[At-Large] FW: Withdraw the gun database

Karl Auerbach karl at cavebear.com
Mon Jan 21 23:31:02 UTC 2013

On 01/21/2013 02:36 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> You're being FAR FAR too narrow, and the identification measures you want
> are not just for trademark holders,
> As a consumer, I demand a contact point of a website name

And if your demand is not met to your satisfaction then you have the 
total choice to refrain from using that website.

We ought not to sacrifice the privacy of others simply because you (I 
say "you" in the generic sense rather than you personally) do not 
exercise discretion in your choice of network partners.

In addition the claim that you are "entitled" falls flat when you are 
not willing to concede that those who whose privacy you are trying to 
penetrate do not deserve fair process, including your identity and 
reason for your inquiry.

> If this is just to be a tool for IP lawyers, with the rest of us "curious"
> peons tossed access to nothing more than deliberately obfuscated data, then
> I'm not onboard and this is a waste. Trademarks are amongst the least
> useful reasons for WHOIS accuracy.

The argument you are making is that curiosity trumps privacy; that is 
something that I do not accept.

> (I might note in passing that WHOIS data has already escaped its
>> proper use.  I run several websites on behalf of non-profit
>> historical preservation groups.  And the WHOIS information has apparently
>> been merged into AT&T's directory assistance to the degree that if one
>> is looking for the railroad station in San Jose, California [10
>> largest city in the US] they get my home phone number - I received one of
>> those calls at 5:30am today.)
> That problem would not have been solved one shred by demanding that AT&T
> prove that it was AT&T. And it sounds like your railroad problem is one of
> accuracy and stupidity, not acceptable use. IMO.

AT&T probably bought the data from someone who simply mined the WHOIS 
records.  Had my procedures been in place that someone would have had to 
make a concrete accusation and back it by demonstrable evidence.  I 
would have been able to challenge that accusation and collect the $$ 
bond for my trouble.

Or, if they had used the route that I outlined for the merely curious 
then the phone number would have been simply the area code.


More information about the At-Large mailing list