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

[Bob Bruen]

Hi Don,

I wrote my first program in 1973, involved with 'Net since 1979 and was 
involved w/ CERN in 1989. I pretty much know what happened :)

I think that the term "whois" will be around for quite a while...

                   --bob

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Don Blumenthal wrote:

> 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
>>>>>
>
>

-- 
Dr. Robert Bruen
Cold Rain Labs
http://coldrain.net/bruen
+1.802.579.6288