[policy] When Tech Meets Policy...

Wed Aug 15 18:08:02 UTC 2007

On August 13, 2007 at 16:01 carl at personnelware.com (Carl Karsten) wrote:
 > 
 > Barry Shein wrote:
 > > 
 > > That is, if you extend domains on credit w/o any useful accountability
 > > of the buyer and this results in a pattern of criminality then the
 > > liability for that fraud should be shared by the seller. 
 > 
 > I am not sure tasting is criminal or fraud.

Neither am I, we agree. I meant if there's subsequent criminality or
fraud that should be dealt with separately.

For example if someone were registering thousands of domains to use in
a spam throwaway scheme and the spamming behavior is criminal and/or
fraudulent, e.g., use of zombie botnets, then I'd hope there were some
way to encourage registrars to stop extending that spammer throwaway
domains, as one measure.

I don't know if it's still true but as of a couple of years ago the
average useful lifetime of a spammer's throwaway domain was about two
hours. Set it up, send out 100M spams, take the hits, abandon
it. Lather, rinse, repeat.

It's not the act, per se, it's the resultant criminality which should
disqualify the individual or company. Much like abusing credit in the
finance world.

Effective enforcement of that platitude is, of course, yet another
kettle of fish.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Login: Nationwide
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*