  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2008-Feb-27 4:39 pm
Good GriefHey Teddy... do the GOP a favor... either resign now, or don't run for re-election.
You are among the many shining reasons as for why we need Congressional term limits! | |
|
 |  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
1 edit |
n2jtx
Member
2008-Feb-27 4:45 pm
Re: Good Griefsaid by pnh102:Hey Teddy... do the GOP a favor... either resign now, or don't run for re-election. It is the residents of Alaska that keep returning him to Washington. At least he is no longer committee chairman. Maybe someone needs to "send him an Internet" but from his previous speeches that takes several days so there is probably no point in it. | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2008-Feb-27 4:47 pm
Re: Good Griefsaid by n2jtx:It is the residents of Alaska that keep returning him to Washington. At least he is no longer committee chairman. I know. That's why all I can do is sit here and whine about it. But I can't blame the people of Alaska for sending this guy back. He (like every other well-entrenched incumbent) keeps bringing home the bacon. | |
|
|  rawgerzThe hell was that?
Premium Member
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA |
to pnh102
This old fart offends me, ever since the "tubes" crap he spewed up.
If you don't know shit about something you shouldn't be preaching like you do, much less trying to change it.
This is another reason why I'm happy to see someone not over the age of 60 running for presidency. Congress is full of OLD idiots with no "real world" experience. | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2008-Feb-27 6:19 pm
Re: Good Griefsaid by rawgerz:This is another reason why I'm happy to see someone not over the age of 60 running for presidency. Congress is full of OLD idiots with no "real world" experience. I wouldn't even say his age is a factor. I do agree with you that someone who is in office for a long time does lose touch with the real world. If there were congressional term limits, it would force a turnover and allow for new blood to come in. | |
|
| | |  POBRes Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA |
POB
Premium Member
2008-Feb-27 9:21 pm
Re: Good Griefsaid by pnh102: If there were congressional term limits, it would force a turnover and allow for new blood to come in. And then the incumbents could whine/cry about how they haven't had enough time to accomplish anything and how the n00bs won't know enough to be worthy of election. Just like they do in California. Fortunately, we just shot down that particular proposition purchased by the politicians currently holding office but who are on their way out as a result of our term limits for these assholes. | |
|
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2008-Feb-27 10:33 pm
Re: Good Griefsaid by POB:And then the incumbents could whine/cry about how they haven't had enough time to accomplish anything and how the n00bs won't know enough to be worthy of election. Personally, I find that when politicians fail to do most things, we are usually better off. | |
|
| | | | rawgerzThe hell was that?
Premium Member
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA |
rawgerz to POB
Premium Member
2008-Feb-27 11:39 pm
to POB
said by pnh102: If there were congressional term limits, it would force a turnover and allow for new blood to come in. I won't say that's a bad idea, but whats the point when a new group of idiots come in to take their place? I think half the country was CHEERING when they got their democratic congress, swearing things will get better, it is going to be a great change, but it turned out they had/have the lowest approval rating in history?! People don't realize that too much of anything is a bad thing (a congress mostly democrats/mostly republicans). Democrats over regulate but Republicans deregulate too much. Here we are with the dollar's value dropping year by year (and the Euro going up and up) and we still won't go back on the gold standard. They would rather have the housing market make up the dollar's value and with bad credit and foreclosures it makes no sense. Not to mention when you send jobs overseas more and more people can't pay for their homes after they lose their jobs and it just further hurts the economy. I swear this country is out to just shoot itself in it's fat, diabetic foot. | |
|
| |  swhx7
Premium Member
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia |
to rawgerz
When that "tubes" quotation appeared in the news, I thought right away, this guy is in the pocket of lobbyists. Think about it, where would he get that metaphor when he obviously doesn't know much about the cyber-world?
