Politech is the oldest Internet resource devoted to politics and technology. Launched in 1994, the Politech mailing list has chronicled the growing intersection of law, culture, technology, and politics. Since 2000, so has the Politech web site.

Replies to critique of PFIR and Whois privacy

Posted at 2004-06-25 00:25:24 by Declan McCullagh
in Politech category "privacy/whois"

Earlier today on Politech we saw a critique of People for Internet Responsibility's take on whois privacy. Following are some replies from Politech members.

My own views, for what they're worth, are in a News.com column. Here's an excerpt:

If you buy a domain name, current regulations created by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) say you must make public "accurate and reliable contact details and promptly correct and update them during the term of the...registration, including: the full name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and fax number."

Who wants to make that kind of personal information public for the benefit of spammers, direct marketers and snoops? You shouldn't have to publish your home address--and other personal details--to everyone in the world just to own a domain name. And if you decide to lie by typing in "1 Nowhere Road," I don't see why you should be punished for attempting to protect your and your family's privacy. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why domain name holders might leave their address blank. [...]

These rights to anonymity are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, both in the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech, and in the Ninth Amendment, which was intended to curb government's power. [...]

-

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] An open letter to PFIR on "Whois" privacy [priv]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:59:35 -0400
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>

(please remove my name & contact information)
Declan,

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Cross, but I don't think he realizes 
that one can remain pseudonymous today.

I have approximately 37 domain name, 37 websites.  Some political.  
While all the speech contained on those websites are protected under 
the First Amendment, for several of those web sites I choose to publish 
my contact information in a different way.

First, I have a post office box.  Two, actually.  Both at different 
branches.  When I registered the post-office box, I was asked to list 
the names of all others who would be using that box.

The Technical, Administrative, and Billing Contacts list my pseudonym.

The telephone & fax numbers go to a J2 Connect Voicemail/ Fax 
forwarding service.

And the actual domains?  They're registered to my initials.

I still own the domain names for as long as my registrar receives 
payment from me, and payment is automatically billed to my CC.

Now, were I to be involved in criminal activity, it would be extremely 
easy for The State to track me down.  All they would have to do is 
subpoena the subscriber records from the registrar, web hosting 
provider, or J2.  However, since I'm not engaged in any criminal 
activity -- I just don't want my boss or some nut-case out there 
disagreeing with me and getting my home address, or to find out who I 
am -- I'm not too terribly worried.

And, since I'm not engaged in commerce through the mail, the USPS is 
prohibited from giving out my name if someone inquires.  The USPS can, 
however, upon request, give the registered name (and street address!) 
out to anybody who inquires, for PO Boxes that are used for business & 
commercial purposes.

Doing it this way also saves me from the scam that some registrars are 
proliferating by setting up "anonymous domain registrations".  What a 
bunch of bull that racket is.  But, of course, if domain registrations 
were allowed to be anonymous to begin with, it sure would save me some 
trouble.

--
Another relatively unknown computer geek

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] An open letter to PFIR on "Whois" privacy [priv]
Date: 24 Jun 2004 15:00:30 -0400
From: John R Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
References: <40DB138C.6040908@well.com>

> [I invite PFIR to reply. --Declan]

I've known Lauren Weinstein for almost 30 years, but he seems really out
of touch on current Internet issues.  As of yesteday, he still thinks
there's a great ISP conspiracy to meter everythng.

R's,
John

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] An open letter to PFIR on "Whois" privacy [priv]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:53:42 -0500
From: Jim Davidson <davidson@net1.net>
To: tom@memestreams.net
CC: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>

Dear Tom,

An excellent message.  Please keep up the good work.

I'm not bothering to copy
> Mr Weinstien, Mr. Neumann, and Mr. Farber,

who do not impress me as friends of liberty.

> Anonymous Speech is a RIGHT, not a privilege.

Anonymous speech is a freedom, and all attempts to restrict
freedom invariably fail.  More importantly, they always
generate unintended consequences.

> This point has been reaffirmed over and over again by
> almost 230 years of American jurisprudence

No doubt many people would say "everything is different now"
and other simpering cowardly things, but I completely
agree with your view.

In fact, I was deeply dismayed and affirmed in my plans
to leave the USA when the Supreme Court announced recently
in the Hiibel case that identifying oneself to a police
officer is mandatory.

> We cannot relegate political speech on the Internet
> to second class citizenship.

Indeed, we cannot relate political speech or the use of
the Internet to any class of citizenship.  Being a citizen
and having free speech are totally unrelated concepts.

> The "extremely limited set of cases where domain holders might
> demonstrate a clear public safety or other critical need that may
> possibly justify masking of some WHOIS data" is the set of ALL
> political websites on the Internet.

Correct.  And if IANA/ICANN and their ilk cannot see as
much, then domain registrars will soon be joined by a
bevy of identity providers who hold names for others in
an agency capacity.  Law firms, registered agents, and
mailing address providers will quickly establish services
so that domain owners are not exposed to abuse.

> then these speakers will not hold domain names.

I suspect that this objective is the real agenda of the
fascists who would eliminate privacy and anonymity. It
is not about free speech for them, it is about control.

> You guys are barking up the wrong tree.

Dogs often do.

> You guys are standing along side corrupt interests.

Yes, quite.  Which is why I won't send my comments to
them.  Collaboration is vile.

> These are not technical security and reliability issues. These are
> content issues, and they should be dealt with through the legal system,
> not through ICANN. I strongly urge you to carefully reconsider your
> position on this matter.

Yes, though, what are the odds?

> Tom Cross
> Just an ordinary unknown computer geek.

You write very well and you are clearly well versed in
the history of free speech and anonymity, so I suspect
you of false modesty.  <grin>

Regards,

Jim
 http://indomitus.net/

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Politech] An open letter to PFIR on "Whois" privacy [priv]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:47:40 -0700
From: Clinton D. Fein <clinton.fein@apollomedia.com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>

What a well reasoned, sensible letter. The letter from Network Solutions
below underscores exactly how respectful they are of privacy concerns.
They now want a copy of my license or phone bill!!!!!

In 2000, the United States subpoenaed records from me, requesting that I
reveal the identity of the sender of an anonymous postcard that had been
sent using Annoy.com's postcard service. Because of the government's
flimsy reasoning, potential privacy violations in California and because
of my own commitment to privacy, I fought to keep private the
information of the user in question, ultimately being forced to appear
before the Fifth Circuit to argue these very issues.

Information pertaining to the domain name of the person in question was
never even considered, since it was completely irrelevant and unhelpful
in determining who the sender was, assuming, for very good reason, I
planned on cooperating. As I told the court, (through my attorneys) even
knowledge of an IP address identifying a specific machine does not
conclusively reveal the identity of the user, since access to that
single machine is not necessarily restricted to one person. It may be a
computer in a public library for instance.

Just this Monday, I received a letter from Network Solutions claiming
that the user information associated with one of the URLs I own was
invalid. Indeed, because of the cumbersome technology Network Solutions
employs, I literally have to individually merge scores of different user
names to be able to make a global change to an address associated with
these multiple user IDs all attached to the same name anyway.

In addition to requiring an unreasonable five day response (what if I
was away and did not have access to this email, which had automatically
been filed as junk mail anyway?), but I'm now required to fax (not
email, fax) a form to their "Breach of Contract Department" in addition
to a photocopy of a document (e.g., picture ID, phone bill, etc.) that
reflects the accuracy of the current domain name record.

Here is the email:

From: Rabuck, Ricky [mailto:RRabuck@networksolutions.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 10:15 AM
To: Clinton D. Fein
Subject: URL Deleted - Service Request Number Deleted

Dear Customer,

It has been brought to our attention that some or all of the information
associated with your domain name is outdated or incorrect. These types
of complaints are brought to our attention in one of two ways.

The most common type of complaint is received from the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ICANN is the
non-profit corporation responsible for accrediting domain name
registrars. ICANN requires domain name registration customers to keep
their account information current. ICANN mandates that outdated contact
information can be grounds for domain name cancellation.

The second type of complaint is a direct report made to the registrar
about a domain name registered by one of our customers. These complaints
are typically brought to our attention when another party is interested
in purchasing the domain name in question or they have received
unsolicited e-mail from the domain.

In order to prevent service interruptions or Web site outages, it is
very important that you log into Account Manager and update your contact
information. ICANN rules require us to delete a domain name once we have
been notified of inaccurate WHOIS information.

In order to update your WHOIS database information, please have your
User ID and password ready and follow the instructions below:

1. Login to Account Manager.
2. Click "Edit Account Contacts" from the left-hand navigation.
3. Select "Click here" under Edit Whois contacts.
4. Select the domain(s) where the Whois contacts need to be updated,
click "Continue".
5. Select which contact(s) are to be changed and click "continue".
6. Select who will replace your current contact.
7. Enter the appropriate information based on the selected replacement,
click "Save".

To prevent any interruption in service, please have this information
updated within the next 5 business days.

Once you have updated your WHOIS database information please verify this
action with us by faxing to us a short letter stating that the
information in the domain name record is accurate. For company
registrants, the letter must be on company letterhead that reflects the
accuracy of the current domain name record. For individual registrants,
the letter must be accompanied by a photocopy of a document (e.g.,
picture ID, phone bill, etc.) that reflects the accuracy of the current
domain name record. The letter must also contain the following
statement:

"On behalf of ____________________________________________ the
registrant for the above-referenced domain name(s), I certify that all
of the information listed in Network Solutions WHOIS database is current
and accurate.
Signature_______________________________________________
This documentation should be faxed to: 570-708-3077 ATTN: RICK RABUCK/
Breach of Contract Department

If you have any questions regarding the ICANN policy, please see the
following excerpt taken from the ICANN Registrar Agreement, or view the
entire ICANN document through the link provided.

3.7.7.1 The Registered Name Holder shall provide to Registrar accurate
and reliable contact details and promptly correct and update them during
the term of the Registered Name registration, including: the full name,
postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and fax number
if available of the Registered Name Holder; name of authorized person
for contact purposes in the case of an Registered Name Holder that is an
organization, association, or corporation; and the data elements listed
in Subsections 3.3.1.2, 3.3.1.7 and 3.3.1.8.

The entire agreement can be found at:

http:// www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm

Thank you for choosing Network Solutions.

Regards,

Rick Rabuck| Network Solutions

Executive Support Specialist

_____________________

Clinton Fein
555 Florida Street, #407
San Francisco, CA  94110
Email: clinton@xq.com
www.clintonfein.com
_____________________

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] An open letter to PFIR on "Whois" privacy [priv]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:57:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>

One never needs to offer up "personal" contact information.  But one does
need to offer up legal contact information.  This has been proven again
and again: You need to put a legal address on your drivers licence, your
car registration, your incorporation documents, the deed to your house and
other property, your voter registration, patent and trademark
registration, application for public demonstration, etc, etc, etc.

Domain registration is no different than corporate registration, or
trademark registration, which require legal contact information, and that
contact information is available to the public.  Why should a public 
protest require legal contact information yet a protest Web site not 
require similar information?

Anonymity is not a right; Freedom of Expression is a right.  There are
situations where anonymity is available, and appropriate, and situations
where anonymity is neither available nor appropriate. For example, your
vote is anonymous; Your voter registration is not.  If anonymity were a
right, not a privilege, one could never have a fair election, since people
would have a right to vote anonymously, and so they could vote many times.

Dean Anderson
Av8 Internet, Inc

</pre>

Get a Politech feed through RSS or Atom

The Politech general information pages and photographs are copyrighted by Declan McCullagh. Original posts distributed to the mailing list are licensed under a Creative Commons License.