Re: [anti-abuse-wg] abuse of the internet by multinationals and nation states
I don't want to defend whois hiding but you forget to mention that this does not only help criminals to hide but also protects (a bit at least) the privacy of the wast majority of "uncriminal" normal users. So the question is to "forbid" something just because it can also be abused by criminal people which probably are not the majority of affected people at all. Why should I as user not have the right to protect/hide MY personal data in whois? Cheers Tobi ----- Originale Nachricht ----- Von: Name <phishing@storey.xxx> Gesendet: 05.05.18 - 07:53 An: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] abuse of the internet by multinationals and nation states
And then there is the response of the European Union, which is to make laws that make easier for crime to flourish by hiding WHOIS information (and does nothing to solve the actual issue).
Similarly, the response of this very list has been to identify an issue and then implement a solution that does absolutely nothing to solve it.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] abuse of the internet by multinationals and nation states From: ox <andre@ox.co.za> Date: Sat, May 05, 2018 3:43 pm To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Hello,
please may I have your thoughts, on or off list, about the evident growth in the use of the internet for abusive purposes as it relates to huge multinationals and nation states?
I would like to illustrate what I am asking, with a singular example. the specific brand name should not choose to take any offense, as I could have simply replaced "Google" with Apple or with Facebook, or with Twitter, etc etc.
Here the case example: ===================
Factually: Google operates and dominates search and email in hundreds of countries all over the planet.
of late, Google turns out to be an evil organisation that uses the world and global internet, not as an international netizen, but to power and empower a specific nation state: https://news.sky.com/story/goggle-staff-protest-against-companys-work-with-p...
A recent article in the NY Times suggests that Google, and all tech companies has an obligation to empower the US military as it serves the interests of American people and that such support, development and sharing with the US Government is not only expected but to be commended.
From an American perspective this all makes perfect sense and is not evil at all.
From a RIPE perspective (and world perspective) It is evil.
Personally, I like Americans and the American people as much as I like the Chinese people, the Russians and all people from any country.
But the issue is about the Internet.
The Internet is a global network.
Use of that global network by dominant and large tech companies to empower a single country military is evil.
Further and to add to this:
Google(insert name of other multinational here) also acts as a "Police" by using their search engine and email services as a weapon against both individual people as well as other companies. There is no trial, there is no court, there is no public opinion even. There is simply the biased application of convoluted and often contradictory, sometimes psychotic, "policies"
These multinationals have become so powerful that they are able to digitally target individual people and in such a sublime fashion that it is not even obvious to most individuals that they are "targets".
The very same "policies" that have now been amended to comply with GDPR, but if one actually reads and apply logic to the new policies, it is clear that compliance with the GDPR will not be adequate to prevent the abuse of power that multinational tech companies regularly exercise under the guise of their own "policies"
So, one type of abuse is identity data, tracking and general data including fake news, the other type of abuse is to specifically give weight to negative or to specifically exclude data or information from feeds and results.
Currently this type of abuse is not regulated or even discussed much at all.
Anyway, this "invisible" exercise of power under the guise of "secret" algorithms and "proprietary" tech is extremely damaging and a powerful weapon in the hands of evil organisation(s)
Is the answer more regulation?
Is the answer to look harder at the Chinese example?
Is the answer a non free Internet?
How does society and different societies protect their own cultures, their own ways of life, their own values and preserve their own freedoms?
The abuse of the Internet by large corporations and nations states for the purposes of information warfare (and war) is an abuse issue for a RR wg to dicuss...
Andre
On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:30:29 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Tobi wrote:
Why should I as user not have the right to protect/hide MY personal data in whois?
Because you are using a public resource. Traceability and accountability are essential to the functioning of the public resource
In article <60cf421.bf1cb7eb.163301149ea@gmx.ch> you write:
I don't want to defend whois hiding but you forget to mention that this does not only help criminals to hide but also protects (a bit at least) the privacy of the wast majority of "uncriminal" normal users.