But of course, it's just the kind of thing a lobbyist would use to influence such a person. The issue at the time was network neutrality - so a lobbyist tells him that if ISPs aren't allowed to discriminate, the "tubes" will be overloaded. It's superficially plausible, and misleading in ways a techno-ignorant legislator would fall for. | |
|
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2008-Feb-27 8:57 pm
Re: Good Griefsaid by swhx7:It's superficially plausible, and misleading in ways a techno-ignorant legislator would fall for. Larry Craig is looking for interns. | |
|
| | | |
to rawgerz
said by rawgerz:Congress is full of OLD idiots with no "real world" experience. I think their problem is that they don't realise that the internet has become the NEW "real world". | |
|
| | |
to pnh102
said by pnh102:Hey Teddy... do the GOP a favor... either resign now, or don't run for re-election. You are among the many shining reasons as for why we need Congressional term limits! Considering Ted's facing an FBI investigation and jail, why is he in the Senate? Trying to get another bridge to nowhere approved?  Ted was allegedly taking kickbacks from an Alaskan developer so the FBI raided his home. Another class act in Congress. Funny, about 33% of Congress has written a bad check. The New Orleans Rep. got caught with $90,000 in his freezer. Kickbacks for helping ppl start businesses in Africa. He's been indicted. Of course, there is Rep. Barney Frank who got nailed paying for a gay hooker then letting the gay hooker do hooking out of his D.C. home. And, of course, there's Ted Kennedy who only killed a woman. Yes, Congress is whorehouse. Lobbyists own them. | |
|
 FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5 |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Feb-27 4:39 pm
Phishing part not needed; but domain registration needs chgsI think the phishing part of the bill is a waste of time. Like the BBR news item says: it is already illegal.
But I do think having domain registrations give true info(and that includes street addresses), or you don't get one, would be a good idea. It would seriously put a major dent on all these domains owned by criminal groups. But, of course, it would need more than US law. It would need ICANN to enforce the same stds. | |
|
|
1 edit |
Re: Phishing part not needed; but domain registration needs chgsI would whole heartily disagree with address phone number thing for domains. There's an expect security that we all should have. You never know who on the net could show up at your biz or house. That in its self is frighting. As usual the spammers will lie and will get away with it, us sheep will follow the herd provided by our "gov". If bills like this keep coming we may end up with a law that says when posting on a forum you must include your Real name, address, phone number and your SSN.
ym | |
|
| |  kfsutops
Premium Member
join:2002-08-19
Tampa, FL
kudos:1 |
kfsutops
Premium Member
2008-Feb-27 5:20 pm
Re: Phishing part not needed; but domain registration needs chgsI think information should be accurate. No problem with that being law.
I don't believe though that it should be public information. Such as part of some "who is" database.
If someone wants it, they will have to go to the court and get authorization for getting the information.
But I don't think people should be able to provide bs information to a hosting company in an effort to hide. | |
|
| | | | |
james1
Member
2008-Feb-27 7:16 pm
Re: Phishing part not needed; but domain registration needs chgsJust get a court order and approach the hosting company and find out who pays the bills or what IP logs on as admin. Easy peasy. | |
|
| |  NetFixerSnarl For The Camera Please
Premium Member
join:2004-06-24
The Boro |
to youngmoore
On the other hand if the spammers and scam artists who benefit most from stealth domain registrations, never knew which of their victims might show up on their doorstep with a 10 gauge shotgun...
| |
|
| | | |
to youngmoore
I think you are off base. I think domain entries should be accurate and public. If it scares you to have the infomation out there then maybe running public services isnt for you. The only reason to obfuscate domain information is to empower spammers. At the very least there should accurate information for reporting an abusive domain to a host so as to have it shut down. All spam electronic and real world need to be stopped. They both waste all sorts of resources. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Phishing part not needed; but domain registration needs chgsI have to disagree. I hate spam as much as anyone. Maybe more since we host email servers and I fight it daily. But my own info out there for anyone to see on the net, I think not and I'm not comfortable with that and I'm about as far as a spammer as you can get. Just because I like my privacy doesn't make me, my company, or my family "spammers" Nice try though. You don't see the CEO's of ATT or Comcast personal info up on who-is but your expecting anyone even personal website owners to have their full Name/Address/Phone numbers. Come on man get serious.
ym | |
|
| | | | | youngmoore |
Re: Phishing part not needed; but domain registration needs chgskfsutops has a good idea. Netfixer, the spammers will Lie anyway so they will never see a problem "most likely".
Ontop of that the most spam we see comes from Eastern block and Asia pac so US law wouldn't apply.
ym | |
|
| | | | dantc
join:2007-07-02
San Francisco, CA |
to youngmoore
That's actually how it worked until fairly recently. Being able to use a registrar's address or other blocking features is a relatively recent development. | |
|
| | | | NetFixerSnarl For The Camera Please
Premium Member
join:2004-06-24
The Boro  ·Cingular Wireless
 ·Comcast Business..
