ICANN requirement for "information refreshing"?

Wed Jun 19 13:56:12 UTC 2002

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Richard Forno wrote:

> Is funny that both ICANN and law enforcement are trying to clean up whois
> information to facilitate investigative capabilities. What a crock.

I'm not really sure why law enforcement is trying to clean it up
as they don't really need it. Transactional records are easily
subpoena'd and carriers/hosters/providers are duty bound to provide
the information. A WHOIS record is junk for the most part.

> On paper, and in theory, having 'clean' whois data is nice, and helpful for
> tech problems, which is the reason I think why it's there in the first
> place.

I think they want it clean as a list so they can sell, spam, snail
mail, all the crap they want to.

>
> As if nobody thought about having a 'front man' doing a registration, or
> even that the Registrars will be able to truly implement such data-integrity
> protocols, among any other ways to muck with this info.

With some registrars charging 15 bucks a pop? Forget about competition.

>
> I mean, garbage in, garbage out. Are they going to go door-to-door like
> censustakers to verify this info?
>
> The reality is it will never work, and besides - any smart criminal will
> simply use another domain name, or not even USE a domain name.....a
> power-user computer criminal shouldn't have problems remembering a few IP
> addys. If they can't, they're stupid and deserve to be caught.

A smart criminal would never use the internet or a telephone.
With the advent of enhanced features, Title III's child "CALEA" and
the technology behind it, only a fool would use "a wire" to commit
crimes. The process to get a surveillance order would never rely on
anything substantive from registration data. That may be a pointer
to who's providing services to it though.