[At-Large] privacy, was Impressions from the Whois-Review

Derek Smythe derek at aa419.org
Tue Feb 1 01:13:52 UTC 2011

On 2011/02/01 01:32, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> On 01/31/2011 03:12 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>> There is a completely lawful domain name business model in which there
>>> is *no* record made of who acquired a domain name.
>> Hi.  Before we continue, could you say whether the people who are
>> bombarded with phishes and drug spam have any privacy rights, or are they
>> reserved for people who've bought vanity domains?
> They have rights.  They have the right to and to go to their
> legislators, get laws enacted, and get those laws enforced - all under
> constitutional procedures and constraints.

Does that come free? Or does it cost somebody money? Perhaps tax 
payers? Already we see the (not so) small issue of budget constraints 
hampering law enforcement efforts.

Also, if a spammer spams from one country to another, why should the 
recipient country be paying for it to protect their citizens? Remember 
the world does not end on US shores, we are now going internationally.

What about those countries where something may not be illegal, but is 
propagated to you via the net and is illegal by you?

> ICANN is not a government; it is subject to no due process constraints
> nor is it constrained by any real political political process.
> I hate spam too - in fact I've argued for draconian measures -
> http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000236.html
> But I hate vigilante action even more.
> 	--karl--

I wish you would define the term "vigilante" in your own words and 
give us a few examples of such on the net. You have used it a few 
times, but it seems to be such a vague term in your usage and in this 

Ever heard of neighborhood watches, groups of society protecting their 
own within the bounds of the law and in cooperation with law 
enforcement? Why should the virtual world not be afforded that luxury?

If you were walking down the road and saw a car was about to knock 
over a pedestrian next to you, would you yank him/her out of the way, 
or turn away since you are not a traffic officer, also not note the 
registration details for the same reason?

As a matter of interest:
How many domain owners are there? How many internet users in total?

How many domain owners are harmed (either physically or 
indirectly/financially) per annum vs non domain owners, all due to 
abuse arising on the net and linked to domains.

How much money is lost on the internet annually due to fraud? How much 
is recovered? How many cases are actually investigated?

It is fine to get all philosophical and preach "constitutional 
procedures", but doing a reality check, that does not happen overnight 
and definitely not overnight internationally. We also need to note the 
track record of such (CAN-SPAM Act?). Did we not recently see what 
happens when "laws" get enforced?:
Libya terminating unacceptable .ly domains?

I guess these approaches are about as delicate a performing open heart 
surgery with a jack hammer.

It seems to me the rules are made for those good upstanding netizens, 
while at the same time creating a climate for the perfect crime storm 
for those that disregard them.

What do we do in the meantime? Does issues pertaining to the ordinary 
Internet user get discussed here, or only domain owners and then only 
a certain subset of those domain owners?


More information about the At-Large mailing list