Re: [ga] A story about Whois and privacy

["Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@ameritech.net>]

From: "elliot noss" <enoss@tucows.com>
"there are THOUSANDS of ISPs and web hosting companies..."
====

They pre-date the artificial Registrar-Registry structure, which is primarily a Franchisor-Franchisee arrangement,
wrapped in the non-public-accountable cloaks of the non-prophets...who appear to have no "end-game"...

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "elliot noss" <enoss@tucows.com>
To: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
Cc: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb@bertola.eu.org>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] A story about Whois and privacy


> There is much that is factual in what you say. I do want to add that 
> there are THOUSANDS of ISPs and web hosting companies who manage the 
> whois information and shield individuals from the public exposure AND 
> the intricacies of managing the process as a standard business practice 
> and have done so for many many years.
> 
> On Sunday, May 18, 2003, at 05:33 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> 
> > As Leah and I have pointed out (separately) several times on this 
> > list, the
> > public disclosure of personal details in the WHOIS can endanger life 
> > and
> > intimidate people.
> >
> > Anyone who has, for example, been seriously stalked will know the fear 
> > and
> > heart-wrenching pressure you can be exposed to, and I think it is 
> > wholly
> > unacceptable to have any policy which insists on publication of 
> > personal
> > details.
> >
> > As a result of a determined female stalker with a psychiatric history 
> > and
> > obsessive personality, my family and I moved home and have had an
> > ex-directory telephone number for 9 years. The one chink in this 
> > armour is
> > the existence of our details on WHOIS files, which leaves me feeling 
> > exposed
> > (though I have formed a judgement that the person in question is 
> > unlikely to
> > be computer literate).
> >
> > Other people may be less lucky.
> >
> > I know there are some registrars who will mask your details for you, 
> > and I
> > think that is absolutely necessary. I believe that WHOIS details 
> > (perhaps
> > apart from e-mail address) should be kept private, retained only on a 
> > secure
> > list, where people can obtain the details only on the basis of a court
> > order. If people wish to disclose their personal details on the WHOIS 
> > files,
> > fine. But what is not acceptable is that people's right to privacy (and
> > right to safety) should be jeopardised.
> >
> > If someone abuses their domain name rights (eg by perpetrating fraud or
> > misrepresentation to the financial harm of others) of course the 
> > injured
> > parties should have legal recourse and police should be allowed legal 
> > access
> > to details if a judge agrees.
> >
> > But most domain name registrants are just going about their daily lives
> > legally and decently. Their details should not be published on the 
> > WHOIS
> > files unless they want them to be.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Richard Henderson
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org>
> > To: <ga@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 11:17 AM
> > Subject: [ga] A story about Whois and privacy
> >
> >
> >> A few days ago, I was watching one of my favourite TV shows here in
> >> Italy, and they were showing the following story.
> >>
> >> Some people had told the journalists of the show about a very peculiar
> >> online cheat: they had found a .com site advertising sex nights with
> >> very beautiful women (photos included) at the cost of several hundred
> >> Euros (even thousands in some cases). By calling the telephone numbers
> >> found on the site, they were told that they would have to pay in
> >> advance half of the money to get the "date". Money had to be paid to a
> >> given person and postal address through the payment system of the
> >> Post. But of course, when the people paid they never got anything back
> >> - the postal address on the payment bill was fake and by calling back
> >> the website owners they were only getting mocked. (And you can imagine
> >> that these "customers" weren't eager to go to the police to tell the
> >> whole story.)
> >>
> >> However, the journalist tried a WHOIS search on the domain, and he
> >> found the same name as on the payment bills - but this time with the
> >> real address! Thanks to WHOIS, he was able to get back to the owner of
> >> the domain. But to his surprise, he discovered that the owner was a
> >> mentally handicapped person living on minimal State subsidies. In the
> >> end, it came out that the true inventors of the fraud had exploited
> >> this person, convinced him to let them have his personal documents,
> >> and used these documents to register the domain and to collect the
> >> money at the Post office. The police was finally called and these
> >> people were caught.
> >>
> >> Now, apart from any judgement on suppliers and customers of this
> >> peculiar form of e-commerce, and giving for granted that everything
> >> was true and reported precisely, you may take different conclusions
> >> from this story.
> >>
> >> It is true that the people were found thanks to WHOIS, and that for
> >> the "customers" it could have been the only way to get back to the
> >> people behind the service. But it is also true that the police would
> >> have been able to do the same in a minute even without public WHOIS
> >> (either by a private access to WHOIS data, or by tracking down
> >> telephone numbers, or by looking for the name of the person). And what
> >> if, rather than by a journalist, the WHOIS search had been made by an
> >> angry customer? He could have ended chasing up or menacing the wrong
> >> person.
> >>
> >> So, personally, I take it as an indication that cases of "identity
> >> theft" are getting more and more common, and that some action should
> >> be taken; and that there should be a quick way to get back to domain
> >> owners in case of crimes, but it should not be accessible to everyone
> >> without control.
> >> --
> >> vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
> >> -------------------> http://bertola.eu.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