To point out the obvious, the vast majority of "uncriminal" normal users do not have personal domains so their information would never appear in WHOIS in the first place, and the vast majority of domains are registered by organizations which have no privacy rights, not natural persons who do. We've been pointing this out for a decade to academics who imagine themselves to be privacy advocates. They have consistently stuck their fingers in their ears "la la I don't hear you" so I doubt it'll be any more effective this time. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Okay my "vast" majority was a bit misleading. I meant the majority of users/companies already in whois :-) So just the natural persons remain. But why should their right on their private data not count? Again do not want to defend whois hiding. But is still an important question which right overweights the other. Just because some bad guys hide behind privacy service whois that does not mean everyone who wants to hide their whois is a criminal. Cheers tobi ----- Originale Nachricht ----- Von: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Gesendet: 05.05.18 - 16:21 An: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] abuse of the internet by multinationals and nation states
In article <60cf421.bf1cb7eb.163301149ea@gmx.ch> you write:
I don't want to defend whois hiding but you forget to mention that this does not only help criminals to hide but also protects (a bit at least) the privacy of the wast majority of "uncriminal" normal users.
To point out the obvious, the vast majority of "uncriminal" normal users do not have personal domains so their information would never appear in WHOIS in the first place, and the vast majority of domains are registered by organizations which have no privacy rights, not natural persons who do.
We've been pointing this out for a decade to academics who imagine themselves to be privacy advocates. They have consistently stuck their fingers in their ears "la la I don't hear you" so I doubt it'll be any more effective this time.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
In article <8a493c0.bf1cb7ed.16330c2a199@gmx.ch> you write:
Okay my "vast" majority was a bit misleading. I meant the majority of users/companies already in whois :-) So just the natural persons remain. But why should their right on their private data not count?
Of course they count. But since they are an exception, a reasonable policy would publish the info for the 99% of domains registered by organizations and redact it for the 1% registered by people. It's not hard to do, the .CA registry has done it for years, which is well known to anyone who is familiar with this issue. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
In message <60cf421.bf1cb7eb.163301149ea@gmx.ch>, Tobi <jahlives@gmx.ch> wrote:
I don't want to defend whois hiding but you forget to mention that this does not only help criminals to hide but also protects (a bit at least) the privacy of the wast majority of "uncriminal" normal users. So the question is to "forbid" something just because it can also be abused by criminal people which probably are not the majority of affected people at all...
I don't like to participate in this mailing list anymore, because it is largely if not entirely a waste of time. But I can't help responding to the above. The rationale put forward here for why "honest citizens" should be able to do some particular thing... in this case hide their WHOIS details... is identical to the rational used, here in my own home country (U.S.A.) by an organization known as the National Rifle Association (NRA) for why "honest citizens" should have no restrictions whatsoever placed on their ability to purchase all manner of firearms. Anyone who is not aware of how well THAT has worked out needs to pay a bit more attention to the constant stream of news from over on this side of the pond. Regards, rfg P.S. I am ceaselessly amazed and befuddled at the way certain profoundly idiotic concepts seem to take root in societies, and then grow and spread, until, in some cases, they even become the predominant viewpoint, even as virtually no one within the relevant societies ever seems to question any of the underlying assumptions. (See also: Religion.) One quintessential example of this specific type of mass delusion, which has apparently taken root and festered, particularly in Europe, is the apparently widespread belief/theory/notion that in the modern world it is no longer even possible for any person or organization to meaningfully participate in modern life or society without having his/her/its very own domain name or IP address block, and that thus (as the demented reasoning goes) we all absolutely MUST allow any and all persons and/or entities that might, in theory, suffer some backlash (aka "accountability") arising from the public exposure of their thoughts, beliefs, or lifestyles to possess domain names and IP addresses anonymously. The self-evident illogic of such a view is almost so obvious as to not even require explicit statement. Even ignoring the innumerable -other- outlets and venues for unpopular viewpoints that are readily available to anyone able to access the modern internet... outlets and venues that do not require the participant to have his or her own domain name or IP address block... there still remains the inescapable (and inconvenient) truth that even many well known persons holding distinctly unpopular viewpoints (see: Milo Yiannopoulos) seem to have no trouble at all -openly- owning their own Internet resources, e.g. domain names. Regardless of these easily obtainable facts, these days anyone publically expressing the veiwpoint that WHOIS data should be neither cloaked nor hidden is instantly labeled (by the "privacy" advocates) as a homophobe, a racist, or an anti-anti-neo-Nazi, because after all, how else could anyone possibly be against the notion of pervasive and universal unaccountability? This is the exact same underhanded and dishonest retorical tactic used in my country (USA) against anyone who isn't in favor of open borders and unlimited immigration. By definition, it is argued, we must all be racists. I will just close by suggesting to all of the so-called "privacy advocates", in Europe and beyond, that you all should henceforth and immediately paint over your car license plates, so as to make them unreadable, and henceforth attend all public meetings of any kind wearing a balaclava. Because after all, privacy. If it's good enough for the Russian mercenaries in Eastern Ukraine, then it should be standard practice for everyone else in Europe too.
