[nc-whois] FW: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

To TF members, 

If you are not part of the GA, you may be missing this thread regarding public access to WHOIS data. 

Regards, Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Brown [mailto:donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 11:59 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue


For an example of what I was talking about, see
http://www.publicdata.com/ and click on the current database
offerings.  You will find a db for Driver's License, License Plates,
Vehicle Identification Number, Voter Registration, Real Estate.  The
DMV information is subject to the terms and conditions, which are
restrictive, but they do not require the user to be a Peace Officer,
as was stated.

With respect to real estate, go to this URL
http://www.dallascad.org/dcadressearch.html
and just enter the street name of clubhouse.

Public information, such as what I mentioned in this and the prior
post, is generally available to the public. There are some
restrictions (the driver's Privacy Protection Act, for one) imposed
upon its use in certain cases.

I do agree that some of the information is subject to restricted
use and that some of the information is not uniformly available.
However, that doesn't equate to being "way off base."

It is difficult to comprehend how one's identity could be stolen through
the use of the current whois data.  There is no more information in
the current whois than is available from a telephone book, Church
directory, neighborhood directory, or voter registration databases,
( see http://www.dalcoelections.org/voters.asp ).  In fact, the voter
registration and real estate links cited above, even include a map.

I am, however, aware of a few stalking incidents due to the publicly
available whois data.  The perpetrators were VeriSign, Register.com, Domain
Registry of America, Domain Registry of Canada and others, who did
their stalking by mailing a solicitation, which appeared to be an
invoice, for the renewal of domain names.

Again, I don't consider the publication of whois information as any
real transgression of privacy and confidentiality or that it
potentially exposes one to life threatening criminal activity.  I
respect your opinion to the contrary, even though your post did not
meaningfully support it very well.



Sunday, April 21, 2002, 12:37:24 AM, Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
JW> Don and all assembly members,

JW> Don Brown wrote:

>> O.K.  Let's see.  If you have the license plate number, you can look
>> up the owner.

JW>   Not in Texas unless you are a member of law enforcement and have
JW> a need to know, such as a potential traffic violation in progress, ect...
JW> Same in California, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri,
JW> Georgia, and I believe also Nevada.

>>  If you have the driver license number, you can look up
>> the owner.

JW>   Again not in Texas or California unless you are a member of law
JW> enforcement without the drivers license holders expressed written
JW> permission.

>>  If you have the property address, you can look up the
>> owner.

JW>   Again not true in 11 states, including Texas in some instances...

>>  I'm not totally sure about SS number, but I wouldn't doubt if
>> a database is available on the net, as well.  If you have the phone
>> number, even in some cases where they have not opted in, in TX, you can
>> look up the owner.

JW>   Yes in some states this is true.  In many countries it is not true...

>>
>>
>> Are we getting bundled up in our socks over the confidentiality of the
>> Registrant of a domain name?  Really?  Well, let's not.

JW>   I respectfully disagree.  I am not interested in again going to court
JW> over identity theft like I had to do in 1989.  I am not interested in having
JW> myself or my daughters stalked due to some "Control Freak" Nut Job
JW> looking up on WHOIS my name and finding personal private information
JW> listed for me to make such a situation much easier for that "Control Freak"
JW> Nut Job to do...

>>
>>
>> Is this other information comparable to the available information
>> about the registrant of a domain name?

JW>   No it is not..  (See above again)

>> Is the Pope Catholic?

JW>   No he is Polish.  >;)

>> Of course
>> it is!  It is, indeed, the same kind of personal information one would
>> find about the owner of a license plate, driver license, etc.

JW>   Again not correct Don.  See above...  See state statutes for Texas,
JW> California, Georgia, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, ect, ect...

>>
>>
>> However, my registration of a domain name is one heck of a lot more
>> trivial than my license plate, driver license, social security number
>> or the appraised value (yep, that's there, too) of my property.

JW>   But neither the license plate, driver license, social security number
JW> are as easily accessible as a Whois listing by name or Domain Name.

>>
>>
>> I think some are hunting mosquitos with 00 buck shot rather than
>> living in the real world. There is no confidentially issue here which
>> will harelip the Governor, so let's move on.

