In article <60cf421.bf1cb7eb.16330114...@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
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
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
In message <60cf421.bf1cb7eb.16330114...@gmx.ch>,
Tobi 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
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:53:53 -0700
"Ronald F. Guilmette" 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
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
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