<div dir="ltr">>><span style="font-size:12.8px">Here you go with the edge cases again.</span><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">The mother of all edge cases is the main contention of this entire working group. The theory that an innocent domain registrant's privacy is either "violated" or "not violated" and that this somehow hinges on the privacy status of the WHOIS data. This is absolutely a false premise. If I want to find someone, and they frequently use the Internet and aren't extremely OPSEC-aware, I'm going to find them. WHOIS privacy absolutely will not protect them. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Does anyone believe this premise that also has experience in investigations? I do not believe any such person exists, because when you are experienced in tracking people down, you will know that this premise is factually untrue.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">>></span><span style="font-size:12.8px">Well it might be so, but every singel person “claiming” they use whois for investigation seems to lack the understanding that they will get the access it will just be a little harder to get the normal misuse of whois info can be prevented but looks like noen of you want that to happen</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Is this an assurance? Because the talk I see here is about requiring paperwork like subpeonas and search warrants and that isn't feasible both from an investigation or automation standpoint as well as the fact that the vast majority of the anti-abuse community are not cops. There's no sign whatsoever that there is consideration towards anti-abuse.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">>></span><span style="font-size:12.8px">I trust these statistics by spamhaus less than anything coming out of the mouth of the orange menace. And that is saying something.</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">You stand alone in that opinion. Spamhaus is not perfect but they are the most widely used blocklists among network operators. The amount of harm prevented by Spamhaus's block lists eclipses the harm prevented by registrants receiving WHOIS spam. It is like comparing the size of the sun to the size of an ant. If you have ever tried to operate from infrastructure that's on Spamhaus's block lists, your access to the Internet at large will be very poor indeed.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">How many of you people actually have day to day experience in fighting spam and preventing the massive privacy invasions that happen on a daily basis to innocent people? I am getting the feeling that this group badly needs to gain some perspective. WHOIS spam is a problem and is an annoyance, privacy is important, but this group keeps talking about WHOIS privacy and completely ignoring the fact that by volume such a scheme would cause great harms for mostly imaginary gain. To me this shows a sign that many of the arguments here are about idealism without practical experience.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:24 PM, <a href="mailto:benny@nordreg.se">benny@nordreg.se</a> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:benny@nordreg.se" target="_blank">benny@nordreg.se</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi John<br>
<br>
None in the group can do that, just as little as the opposite if we dont work together on the needs, give and take on it, we will not move forward.<br>
But the attitude which I see where the Status Quo are the driver for the discussions are not really productive…<br>
<br>
Everything can be changed with new privacy laws coming in to force<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen<br>
<br>
Benny Samuelsen<br>
Registry Manager - Domainexpert<br>
<br>
Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar<br>
IANA-ID: 638<br>
Phone: <a href="tel:%2B46.42197080" value="+4642197080">+46.42197080</a><br>
Direct: <a href="tel:%2B47.32260201" value="+4732260201">+47.32260201</a><br>
Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B47.40410200" value="+4740410200">+47.40410200</a><br>
<br>
</span><span class="im HOEnZb">> On 14 Feb 2017, at 18:18, John Horton <<a href="mailto:john.horton@legitscript.com">john.horton@legitscript.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi Benny,<br>
><br>
> Let me try to dig into that a little bit with a serious question. What assurance do those of us engaged in cybercrime investigation -- or not yet created organizations that are legitimate -- have that we would have the same level of access in the future? Is it possible for this group to make that assurance? To be sure, this isn't my only concern or objection, but part of what I'm trying to get at is: even if those of us on this working group were to agree that cybercrime-mitigation entities should have the same access we have today, what's to prevent a stricter regime from changing the rules in the future? In other words, if we create a system that empowers one central organization to say that Allison's reasons (for example) are valid now, there's nothing to prevent that organization from deciding to block her in the future because they don't believe her reasons for investigating cybercrime are valid. Put another way, my concern isn't that you personally or anyone on this group wants to block cybercrime mitigation from happening -- rather, I'm wondering how this group could bind a future RDS 1, 5 or 10 years down the road not to change the goalposts.<br>
><br>
> John Horton<br>
> President and CEO, LegitScript<br>
><br>
><br>
</span><span class="im HOEnZb">> Follow LegitScript: LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | Blog | Google+<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:05 AM, <a href="mailto:benny@nordreg.se">benny@nordreg.se</a> <<a href="mailto:benny@nordreg.se">benny@nordreg.se</a>> wrote:<br>
