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

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Leah and all,

This is sweet and genuious, however it should be sharper and more critical.
e

"L. Gallegos" wrote:

> 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 be unpublished.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

--
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