 ·Vonage
ARRIS SB6121
Switches Trash Bin
D-Link DIR-655 Rev. B
|
to youngmoore
said by youngmoore:You don't see the CEO's of ATT or Comcast personal info up on who-is but your expecting anyone even personal website owners to have their full Name/Address/Phone numbers. Come on man get serious. Actually you picked a couple of bad examples to make your point. The domains comcast.com, comcast.net, att,com and att.net all have adequate published whois information (shown below) to allow anyone with a problem with their networks to be able to contact someone for help. The stealh domain registrations provide no such information without at least a court order. If my network is being attacked, I prefer to contact the network admin of the offending network to find a solution rather than simply blocking perhaps an entire subnet forever. When the attacker comes from one of the stealthed domains, the only reasonable choice I have is the block forever option.
Registrant:
Comcast Corporation
1500 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
US
Domain Name: COMCAST.NET
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote your business to millions of viewers for only $1 a month
Learn how you can get an Enhanced Business Listing here for your domain name.
Learn more at »www.NetworkSolutions.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Contact:
Administrator, Domain Registration ContactMiddleName domregadmin@COMCAST.net
Comcast Corporation
1500 Market, West Tower
Philadelphia, PA 19102
US
215-320-8774 fax: 215-564-0132
Technical Contact:
Technical Contact, Domain Reg ContactMiddleName domregtech@comcastonline.com
Comcast Corporation
1500 Market St.
9Fl West
Philadelphia, PA 19102
US
215-320-8774 fax: 215-564-0132
Record expires on 24-Sep-2008.
Record created on 25-Sep-1997.
Database last updated on 28-Feb-2008 02:00:16 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
DNS101.COMCAST.NET 68.87.64.204
DNS102.COMCAST.NET 68.87.66.204
--------------------------------------------------------------
Registrant:
Comcast Corp
1500 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
US
Domain Name: COMCAST.COM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote your business to millions of viewers for only $1 a month
Learn how you can get an Enhanced Business Listing here for your domain name.
Learn more at »www.NetworkSolutions.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Contact:
Comcast Corporation postmaster@COMCAST.COM
1500 MARKET ST
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102-2100
US
215-981-7776 fax: 215-981-7776
Technical Contact:
Comcast Corporation postmaster@COMCAST.COM
1500 MARKET ST
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102-2100
US
215-981-7776 fax: 215-981-7776
Record expires on 28-Aug-2010.
Record created on 29-Aug-1995.
Database last updated on 28-Feb-2008 02:01:50 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1-AUTH.SPRINTLINK.NET
NS2-AUTH.SPRINTLINK.NET
--------------------------------------------------------------
Registrant:
AT&T Corp.
Corporate Administration
32 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10013
US
eiss-dns@att.com
+1.3172651482 Fax: +1.3172651482
Domain Name: ATT.COM
Registrar of Record: Corporate Domains, Inc.
Administrative Contact:
AT&T Services, Inc.
Domain Administrator
240 N Meridian Room 280
Indianapolis, IN 46204
US
jn4238@att.com
+1.3172651482 Fax: +1.3172651482
Technical Contact:
AT&T Corp
DNS Support
801 Chestnut St.
St. Louis, MO 63101
US
eiss-dns@att.com
+1.3172651482 Fax: +1.3172651482
Domain servers in listed order:
NS2.ATTDNS.COM
NS3.ATTDNS.COM
NS1.ATTDNS.COM
NS5.ATTDNS.COM
NS4.ATTDNS.COM
Created on..............: 25-Apr-86
Expires on..............: 26-Apr-10
Record last updated on..: 13-Jul-07
---------------------------------------------------------------
Registrant:
AT&T Corp.
55 Corporate Drive
Bridgewater, NJ 08807
US
Domain Name: ATT.NET
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote your business to millions of viewers for only $1 a month
Learn how you can get an Enhanced Business Listing here for your domain name.
Learn more at »www.NetworkSolutions.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
GNMC rm-hostmaster@ems.att.com
424 S. Woodsmill Rd
Chesterfield, MO 63037
US
800-325-1898 fax: 281-664-9975
Record expires on 14-Dec-2012.
Record created on 13-Dec-1993.