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:53:53 -0700 "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
I don't like to participate in this mailing list anymore, because it is largely if not entirely a waste of time. But I can't help responding to the above.
you are quite correct. there is sometimes "link bait" as it relates to mailing lists :) but the value received from this list depends on the contributor and the contribution. the pov and the perceived goal or perceived value derived. it is an abuse list. and, of course, what happened here is thread hijacking. there are a few types of thread hijacking, the first type is (direct thread hijacking) when the actual thread is used for a new topic, this is accomplished by replying to a post and then editing out the subject line and body, adding all new data to those. the second type (indirect thread hijacking) is what happened here, when a top post responds to a thread with an emotive but completely non related, topic. there are also other types of thread hijacking of some of which involves multiple established mailing list "identities" acting in unison. anyway, this was just a common number 2 (two) Mind you, this may not be or is maybe not thread hijacking, if it was done by Google/ "insert name here" or xyz nation state intelligence or military agents, etc.? just to assist any such and other interested parties, i will shortly re-post my initial post, under its own brand new thread again :) then; some of what some people are saying in this hijacked thread does not consider the technical and other aspects of the issue they seem to have strong opinions about. just to add some science, some facts and stirred in with my own opinions on the hijacked thread:
The rationale put forward here for why "honest citizens" should be able to do some particular thing... in this case hide their WHOIS details... is identical to the rational used, here in my own home country (U.S.A.) by an organization known as the National Rifle Association (NRA) for why "honest citizens" should have no restrictions whatsoever placed on their ability to purchase all manner of firearms.
interesting that you should talk about the NRA here Donald, your statements recently has been somewhat controversial, to say the least. regarding your statements above, it is nothing like that and your reasoning imnsho, is not only flawed but just wrong. a domain name cannot exist in a vacuum. at this point I should probably start with the technical basics: technically, there are at least two things involved. (all things technical could actually and arguably be more than 10 (ten) different things) but let us just do the basic two? *********************** (1) an IP number (2) a domain name ********************** technically [(and by basic or generic SOP) point in case: even IANA cannot operate without (1)] ;) (1) one can exist without (2) but (2) cannot exist without (1) then... the main technical reason why this hijacked thread about WHOIS privacy or WHOIS protection is stupid is: because domain names have little to do with this RR in fact there are other abuse discussion lists, where I am also subscribed (with different email addresses and in different role(s) - see https://www.icann.org etc etc.) the issue of WHOIS protection has been discussed and discussed and discussed in so much depth and from so many different angles - in the correct forums for WHOIS protection, over a few decades (by this I mean: over more than 20 years (and I recall opining about this topic the first time in 1992? or 1993?) my views over the past 30+ years have not changed much: as long as the ip resources are identifiable the domain name privacy matters nothing either way. (so, i do not care) the responses of comparing gun and firearm ownership to owning a domain, in this forum and on a hijacked thread, does serve to illuminate important factors though. either way and irrespective of the opinions of anyone here, this hijacked thread has no real relevance or value to RIPE or to Internet abuse in EU as it relates to nothing relevant here. will repost my initial thread, under a new thread, shortly :) Andre
participants (7)
-
Jeffrey Race -
John Levine -
John Levine -
Name -
ox -
Ronald F. Guilmette -
Tobi