Re: [gnso-whois-wg] individual/business distinction

["Carole Bird" <Carole.Bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good morning, 

A few points of clarification:  

1. In Canada, to determine jurisdiction, police need to know the city not just 
the Country and the Province.  In some cases the jurisdiction can only be 
determined by an actual street address.  

2. Regarding the statement  "in those cases where it is not sufficient, there 
are ways for law enforcement to gain access to that information" - as it 
pertains to police, this statement is not accurate.  Subpeonas, search 
warrants, etc are often not an option to obtain WHOIS information for police in 
Canada as often the information from the WHOIS query is one element which forms 
the basis to obtain a search warrant later on for a residence/business or other 
location as an investigation unfolds.  

This is something which is not well understood by the public in many cases.  It 
very much depends on a number of factors which can vary by country.  

Carole 

> First, OPoC does NOT keep identity hidden. Let's be very, very clear
> about this. We cannot make progress if people don't understand, or
> misrepresent, the facts about the OPoC proposal. OPoC publishes the
> registrant's name, country or state/province. Ergo, it does not "hide
> identity." It only shields street address, telephone number and email --
> information which can easily be abused. For most consumer protection
> issues, name and basic location information would be sufficient. You
> know who the registrant is and what jurisdction they are in.
>
> Second, in those cases where it is not sufficient, there are ways for
> law enforcement to gain access to that information. And subgroup B will
> be exploring other ways.



>>> Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 04/30/07 1:11 AM >>>
Milton, Chris and all,

  Well said/stated and I agree fully as you stated same.  However,
it is really dangerous for even country or state/province to be
exposed if only for reason of registrant stalking, which has been
reported on more than a few occasions.  So even if country or
state/province were not available on a Whois query response,
identity would still not be "hidden" only limited...

  I am also not comfortable with even SOME law enforcement
agencies having access to any and all registrant Whois data.  It
would seem that Iranian or Russian law enforcement as only
examples, should have access to ALL registrants Whois data.


Milton Mueller wrote:

> >>> "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 4/28/2007 12:21 PM >>>
> > The reason I ask is I believe that if you choose to charge money for
> > services or products online, you don't have a reasonable right to
> > expect your identity should be hidden. Offline, your information is
> public
>
> Your comment contains numerous mistaken assumptions.
>
> First, OPoC does NOT keep identity hidden. Let's be very, very clear
> about this. We cannot make progress if people don't understand, or
> misrepresent, the facts about the OPoC proposal. OPoC publishes the
> registrant's name, country or state/province. Ergo, it does not "hide
> identity." It only shields street address, telephone number and email --
> information which can easily be abused. For most consumer protection
> issues, name and basic location information would be sufficient. You
> know who the registrant is and what jurisdction they are in.
>
> Second, in those cases where it is not sufficient, there are ways for
> law enforcement to gain access to that information. And subgroup B will
> be exploring other ways.
>
> Third, a small home-based business may indeed have a reasonable right
> to expect their street address, email and telephone numbers to be
> protected. Many home businesses exist.
>
> Fourth, when you claim "you don't have a reasonable right," I would
> have to say that rights are defined by law. Can you tell me what law
> says you have no such right? Some countries require businesses to
> publish the information, some don't. That is a matter for law, not our
> opinion.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. William's
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