[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Privacy/Proxy and spam/botnets

[Don Blumenthal]

Bob,

The rules for access to domain registration data were developed well
before the Internet spread beyond governments and universities. They were
developed even longer before commercial email systems and Tim B-L began
the processes that made it accessible to non-geeks, and it was a little
more time until the Internet commercialized. At the risk of intruding on
EWG territory, should the community base decisions on the realities then
or should it look at what the Internet is now and act accordingly?

FWIW, I plan to use "domain registration data" instead of "whois² except
when talking about specific existing protocols and systems. That¹s what
the information is, and at the risk of reading tea leaves, ³whois² will
disappear as an active term in both the protocol and data management space
before long. Define ³long² however you want.

Don

 

On 1/20/14, 12:59 PM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen at coldrain.net> wrote:

>
>Hi Volker,
>
>As just a human being, I also believe in data protection and data
>privacy, 
>as well information that needs to be public should be and information
>that 
>does not should not.
>
>However, whois data was intended to public, so taking away public access
>is extreme. (I am only concerned with the money, not individuals).
>
>You do not get to decide what I think I need, nor what the rest of the
>public needs. We can all decide for ourselves.
>
>I, for example, wish the NSA had not decided that I did not need to know
>what they were doing. But that is way of topic.
>
>                   --bob
>
>On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
>
>> As a European, I believe in data protection and data privacy.
>>Information 
>> that needs to be public should be. Information that does not should
>>not. "The 
>> public" indeed does not need that data. If you think that is extreme...
>>
>> BTW: I also have an issue with tapping phones, logging connection data,
>> logging private communication, etc.
>>
>> Volker
>>
>> Am 20.01.2014 18:36, schrieb Bob Bruen:
>>> Hi Volker,
>>> 
>>> Law Enforcement has been compaining for years about access to whois
>>>and 
>>> still do. This is just an obstacle thrown up to slow down finding who
>>>the 
>>> bad actors are. Getting court orders and warrants just to see who owns
>>>a 
>>> domain (commercial) is way out there. The information was intended to
>>>be 
>>> public in the first place.
>>> 
>>> It appears that you have decided that the general public does not
>>>deserve 
>>> access to public whois data. Again, I do not know what to say to
>>>something 
>>> so extreme.
>>>
>>>                --bob
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Volker Greimann wrote:
>>> 
>>>> No identities of criminals are effectively protected by privacy
>>>>services, 
>>>> provided they are required to reveal such
>>>> identities to law enforcement of appropriate jurisdiction.
>>>> 
>>>> Private individuals, vigilantes or other interested parties on the
>>>>other 
>>>> hand have no real legitimate interest to receive
>>>> data on alleged criminals data unless they want to take matters best
>>>>left 
>>>> to LEAs into their own hands.
>>>> 
>>>> There is a reason why even criminals have the right to privacy and
>>>>not to 
>>>> have their full names and likenesses published.
>>>> Heck, in Japan, TV stations even mosaic handcuffs of suspects.
>>>> 
>>>> Volker
>>>>