> Well it might be so, but every singel person “claiming” they use whois for investigation seems to lack the understanding that they will get the access it will just be a little harder to get the normal misuse of whois info can be prevented but looks like noen of you want that to happen...<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen<br>
><br>
> Benny Samuelsen<br>
> Registry Manager - Domainexpert<br>
><br>
> Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar<br>
> IANA-ID: 638<br>
> Phone: <a href="tel:%2B46.42197080" value="+4642197080">+46.42197080</a><br>
> Direct: <a href="tel:%2B47.32260201" value="+4732260201">+47.32260201</a><br>
> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B47.40410200" value="+4740410200">+47.40410200</a><br>
><br>
> > On 14 Feb 2017, at 17:58, allison nixon <<a href="mailto:elsakoo@gmail.com">elsakoo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Benny, dude, you just wrote "Buhu my work will get harder", so please don't complain about adult and mature answers<br>
> ><br>
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:56 AM, <a href="mailto:benny@nordreg.se">benny@nordreg.se</a> <<a href="mailto:benny@nordreg.se">benny@nordreg.se</a>> wrote:<br>
> > A very adult and mature answer… with some nice baked in threats, funny its only your kind of crimes which matter apparantly… oh and the final on which always are been draged out when there are no more arguments, think about the one child we can save…<br>
> ><br>
> > To answer your questions hidden in the threats, yes you are part of the better for all but that also means everyone have to give and take to come to a better solution.<br>
> > In you ignorance you completely miss the point that by have all these data public there are commited crimes every minut by using those data nut hey what does that matter as long as you business can roll on… I guess those people will thank you for you helpful insights…<br>
> ><br>
> > Welcome to the discussion<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen<br>
> ><br>
> > Benny Samuelsen<br>
> > Registry Manager - Domainexpert<br>
> ><br>
> > Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar<br>
> > IANA-ID: 638<br>
> > Phone: <a href="tel:%2B46.42197080" value="+4642197080">+46.42197080</a><br>
> > Direct: <a href="tel:%2B47.32260201" value="+4732260201">+47.32260201</a><br>
> > Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B47.40410200" value="+4740410200">+47.40410200</a><br>
> ><br>
> > > On 14 Feb 2017, at 17:29, John Bambenek <<a href="mailto:jcb@bambenekconsulting.com">jcb@bambenekconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Let me translate Allison's comments in the light of your mockery.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > You're ideas of privacy are patently absurd and your arrogance that entire industries need to rewrite how they do things to suit your effete and fantastical notions is breathtaking. Your mockery of people who investigate crime is just icing on the cake. Its not a question of looking past your own walls, its a question of whether you religious fanatics can acknowledge that other use cases are valid (or are we not part of the "all" in "better for all"). Are you really suggesting preventing spam is a higher priority than stopping human trafficking online?<br>
> > ><br>
> > > If someone who had need of privacy came to me for advice on registering a domain name I would tell them absolutely not to do it. Use blogspot or any other mechanism that doesn't involve a financial transaction to shield your privacy. Creating paper trails is always a poor life decision when OPSEC matters. Anything less and I would stop taking your concerns seriously.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > That said, we have a viable compromise, its called whois privacy protection. And it allows me to use risk based decisions on how I treat traffic to such domains.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > But if you wish to enable criminals to better hide so they can steal people's life savings, so they can anonymously traffic in child exploitation or to engage in sextortion against teenage girls all because you can't handle a spam filter, you can count me one that will line up against you and very publicly label you an enabler of child sexual exploitation. Then I will go to Congress, drag ICANN back under the Department of Commerce and ensure some adult supervision is had.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Or you can calm the hell down and knock it off with your attitude and we can find a viable middle ground. Totally your call.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > And if you are really concerned about spammers, I help run investigations against them too (using whois data, in part) and could totally use the help.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Sent from my iPhone<br>
> > ><br>
> > >> On Feb 14, 2017, at 05:28, "<a href="mailto:benny@nordreg.se">benny@nordreg.se</a>" <<a href="mailto:benny@nordreg.se">benny@nordreg.se</a>> wrote:<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> So basicaly what you say are… Buhu my work will get harder, let all innocent registrants suffer from spam/scam mail sprung out of the whois data published, all those registrants who get fake mails about renewing there domain or buying fake SEO plans?<br>
> > >> How can anyone defend that we have data published to get abused just because some bad guys registrer domains? And those of you who does will still have access to the date just not in the same easy way…<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> Sorry for my harsh tone but I really don’t see why we cant look past our own walls and find a solution which are to the better for all..<br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >> --<br>