Database last updated on 28-Feb-2008 02:04:33 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
ORCU.OR.BR.NP.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 199.191.129.139
WYCU.WY.BR.NP.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 199.191.128.43
OHCU.OH.MT.NP.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 199.191.144.75
MACU.MA.MT.NP.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 199.191.145.136
| |
|
| | | | |  jester121
Premium Member
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL |
jester121
Premium Member
2008-Feb-28 11:51 am
Re: Phishing part not needed; but domain registration needs chgsIf your network is being attacked you work off of IP address blocks and their owners info, not domain name registrations per se. | |
|
| | | | | swhx7
Premium Member
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia |
to NetFixer
said by NetFixer:said by youngmoore:You don't see the CEO's of ATT or Comcast personal info up on who-is but your expecting anyone even personal website owners to have their full Name/Address/Phone numbers. Come on man get serious. Actually you picked a couple of bad examples to make your point. The domains comcast.com, comcast.net, att,com and att.net all have adequate published whois information (shown below) to allow anyone with a problem with their networks to be able to contact someone for help. The stealh domain registrations provide no such information without at least a court order. This is just incorrect. I just checked one of mine to be sure. I have one registered via a proxy company, and it gives physical address for that organization and email addresses (administrative, technical) that get forwarded to me. I believe other proxy domains are like this too - you can always see an email address to complain to. And if that doesn't work, you can always go to the hosting company. The only thing you need a court order for is getting personal information on individuals, and you don't need that to contact someone about anything being done on the domain. If we can't have proxy registrations for individuals, then the only other way to make the business and individual registrations comparable would be to require the names and physical home addresses of the executives, board members and major stockholders on any corporate registration. I would support that. | |
|
| | | | | |
to youngmoore
The solution I came up with when I was publishing my own domain was to get a Post Office box and a GrandCentral phone number. If you do a whois on one of my domains (say, PCQandA.com), you'll get these instead of my real address/phone number. I stop by the PO Box every so often to pick up the junk mail and donations that arrive there. (I use the PO Box for donations to help keep my site running also since I don't want to publish my address for that.) Any phone calls coming in will ring my real phones (via GrandCentral's service), but I can choose whether or not I take them and can block spam callers. The PO Box costs me $26 per year (prices vary from post office to post office) and the GrandCentral number is free. | |
|
| | | swhx7
Premium Member
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
2 edits |
to MJRudzik
said by NetFixer:On the other hand if the spammers and scam artists who benefit most from stealth domain registrations, never knew which of their victims might show up on their doorstep with a 10 gauge shotgun... A lot of bad policies come from thinking of one possible consequence and overlooking others. The person who show up with a gun could just as easily be some random crazy person who's offended by something that a blogger with his own domain wrote. said by MJRudzik:If it scares you to have the infomation out there then maybe running public services isnt for you. The only reason to obfuscate domain information is to empower spammers. At the very least there should accurate information for reporting an abusive domain to a host so as to have it shut down. All spam electronic and real world need to be stopped. They both waste all sorts of resources. Is avoiding waste of resources more important than humans being safe? Abolishing anonymity in advance only exposes the public (any domain owner) to hate mail, property damage or even violence from anyone who's offended by their website. The only real effect - and probably the political motivation - of an anti-masking rule is to "chill" expression on the part of indiividuals. Businesses have nothing to fear from putting their physical addresses online; it's only individuals who have to reveal their home addresses. You can report a domain that's spamming (or spreading malware, etc.) to its host without having the street address of the domain owner. And it's always possible to find out about domain ownership with a warrant or subpoena. And that's the way it should be: prove to a judge that there is some illegal activity, and unmask the domain owner. If you can't prove that, you have no legitimate entitlement to the information. | |
|
| | |
to FFH5
There needs to be a balance between privacy and public disclosure. Maybe a proxy system whereby someone puts a valid contact for someone who will vouch for the authenticity. | |
|
| |  gaforces (banned)United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA |
Re: Phishing part not needed; but domain registration needs chgssaid by bogey7806:There needs to be a balance between privacy and public disclosure. Maybe a proxy system whereby someone puts a valid contact for someone who will vouch for the authenticity. I think thats a good idea, the proxy could be the registrar. | |
|
| | amungus
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
America
kudos:1 ·Cox HSI
|
to bogey7806
There already is.
I registered and paid the extra 10 bucks for "Domains By Proxy."
They have my info, but you can't get my personal info from a generic Whois.