JW>   Well Don you wayyy off base.  Again see above...  <sigh>

>>
>>
>> Saturday, April 20, 2002, 6:26:27 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA <mcade@att.com> wrote:
>> CMSL> Jeff, do elaborate on the differences on what is listed in a "white pages" listing and WHOIS.
>>
>> CMSL> In white pages, name, address and telephone number is the typical listing. [unless there is an opt out, or situation Jeff described for Texas which requires opt in].
>>
>> CMSL> What is the difference with WHOIS listings?
>>
>> CMSL> -----Original Message-----
>> CMSL> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
>> CMSL> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 8:25 PM
>> CMSL> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
>> CMSL> Cc: ga@dnso.org; Alexander Svensson; Dan Halloran; Louis Touton; Mike
>> CMSL> Palage; Antonio Harris; icann board address
>> CMSL> Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue
>>
>> CMSL> Marilyn and all assembly members,
>>
>> CMSL>   Your of course very welcome Marilyn.  It is very important that
>> CMSL> accurate information is decimated when making such comments
>> CMSL> or statements.
>>
>> CMSL>   In any event comparisons of a phone # listing and private information
>> CMSL> listed in WHOIS data are not really comparable, and therefore making
>> CMSL> such comparisons is felonious at best.  Same of course is true with
>> CMSL> property ownership listings.  Apples and tomatoes...
>>
>> CMSL> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>>
>> >> Jeff, thanks for  providing more accurate information about a practice in one state at least.  I wasn't aware of that but I am sure that residents of Texas appreciate it!  Marilyn
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
>> >> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 3:28 PM
>> >> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
>> >> Cc: ga@dnso.org; Alexander Svensson; Dan Halloran; Louis Touton; Thomas
>> >> Roessler; Mike Palage; Antonio Harris
>> >> Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue
>> >>
>> >> Marilyn and all assembly members,
>> >>
>> >> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > For those who want to be "unlisted" in the telephone white pages listing in the U.S., they pay a special fee.
>> >>
>> >>   This statement is incorrect of course.  Some states, such as Texas where
>> >> I reside the situation is just the opposite.  If you wish your phone number
>> >> to be listed in the white pages than you pay and additional monthly charge
>> >> that will appear on your phone bill every month.  My personal Phone
>> >> # is NOT listed as I did not opt-in to have it listed.  You may check
>> >> the Frisco Texas White pages to see for yourself of course.
>> >>
>> >> > There is no counterpart that I am aware of in the "yellow pages" which is businesses, institutions, organizations, and even individuals who advertise, who hold themselves out to communicate
>> with
>> >> the public through this medium.
>> >> >
>> >> > We really don't know at this  point FOR SURE how many registrants fit which category.  I strongly suspect that at least 80% of .com; .net; .org; .info; .biz are businesses, organizations,
>> >> institutions, or entities/individuals who are buying names and holding them for resale/warehousing.  It is unclear how many registrants are "individuals"  in generic TLDs or in ccTLDS [Some
>> ccTLDs
>> >> don't accept ind. registration/others do].
>> >> >
>> >> > In any case, an analysis, even rough, of this breakdown would be useful information, even if estimated.
>> >> >
>> >> > The WHOIS TF co-chairs have asked the registrar/registry constituency representatives in the TF how they might provide even roughly responsive answers/statistics. This is a work in progress.
>> Do
>> >> not read into this request that the registries and registrars have agreed to any kind of analysis, only that that the request has been made inside the TF.
>> >> >
>> >> > Any analysis, or statistics would be greatly appreciated by the WHOIS TF as a more than useful data point... (s).
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: William X Walsh [mailto:william@wxsoft.info]
>> >> > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 6:29 AM
>> >> > To: William S. Lovell
>> >> > Cc: ga@dnso.org
>> >> > Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue
>> >> >
>> >> > Wednesday, Wednesday, April 17, 2002, 9:10:37 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Absurdity reaches new heights.  One can also keep one's name out of the
>> >> > > phone book by not having a phone, or out of the Motor Vehicle Department's
>> >> > > lists by having neither a driver's license nor a car. But both of those
>> >> > > entities
>> >> > > have procedures for protecting their user's privacy. The Internet, or indeed
>> >> > > a domain name, are rapidly becoming necessary parts of doing business, and
>> >> > > indeed a healthy means for self expression by private citizens. To
>> >> > > suggest that
>> >> > > one must necessarily give away all rights of privacy just because some
>> >> > > registrar
>> >> > > sees yet one more way to squeeze out a buck is unconscionable.
>> >> >
>> >> > Just as there are examples supporting your view, there are better
>> >> > ones supporting the opposite view.
>> >> >
>> >> > In the US, every state makes property ownership information available
>> >> > as a matter of public record.  They are required by statute to provide
>> >> > that information in bulk format for a fee, and there are companies out
>> >> > there who specialize in providing that data in a searchable and
>> >> > downloadable database format.
>> >> >
>> >> > You cannot own property without having it listed publicly.  If you
>> >> > want to own it and protect your privacy, it is entirely up to you to
>> >> > do what is necessary to do that, by forming a shell company for
>> >> > instance.
>> >> >
>> >> > Access to those databases are not expensive at all, as a matter of
>> >> > fact.
>> >> >
>> >> > When you own property, people have the right to be able to get that
>> >> > information.  The same with a domain name, which is the internet form
>> >> > of "property."
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Best regards,
>> >> > William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
>> >> > --
>> >> > Save Internet Radio!
>> >> > CARP will kill Webcasting!
>> >> > http://www.saveinternetradio.org/
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>> >> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>> >> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> >> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>> >> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>> >> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> >> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> --
>> >> Jeffrey A. Williams
>> >> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
>> >> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>> >> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>> >> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
>> >> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
>> >> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>>
>> CMSL> Regards,
>> CMSL> --
>> CMSL> Jeffrey A. Williams
>> CMSL> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
>> CMSL> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>> CMSL> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>> CMSL> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
>> CMSL> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
>> CMSL> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>>
>> CMSL> --
>> CMSL> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>> CMSL> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>> CMSL> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> CMSL> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>>
>> ----
>> Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
>> donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
>> PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
>> Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
>> ----
>>
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

JW> Regards,

JW> --
JW> Jeffrey A. Williams
JW> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
JW> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
JW> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
JW> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
JW> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
JW> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208





----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
donbrown_l@inetconcepts.net         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
----

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html