President and CEO, LegitScript
I am off target?
I think I am very on target since the very start of this WG trying to bridge data protection and fighting abuse.
TheoOn 13-2-2018 21:56, Chen, Tim wrote:
Theo - this comment is off target on many levels and takes us well outside of Whois. The #1 abuse-driving issue is cheap domains, due to pricing schemes and business models of registrars and registries. Bad actors target COM bc it's popular and well-known. Lots of tools we need to fight abuse, Whois is but one. But a powerful one.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Theo Geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:
John,
I think some of us are still mystified that there are no "huge" issues in 147 million ccTLDs while there seems to be "huge" issues with 181 million gTLDs ,25% of them using privacy proxy services.
Personally I am more mystified why we keep on relying on WHOIS to combat such issues while the abuse rate goes up in the gTLD space each year. Perhaps time to come up with something better? It looks like we rather patch up the boat sinking deeper down each year, as opposed to create a new sea worthy vessel.
Theo
On 13-2-2018 18:43, John Horton via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
I am mystified as to why some people in this group don't recognize that while (that's US for "whilst," for my European friends!) legitimate business may do that -- and indeed, may be required to in Ireland and Japan and a few other countries, a) there is no requirement in other locations to do so, and b) the bad actors either don't publish it or put falsified information on their website...but the Whois record, whether accurate or falsified (and sometimes even with privacy protection) is helpful in anti-money laundering, consumer protection, certification, anti abuse and trust and safety. Let's all acknowledge that we live in a world where there are many, many legitimate e-commerce businesses but many illicit ones as well! Our solutions have to accommodate for all of the above.
John Horton
President and CEO, LegitScript
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
John, if businesses want to publish their information, they should do it on their website, as they are legally required to (at least over here). No need for whois for that. So that purpose is out the window already.
Volker
Am 13.02.2018 um 18:07 schrieb John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg:
No it doesn't because there are large incentives for institution and individuals to continue to publish information. Businesses, for instance, WANT to be contacted. If you want mail delivered, certain best practices are imposed.
If consent is not the solution, YOU are deciding what the rest of the world can and cannot do with their data. Who exactly made ICANN the arbiter of what I can do with my data?
On 2/13/2018 11:04 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
I am not sure you want that, because that means completely dark whois.
I'd prefer an approach where we do not need to rely on consent (but can still offer it as an option). The hard bit is finding the right principles of who gets access to what and how even when there is no consent.
Consent is not the solution.
Am 13.02.2018 um 18:00 schrieb John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg:
Ok, so you agree with my in principle and we're just haggling over the details now. Flip a coin for all I care, opt-in/opt-out and move forward.
So let's do that. When can we implement?
On 2/13/2018 10:58 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
You are still looking at the wrong end of the horse. Privacy is not the choice, it is the default. Divulging data is the choice.
Am 13.02.2018 um 17:57 schrieb John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg:
Exactly right. As far as I'm concerned if we made privacy a free choice, make the fields optional for all I care, and whatever they do make is public... we have solved this problem.
People who ACTUALLY protect society against privacy threats have the data to do their jobs, consumers who want privacy have a free option for it, and registrars can be in compliance with the law.
On 2/13/2018 10:54 AM, DANIEL NANGHAKA wrote:
This is just an example but there is a lot of damage that can be caused with data being exposed. In our case we have phone numbers, addresses, emails which is required to verification.
This takes us to issue of consent.
On Tuesday, February 13, 2018, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Let's be honest here, we're talking about phone numbers and email addresses. The threat model is RADICALLY different with the data we are talking about.
On 2/13/2018 10:45 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
Undeterred by the fact that noone has responded to my last post, I offer the following update to the Equifax breach to further illustrate my point. As many companies have found out, you don't find out what you've got till it's gone.....a further reason for data minimization and short retention periods.
To:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/13/equifax_security_bre ach_bad/
Equifax hack worse than previously thought: Biz kissed goodbye to card expiry dates, tax IDs etc
Pwned credit-score biz quietly admits more info lost
By Iain Thomson in San Francisco 13 Feb 2018 at 02:13
Last year, Equifax admitted
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/07/143m_american_equif ax_customers_exposed/
hackers stole sensitive personal records on 145 million Americans and hundreds of thousands in the UK
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/10/equifax_uk_records_ update/
and Canada.
The outfit already said cyber-crooks "primarily" took names, social security numbers, birth dates, home addresses, credit-score dispute forms, and, in some instances, credit card numbers and driver license numbers. Now the credit-checking giant reckons the intruders snatched even more information from its databases.
According to documents provided by Equifax to the US Senate Banking Committee,
and revealed this month by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA),
https://apnews.com/2a51e3e5f9a945978df4ad96246b8ecc
the attackers also grabbed taxpayer identification numbers, phone numbers, email addresses, and credit card expiry dates belonging to some Equifax customers.
Like social security numbers, taxpayer ID numbers are useful for fraudsters seeking to steal people's identities or their tax rebates, and the expiry dates are similarly useful for online crooks when linked with credit card numbers and other personal information.
Contradictory
"As your company continues to issue incomplete, confusing and contradictory statements and hide information from Congress and the public, it is clear that five months after the breach was publicly announced, Equifax has yet to answer this simple question in full: what was the precise extent of the breach?" Warren fumed in a missive late last week.
https://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2317
Equifax spokeswoman Meredith Griffanti stressed to The Register today that the extra information snatched by hackers, as revealed by Senator Warren, belonged to "some" Equifax customers. In other words, not everyone had their phone numbers, email addresses, and so on, slurped by crooks just some. How much is some? Equifax isn't saying, hence Warren's (and everyone else's) growing frustration.
The senator is a cosponsor of the proposed Data Breach Prevention and Compensation Act,
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/10/credit_reporting_ag encies_fines/
which, if passed, would impose computer security regulations on credit reporting agencies, with mandatory fines that would have led to Equifax coughing up $1.5bn for its IT blunder.
Some regulation or punishment is obviously needed.
No senior Equifax executives were fired over the attack instead the CEO, CSO and CIO were all allowed to retire with multi-million dollar golden parachutes. The US government's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau promised a full investigation into the Equifax affair, and then gave up. On February 7, an open letter [PDF]
https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CFPB%20Equifax%2 0Letter%202-7-18.pdf
from 32 senators to the bureau asked why the probe was dropped, and the gang has yet to receive a response. ®
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- -- John Bambenek
--
Regards
Nanghaka Daniel K.
Executive Director - ILICIT Africa / Chair - FOSSFA / Community Lead - ISOC Uganda Chapter / Geo4Africa Lead / Organising Team - FOSS4G2018
Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda)
Skype: daniel.nanghaka
----------------------------------------- "Working for Africa" ------------------------------ -----------
-- -- John Bambenek
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- -- John Bambenek
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- -- John Bambenek
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l istinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg