Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Dutch Govcert procedure

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Palmer and all,

  LEA's have limited resources for a number of reasons.  Some of these
reasons are a matter of how LEA's utilize the resources they have, some
are as a result of poor or less than optimum budget procedures, and
some are simply due to arbitrary of subjective budget allocation.
However having or not having enough resources is not a good reason
for not doing the job LEA's are supposed to do.

  I myself have spent a number of years working with various law
enforcement agencies both international and domestic, as a member
of MIS, and still do to a much less degree.  I have relatives whom
work for the FBI and INTERPOL as well as intelligence agencies
in various parts of the world.  And at no time was their ever a need
expressed for access to private data in Whois, nor even any need
expressed for ANY access to Whois data at any time that I can
recall.

  Banks have and do on nearly a regular basis put consumers
at risk on a global basis as recent legal cases have shown.  Many
banks whom are federally insured are not by any means regularly
examined as some lawyers whom represent the financial/banking
industry like to contend so as to propagate confidence in the
financial/banking service industry for the general every day
consumer.  Bank examiner fraud is becoming a growing concern
in the U.S. senate see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14012-2004Jun3.html
Note: there are literally hundreds of other examples.
And in Canada see:
http://www.gov.calgary.ab.ca/citybeat/public/2000/04/release.20000405_071454_6653_0

So Palmer, to say that banks are examined on any basis is not really
sufficient
evidence, ergo hearsay, to engender confidence or any form or feeling
of safety by or for consumers in and of itself.

Palmer Hamilton wrote:

>
> Dan,
>
> The problem is a practical one.  Law enforcement has limited resources.
> We might wish that were not the case, but it is, and, realistically, it
> will always be the case.  Law enforcement, as I set out in my earlier
> emails to Milton, expects banks to do the legwork before it will act.
> Maybe it should be otherwise, but this is not the case nor will it ever
> be the case.  In various roles, both in government and working on the
> side of government, I have spent years working on the side of law
> enforcement.  I think it is fair to say that law enforcement's approach
> is virtually an immutable law of nature.  And frankly from law
> enforcement's standpoint, it must set priorities given its limited
> resources.
>
> If banks do not have access to the necessary information, internet users
> and consumers will be put at much greater risk.  It would be nice to
> think that banks and consumers could simply lodge a complaint and that
> the complaint would be immediately acted upon.  But this will never
> happen.  Law enforcement has too much on its plate.  My banks can give
> you page after page of examples to corroborate this.  And remember for
> every hour that passes, millions can be lost, including life savings.
>
> Please take another look at the example in my email to Milton involving
> the local police in a foreign jurisdiction that finally agreed to act,
> but only after the bank had exhausted all avenues and done all the
> legwork.  Realistically, absent bank access to the local address, it is
> unknown how many innocent consumers would have suffered losses before
> this fraudulent website was ever closed down.
>
> You are right that this is a question of balance.  And I would argue
> that consumer protection needs to be prominently considered, not
> dismissed as unfortunate collateral damage.
>
> Banks are closely regulated and monitored entities with public
> responsibilities.  Those responsibilities are examined regularly by bank
> examiners.  As a result, I would submit, consumer protection ought to
> prevail in light of the protections from a privacy standpoint in the
> existing regulatory structure.
>
> Palmer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Dan Krimm
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 3:43 PM
> To: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-acc-sgb] RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Dutch Govcert procedure
>
> Palmer,
>
> If I may step in here (and shift this discussion over to the Subgroup B
> list where it properly belongs):
>
> At 1:44 PM -0500 5/11/07, Palmer Hamilton wrote:
>
> >Just having the IP address and registrar is not sufficient.  For
> >example, one of my banks had a case in which it had to use local police
>
> >in a foreign country to visit the physical address of the website owner
>
> >to get the site taken down.  The bank had tried to get the registrar to
>
> >shut it down without success.  The bank had also tried to stop the site
>
> >with the administrative contact, the technical contact, the abuse
> >contact, and the website owner, all with no success.  The registrar was
>
> >also not interested in working with the local police, but the local
> >police agreed to assist AFTED the bank provided the police the full
> >WHOIS information plus a synopsis of its takedown efforts.
>
> So the question here is, when the bank is involved in valid efforts that
> require access to Whois data that is designated as private there
> certainly should be a process for that data to be engaged in the
> process, so what should that process be?  No one is suggesting that the
> bank never get any such information whatsoever.  But some of us are
> suggesting that private entities should not get direct access to the
> Whois data, but rather get information from formally accountable LEAs
> who have direct access.
>
> It doesn't mean that private agents cannot contribute to the
> investigation process, but that private agents need only be given what
> they need in a particular context rather than being given the full range
> of powers granted to publicly-accountable law enforcement.  And, that
> LEAs be responsible for providing appropriate information to private
> agents that are participating in investigation processes.  Once such a
> policy is well-defined, it is possible to build technological systems
> that adhere to those policies and operate efficiently without
> unnecessary human intervention.
>
> And if ICANN jurisdiction is insufficient to resolve all structure
> issues, that still may not be ICANN's responsibility to solve.
>
> At some point public law enforcement must step up to the plate to do
> what needs to be done.  ICANN cannot solve all the world's public
> problems on its own, or even those problems that may relate tangentially
> to the technical operation of the Internet.  ICANN is not a proper venue
> to determine and conduct public governance activities, or to authorize
> private execution of public governance.
>
> >Having said this, the Dutch model could ultimately help fill a void on
> >the international level by leveraging international pressure on
> >recalcitrant governments.  But again, this is not really an alternative
>
> >to what we are doing in Subgroup B, as I understand it.
>
> What exactly are we doing in subgroup B as you understand it?
>
> As I understand it, we are trying to reach some consensus on what GNSO
> should recommend to the ICANN Board with regard to determining to whom
> and how direct access to private Whois data under the OPoC paradigm
> should be granted (by registries and/or registrars).  This does not
> speak to indirect access through authorized/certified LEAs.
>
> I have no expectation (or illusion) that what we come up with here will
> create a perfect world.  It will certainly continue to be systematically
> imperfect from a privacy protection standpoint.  If you are hoping to
> find perfection, then that is undoubtedly beyond the scope of this WG or
> Subgroup B.
>
> We are not in a position to dictate a comprehensive and airtight
> resolution to the full complexity of issues here.  So at least *that* is
> *not* what we are doing here.
>
> Dan

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827