> > >> Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> Benny Samuelsen<br>
> > >> Registry Manager - Domainexpert<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar<br>
> > >> IANA-ID: 638<br>
> > >> Phone: <a href="tel:%2B46.42197080" value="+4642197080">+46.42197080</a><br>
> > >> Direct: <a href="tel:%2B47.32260201" value="+4732260201">+47.32260201</a><br>
> > >> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B47.40410200" value="+4740410200">+47.40410200</a><br>
> > >><br>
> > >>> On 14 Feb 2017, at 06:38, allison nixon <<a href="mailto:elsakoo@gmail.com">elsakoo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> This car metaphor isn't complete without also stating that some car owners purchase them for the sole purpose of running over people!<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Some car owners purchase fleets of cars to run over as many people as possible. Even though they re-use their name on every single vehicle registration, the subpeona takes so long that the city can no longer automatically block the cars as they enter, and need to wait for them to run over a few people before they can do anything about it.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> This metaphor has obviously been tortured past the point of absurdity, I'll leave it alone now.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> I've mostly been lurking for the whole duration of this group, and please forgive me if I'm missing something massive here, but I get the impression that most people here don't spend a lot of time doing investigations. But this is my life. If I needed a subpeona for every single historical lookup, pivot, and reverse search, I would get zero done due to a lack of legal authority. Many if not most of the people doing the heavy lifting in anti-cybercrime efforts are private citizens with no government issued authority. It seems that the general expectation here is that limiting access to people with badges is OK, but I'm telling you there is a severe lack of those skillsets and it will be years before we see widespread technical literacy among the police. Whatever system results, private citizens need a path for unrestricted and automated access. And if we want to talk protecting privacy, I think criminally motivated violations of privacy are far more likely to affect everyone's day to day life right now, and automated WHOIS lookups are used heavily especially in anti-phishing and anti-spam operations.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> With the status quo, I can go on fishing expeditions through the WHOIS data and turn up hundreds of domains used for the same type of malicious activity, and predict with a high accuracy which domains will be malicious before they are used for anything. It sometimes turns up domains owned by innocent people, and I doubt privacy minded people would like that, but the reality is I rarely ever encounter WHOIS data that is convincing PII. It's almost all fake. And if it's not fake, it's a company's public contact info, or it's a foolish person who turned down WHOIS privacy protection, and will change their WHOIS as soon as the spam starts flowing.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Have there been any studies on what percentage of WHOIS data is real and correct? Can we ever expect to have meaningful data when registrars are allowed to take Bitcoins over Tor as payment? At what point does "privacy" become an empty argument when some of these Internet hosting/registrar companies clearly profit from facilitating abuse, and network defenders block entire TLDs due to the saturation of abuse?<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> From my vantage point, I see great benefit from seeing patterns in the fake data submitted by fraudsters, and I see few harms from the privacy side of things, because people seem to generally realize that "123 fake st" is a perfectly acceptable WHOIS entry.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> I also recognize this situation is completely absurd. Every aspect of this is surely an abuse of the original system. But it seems like building a pyramid from the top down, restricting access to supposed "PII" that is unlikely to contain PII, to the detriment of legitimate efforts that also seek to enhance privacy by preventing criminal theft of private data like bank account numbers.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Sam Lanfranco <<a href="mailto:sam@lanfranco.net">sam@lanfranco.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> > >>> I have to strongly agree with Alex that whatever the criteria are for thin data, they cannot include that thin data "is transitive" in some sort of bread crumb trail manner.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Everything is potentially transitive in that sense. I observe a vehicle but all I get is make, model and license plate, and in most jurisdictions that is all I get. It is the vehicle owner's "thin data". Of course I can hang around, see that the car has a baby seat, witness a woman or man putting a child in the car, assume that she/he has legitimate access to the car, follow the car and assemble more personal information (lives at; works at; shops at; visits;) The license plate didn't facilitate that crumb train discovery, but no license plate would hamper legitimate seeking of information about who owns the car (issuing a parking ticket, LEA investigation, etc.) . License plate is part of thin data with no gated access. Of course, this will change in the era of the digital vehicle. Depending on security, and authorization, one will be able to just ask the car, and ask about a lot of things...like whose cell phone was in the passenger's seat last night, when I was supposed to be alone )-:<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> There needs to be a similar balance (license plate but no owner's name unless wanted, like Sam's Curry Pizza Barn logo, phone number and website URL painted on the side).