Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Privacy/Proxy and spam/botnets
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@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
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@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
Bob, I wrote my first program before 1973. I won’t be specific for fear that nobody will top me, as it were. Of course saying “before 1973” may already have exposed me to that. :) And Whois will be around for a long time. Kind of like My New York born mother still refers to Avenue of the Americas as 6th Avenue and, to use a timely reference, MLK Boulevard in Cleveland always will be Liberty Boulevard to me. Old habits.... To New Yorkers, yes I know that part of the stretch still is labeled as 6th Ave. Don On 1/20/14, 3:34 PM, "Bob Bruen" <bruen@coldrain.net> wrote:
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@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
participants (2)
-
Bob Bruen -
Don Blumenthal