RE: [ga] Bulk acces...
At 23:19 05/09/02, Dassa wrote:
>My own idea is to make even more information available, there should not
>be any anonymous activity on the Networks, all activity should be
>traceable. Take away the fear factor
In a debate over that subject in France (we were the first to introduce
privacy laws and we have quite an experience about social relations with
online personal directories, since the Minitel was frist about
telephone and added value directories). The debate was hot as anywhere,
with some very interesting remarks about memory aspects (please remember
that we also have very "innovative" laws in term of anti-racist actions:
private assocaition can directly prosecute on racist delicts, like in the
1. we clearly identified that the real novelty was that computers do not
forget. You are never frogiven.
2. that computers do not correct mistakes. So a wrong entry is for ever.
3. that the real thing is not the databases which are static and can
possibly be corrected, but the profiling which is just a dynamic process
using any data. For example whois entries are not only important though the
data, but though the dates of the entries
4. that the concept of Big Brother knowing everything on everyone was
outdated and replaced by the Leviathan concept of everyone knowing
everything true on wrong on everyone without any correction being really
possible because no one knows where the information is and has been hacked
Globally the conclusion was that by nature all the data and information
should be anonymous for self protection. That database oriented privacy
laws should be extended to profiling, ie that you should be given the right
to have the details of any profiling and to make them corrected as well as
the profiling parameters.
It also was that democracy and civil right protection was to give you the
capacity to sign your name without fearing from doing that. This is very
interesting, because in the whois case it means the reverse of what VRSN
and ICANN do. And when you consider it, it is quite positive.
The proposition would be the following.
1. registration are secret and anonymous.
2. there is an asbolute right to hide oneself behind a proxy
3. disclosure can only be otained on international warrant
4. registrants have the right to disclose their names
5. in such a case they must demonstrate it
6. wrong names will be considered an offense and prosecuted
This makes the whois a space of trust. Instead of considering negatively a
wrong address, UDRP panelists would consider positively the disclosure of
I suppose the result in term of average accuracy would be the same. But it
would be extremely different in term of trust, e-commerce etc.. The whois
address could be certified. Adding to the trust snice an online charged
letter could be sent to the registrant.