Re: [ga] Privacy and Whois databases

["J. Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>]

Peter:

I can is based on hope, supported by the faithful, devoted to the dead,
who once roamed this great internet as god.  Now that god is dead, the
faithful plug on in the hope salavation will be just around november.

ICANN is basically illegal and irrelevant.  Nii losing is a clear
indication the kooks are in control here.  A real shame.

Regards
Joe Baptista

On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Peter Veeck wrote:

> Dennis,
> 
> Which government should ICANN go to for guidance.  ITU and ICAO are based upon International
> agreements.  They can negotiate with governments.  ICANN is based upon WHAT?  William Dailey? Al
> Gore? I have yet see a public ground swell of support for ICANN
> 
> Peter Veeck.
> 
> d3nnis wrote:
> 
> > Peter,
> >
> > Re:  "You can solve your privacy issue very easily. Set up SPAM cops under ICANN,
> > allow only them to have access to the database for investigative purposes.  Set
> > up ICANN as the clearing house for SPAM complaints.  ICANN could take over MAPS
> > RBL.  "
> >
> > IMHO, if ICANN ever acquires the authority to downgrade individuals' privacy rights
> > to a matter of contract law, ICANN will have become the black hole of
> > government ...
> >
> > Since ICANN is supposed to be involved only in administration, it should be seeking guidance on
> > this issue directly from government.
> >
> > >Dennis
> >
> > ----------
> > > Let me give you an example of how the privacy of the Texas auto registration
> > > Database works.  The private individual cannot get any information.  The
> > > Companies get the Entire Database for mail lists.
> > >
> > > Enforcement of rules/regulatons is a scary subject.  Everybody does not follow
> > > all of the RFC's, does anybody know them all?  There is no abuse@rndtm.net.my,
> > > but there is a mail server with an open relay. nor is there a
> > > Postmaster@telco.co.in but there is a mail server. In theory you shouldn't
> > > need
> > > a database to contact a network operator.  You can get a contact from the SOA
> > > or
> > > you can mail to the RFC addresses.  In an ideal world none of this would be
> > > necessary so obviously this is not an ideal world.  You can not have
> > > governance
> > > without enforcement.
> > >
> > > You can solve your privacy issue very easily. Set up SPAM cops under ICANN,
> > > allow only them to have access to the database for investigative purposes.
> > > Set
> > > up ICANN as the clearing house for SPAM complaints.  ICANN could take over
> > > MAPS
> > > RBL.  They can also handle network/server intrusion complaints. Of course
> > > before
> > > you add someone to the RBL you must have a hearing of some sort so you need
> > > either to have a judicial system or work with a local system.  Will the US
> > > allow
> > > anybody else to have judicial authority over their citizens?  They won't even
> > > sign a treaty they instigated. Will the rest of the world freely submit
> > > themselves to US administration. NOT LIKELY, even if as P.T. Barnum said, you
> > > can fool all of the people some of the time.
> > >
> > > Personally I would prefer to keep the databases as they are (actually I would
> > > prefer better accuracy of their information) and put up with the aggravations.
> > > I'll do my own policing. I know the present, the future is what is scary.
> > >
> > > Getting rid of the registration databases does not get rid of SPAM nor will it
> > > in any way effect network/server security.  There are programs that go out and
> > > sniff the web for email addresses.  Somebody might get my address from this
> > > very
> > > email.  How long before one of the indexing companies, there is a profit
> > > motive,
> > > starts scavenging their databases for email addresses?  Have you noticed that
> > > there are names, phone numbers, and addresses in the telephone directories.
> > >
> > > On another tact,  how much of this privacy argument is driven by profit
> > > motive?
> > > My database--my information--my Copyright--PAY ME.
> > >
> > > Peter Veeck
> > >
> > > Srikanth Narra wrote:
> > >
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > This proposal, if any thing, should act to everyone's advantage in fighting
> > > > spam.
> > > >
> > > > 1. It becomes prohibitively expensive for a spammer to get (or revalidate
> > > > your information if you change it) from whois database as they have to pay
> > > > on a domain by domain basis giving valid reason (however filmsy) for
> > > > obtaining your details. The records of such requests exist with the
> > > > register.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Becomes (hopefully) easier for registers to spot someone mining the whois
> > > > for spamming purposes  - as they will have to make fairly number of
> > > > requests. At the least complicates spammer's methods to gather information
> > > > as they will have to use multiple identities, etc (remember verifiable means
> > > > of payment).
> > > >
> > > > (maybe we can even suggest some guidelines for registers to request for a
> > > > additional safety deposit from someone requesting too large a number of
> > > > records like couple of thousand - for legal defence or compensation purposes
> > > > - to be release back to requester after a certain time lapse)
> > > >
> > > > 3. Gives you a advance notice that someone is trying to lookup your records
> > > > and  why, (automatically and free of cost email to your email account -
> > > > unlike credit bureaus where you have to request for such information) -
> > > > giving you a chance to notify register if you suspect its a spammer. or take
> > > > precautions if its a potential stacker or political/religious persecuter.
> > > >
> > > > 4. As far as change from present system - from your additional burden
> > > > perspective - all that has changed to is, you having to pay nominal fee
> > > > (just like a spammer would) to enquire the spammers records. All your legal
> > > > and other options remain intact  - nothing else changes from present day. A
> > > > fair price for the little bit more sanity, peace of mind and personal safety
> > > > - is it not ?
> > > >
> > > > Best of all nobody ICANN or anyone gets additional powers or juridiction and
> > > > is a market based solution.
> > > >
> > > > comments ?
> > > >
> > > > Sri
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Peter Veeck
> > > > To: Mark C. Langston
> > > > Cc: ga@dnso.org; Srikanth Narra
> > > > Sent: 10/15/99 10:19 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [ga] Privacy and Whois databases
> > > >
> > > > "Mark C. Langston" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 15 October 1999, Srikanth Narra <snarra@talus.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >May be we can take a clue from the way credit files are kept in US
> > > > and use
> > > > > >the same model.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The whois records stay private with register. Anyone wants to take a
> > > > look at
> > > > > >them pays a nominal amount by verifiable means like credit card or a
> > > > check
> > > > > >for the privileage to see the information. (that should cover the
> > > > registers
> > > > > >expenses for keeping the records private and to fend the queries).
> > > >
> > > > I use whois to fight spam abuse.  Are  Spam complaints going to be taken
> > > > over by
> > > > ICANN or a subset thereof?
> > > >
> > > > Peter Veeck
> > >
> > >
>