didn't 
> have to publish your personal info in the WHOIS, compared to 
> the status quo.
> 
> 2) a) If that value is greater than the premium charged by 
> Domains by Proxy, etc., what's the big deal? Why should 
> others (society at large) have to suffer increased legal 
> costs, and other problems, due to your personal desire to 
> save a couple of bucks?
> b) If that value is less than the price of Domains by Proxy, 
> then you have no leg to stand on, i.e. privacy isn't really 
> important to you.
> 
> Amongst those who value "privacy" the most are those who seek 
> to commit abuse on the net (others have legitimate desires 
> too, but they can go for 2.a)). The abusers wouldn't last 
> long as Domains by Proxy would become responsible for their 
> activities, so they'd be shut down, or revealed.
> 
> So, ultimately, folks who want greater privacy should show:
> 
> 1) that the social costs of greater abuse, legal costs, 
> greater uncertainty over who one is dealing with, etc. due to 
> that proportion of "privacy seekers" who will abuse their 
> hidden identities are outweighed by the benefits of extra privacy.
> 
> 2) Since the benefits of extra privacy can be achieved by low 
> cost mechanisms such as Domains by Proxy, where there is a 
> published and responsible legal entity (or through 
> publication only of a "Legal Contact", which I've argued for 
> before), why society at large should pick absolute privacy, 
> over this existing mechanism? 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> 
> P.S. The whois.txt stuff was unrelated to privacy, as it was 
> entirely optional, just another way to help others who want 
> to be "found" build connections with others.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

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