Hello, --- Robert L Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The post referred to continues, "I think it is undeniable that having > this absolute privacy become standard would only encourage and > embolden > those who seek to commit abuse and use the domain name > irresponsibly." > Again, I disagree; these people already just give fake information. > It's > not the threat of having their name made public that stops people > from > doing illegal things with domain names, but the possibility that > legal > action might be taken against them. Having the owner information be > private from Joe Public, but revealed in the case of legal > proceedings, > would be just as much of a disincentive.
Not by any means. It creates an additional cost to those suffering from the abuse to acquire that information. Suppose it costs $5,000 to get a subpoena from a court to get the WHOIS info (not to mention the time involved). This imposes a big cost on a party who is already suffering, and also means that in cases where the amount of individual damages are less, the abuser gets away scot-free, as no individual would have pursued the matter (that's how it will embolden the small-time abusers). > I must say this whole subject irks me. For the sake a few odd > examples, > the privacy of millions of people is thrown away. It's absurd, and > it's > hurting our industry; I have literally had customers cancel their > domain > names when they found out that their contact information was made > public. For negligible costs, they can have someone else represent their registrations, and be accountable for behaviour originating from their domains. I've done that in the past for clients of mine, for free, and suffered not one bit. > I particularly resent the comment that anyone who thinks much greater > privacy is not a solution is a "zealot". That's insulting. Privacy is > a > basic common sense issue, and I know from talking to customers that > the > vast majority -- greater than 90% -- do not want their contact > information made public. By definition, a majority of an affected > population are not "zealots", and their wishes should be respected. There's a balance between competing interests. If you told them that they would find it much harder to track down website operators who've defrauded them, or committed other improper acts, and that it imposes higher costs on law enforcement and other legitimate users of the information, their opinion might change. It's not their medical information that is being made public, but some basic contact information of themselves or an agent. > Obviously there are legitimate cases where some WHOIS data needs to > be > made available to certain parties -- legal proceedings, transfer > confirmation e-mail addresses, and other specific objections people > can > come up with against "absolute" privacy -- but these are exceptions As long as these can be provided at low cost, I could live with that. But, the prevailing attitude of folks I've talked to seems to be that it wouldn't be. The higher the obstacles, the higher the costs created by abuse on the web. > and makes no sense whatsoever today. Even expecting concerned people > to > use a lawyer's address or whatever is placing a burden on the > registrant. It's a small burden (it can even be the registrar, an addition revenue source, although it might be worth only a few of dollars per year, at most for such a service). I'd rather have them face that burden, than have to face a much higher burden due to increased abuse, fraud, etc. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com
