Re: [ga] WHOIS TF: Brainstorming session on privacy.

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

Todd,
I would not personally wish to see your family put at risk because of your
private information such as your home address or unlisted telephone number
being published world wide, but perhaps if were to happen to you, you 
would
understand the need for privacy.  This is especially true of women with
children operating a SOHO.  It has less to do with spamming, although this
has been a serious issue with data mining.  Until it hits you on a 
personal
level, there is little understanding of the problem. It's much the same as
those who have never had serious illness such as AIDS or cancer close to
them.  You cannot really know the problem until it's in your backyard. 
When it does hit you, it's devastating.

Having a public address does not mean that you must post that address for
the world.  Even the telcos don't publish your address if you request it 
to
be unpublished.  If you call the post office or telco, they will not
release the information to the public, as it is private.  Having a phone
number does not make it public.  Your drivers license and social security
number is not published by those agencies for public view and people are
told to guard their social security numbers.  I value my safety and 
privacy
and have paid enough of a price in having my personal information
published.

When your life is threatened by some nut who relishes stalking and 
harrassment, get back to us and let us know if you still believe anyone
should be able to get to your family just because you have a "public"
domain on the internet.  The idea is to have the information you wish to 
be
public on the internet and the rest is to be held privately.  For those 
who
have a legitimate need to "find you" there are legal mechanisms in place. 
Having a small SOHO and advertising services should not EVER place anyone
at risk.  It looks totally unprofessional to have such a business homed
under a /~username address.  Having a third level domain under some ISP's
domain is equally unprofessional.  Penalizing individuals is wrong, wrong,
wrong, and was not the intention of the WHOIS.  The world has changed and
the internet certainly has.  The WHOIS has been abused and used for things
for which it was never intended.  Your position makes it even more prone 
to
that abuse.

The next time I have some nut call me or show up at my door at 3am because
of the whois, I'll think of you.  It's not likely to happen at this point
because I have a post office box now, but I do get some really distrubing
mail every now and then and can tell it was due to the whois because of 
the
information on the mail.  I report those disturbing mail pieces to the 
USPS
inspector general, of course.  At least they take it seriously.

Your position puts many people's lives at risk, Todd.  I realize you don't
think it's an issue, but I can tell you it is.  Please don't take it
lightly.

Leah

On 24 Feb 2003 at 7:20, todd glassey wrote:

> Thomas - this biggest issue is why there is a need for privacy for a
> public conveyance like an internet address. The whole point of getting a
> public address is to be found, and like all mechanisms for being found in
> the world today, there is no valid reason to need to register something
> in the public view anonymously.
> 
> The inherent misconception is that you need a public address to publish
> on the Internet. What you need is a Search Engine that is willing to list
> you as a IP address and then everything is moot with regard to the need
> to have a domain.
> 
> The issue is really that the people that this privacy protects are
> spammers and not private citizens, they have been duped into believing
> that their privacy is a reality on the Internet and it simply is not
> true. The only issue in moving forward is how much money someone that
> want to know about you or what you are up to is willing to spend to find
> out.
> 
> So the real issue in making WHOIS private is whether the Registrars are
> willing to take financial culpability for any and all damages that any of
> their "private clients" do and if they are - then fine. Otherwise the
> problem is also moot since the first time it gets to court it will likely
> ve struck down.
> 
> Just my 2 cents,
> Todd Glassey
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 11:15 PM
> Subject: [ga] WHOIS TF: Brainstorming session on privacy.
> 
> 
> > The WHOIS Task Force is going to hold a brain-storming session on
> > WHOIS privacy tomorrow, in preparation of its planned privacy issues
> > report.  If you want Kristy, Abel or me to raise any specific issues
> > you may have, please let us know about them ASAP.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> > --
> > 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
> 
> 


--
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