<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> More Important, have we made progress (convergence) on the working principles that should be brought to bear in building a thin data set. A lot of time has been spent looking at good case and bad case scenarios. What operational principles have been distilled from all these examples? What is the balance between thin data inclusion and exclusion, and design and technical solutions that can be used to prevent (for example) robotic harvesting? There is another frontier here, and that is what governments will do to restrain or enable certain uses of thin data? While ICANN needs to be aware of what is going on there, that part is beyond ICANN's remit, but those policies will help shape some of the context within which ICANN deals with the thin data task.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Sam L<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> On 2017-02-14 1:23 AM, Deacon, Alex wrote:<br>
> > >>> All,<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> So it seems the debate has progressed from “thin data” to “thick data” (i.e. data that includes email). I know we are all super excited to talk about “thick data” but I don’t think we are there yet (are we? Hopefully I didn’t miss the party…)<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Focusing on thin data for the moment I struggle to understand how it is personal data. I do not believe it is. As for the odd logic proposed by some that the property of privacy is transitive (i.e. Because “thin data” can be used to link/point/discover other data then “thin data” equals “personal data”) I just don’t buy it.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> I don’t disagree with much of what was expressed in this thread, however we must keep in mind that balance and proportionality are important concepts in many (all?) data privacy laws. Any arguments that imply that no such balance exists (or should exist) is obstructive IMO.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Alex<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> On 2/13/17, 5:42 AM, <<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a> on behalf of <a href="mailto:michele@blacknight.com">michele@blacknight.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> I agree and I know from how I’ve used various email addresses that they are actively being harvested and spammed.<br>
> > >>> Also it’s one of the biggest sources of complaints we get from our clients (registrants)<br>
> > >>> It’s definitely not an “edge case”.<br>
> > >>> Regards<br>
> > >>> Michele<br>
> > >>> --<br>
> > >>> Mr Michele Neylon<br>
> > >>> Blacknight Solutions<br>
> > >>> Hosting, Colocation & Domains<br>
> > >>> <a href="https://www.blacknight.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.blacknight.com/</a><br>
> > >>> <a href="http://blacknight.blog/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://blacknight.blog/</a><br>
> > >>> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<br>
> > >>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<br>
> > >>> Social: <a href="http://mneylon.social" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mneylon.social</a><br>
> > >>> Some thoughts: <a href="http://ceo.hosting/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://ceo.hosting/</a><br>
> > >>> ------------------------------<wbr>-<br>
> > >>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty<br>
> > >>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845<br>
> > >>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> > >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
> > >>> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
> > >>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> > >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
> > >>> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
> > >>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> --<br>
> > >>> *-----------------------------<wbr>---------------*<br>
> > >>> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured<br>
> > >>> in an unjust state" -Confucius<br>
> > >>> ------------------------------<wbr>----------------<br>
> > >>> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)<br>
> > >>> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3<br>
> > >>> YorkU email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco<br>
> > >>> blog: <a href="http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://samlanfranco.blogspot.<wbr>com</a><br>
> > >>> Phone: 613 476-0429 cell: 416-816-2852<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> > >>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
> > >>> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
> > >>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> --<br>
> > >>> ______________________________<wbr>___<br>
> > >>> Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> > >> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
> > >> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
> > >> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > ______________________________<wbr>___<br>
> > Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.<br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">_________________________________<br>Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.</div>
</div>