There are PLENTY of good reasons for some people to do this. Mostly, if they aren't a business.
I do not want people to be able to dig up all that info. My band's website has plenty of ways to contact if needed.
Having all that info listed is like asking for freaks to harass you.
Yes, scammers and spammers suck. No, they shouldn't be able to hide completely. I agree that a balance should be struck... and I think Domains by Proxy is a good start. | |
|
| |  kataan
Premium Member
join:2003-04-22
Greenacres, WA
Netgear CG3000
ARRIS TM602G
Buffalo WZR-1750DHPD
|
to bogey7806
I use Domains by Proxy on my domain. All my valid domain info is protected by them and a Court order is needed to retrieve it. They use their name and address for the public whois database. » www.domainsbyproxy.com/EX. dministrative Contact: Private, Registration XXXXXXXX@domainsbyproxy.com Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 | |
|
|  funchordsHello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 |
to FFH5
I own a number of domains, and I don't have Domain Privacy, and I haven't received any of the spam that I have been promised. (WAAAH!)
I don't mind Domain Privacy, though, on one condition: That the information on a privacy-protected domain is useful for contacting the owner of that domain in the event of a technical or administrative problem.
I've tried on numerous occasions to contact domain owners about malware on their site -- and these guys have bought Domain Privacy from their Registrar. But contacting the Registrar is useless -- they refuse to forward any message to the registrant, no matter how important it is. To me, that's the problem.
If someone wants to replace their name on a registration with some generic "Privacy Protected - Contact Registrar" entry, fine -- but then provide a screened forwarding service that protects the registrant from spam and anonymous harassment but gets important messages through. | |
|
| jester121
Premium Member
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL |
to FFH5
said by FFH5: It would seriously put a major dent on all these domains owned by criminal groups. But, of course, it would need more than US law. It would need ICANN to enforce the same stds. Like gun control laws, that's based on the flawed assumption that people follow the law. Go back and read what you typed TK -- do you think criminal groups are going to be worried about this law, over all the other ones they're already breaking??? | |
|
| |
•••
|
| |
Gubmint Knows BetterSomebody tie this guys tubes!! | |
|
| |
No one would ever...lie about their name, phone number, address, etc. if it were illegal... | |
|
| |
Yet another picture...To throw darts at. Kevin Martin was getting lonely there. | |
|
 Lone WolfRetired
Premium Member
join:2001-12-30
USA
kudos:1 |
The End of Fishing in AlaskaFor some reason, I think Stevens will misunderstand phishing and try to stop commercial fishing.  | |
|
| |
Whatta Maroon!Dear Ted: I would have thought that you'd learned not to go sticking your nose into that which you know absolutely nothing about, particulary since you were the laughingstock of the Internet for quite awhile after the "tubes" incident. But then I realized that cluelessness pretty much encompasses your ::ENTIRE:: life and career, so no surprise here now. | |
|
|
|
••••••• |
|
 Snowy
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6 |
Snowy
Premium Member
2008-Feb-27 8:03 pm
Is he an idiot or an imbecile?Phishers don't set up domain names with their real identity. They use the identity of one of their previous victims & then use the same victims credit card data to pay for the domain. The man is clueless. | |
|
| |
LobbyistsIm totally convinced that Ted Stevens is blatently owned by lobbyists and dosn't give a damn if you know it or not. Somebody put this in his head. But I can't figure out what industry / company would be in favor of this in concept? The only people who will gain from this are spammers! That's their primary feeding ground when generating email addresses. Who else would benefit from these suggestions? There must be more in the bill that we are overlooking. By the way, Stevens is also one of the two guys who backed the infamous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska in which an island with a population of 50 was going to be connected to Ketchikan (ummm, that's an island too) by a bridge larger than the Golden Gate Bridge for a price tag of $223 million!!! Even the islanders didn't want it because of what it would do to the environment. Bush even signed off on it but it eventually died late last year. » dir.salon.com/story/news ··· bridges/ | |
|
 CuchulainnThe Roar of the Masses Could be Farts
join:2000-11-09
Chevy Chase, MD |
Someone Should Try Sending A Phishing Email to "Tubes"What are the odds he'd fall for it? He probably thinks Phishing is something you do in the Kenai during a salmon run | |
|
| |
Ted Stevens is A Hypocrite!hahahah he's talking about the law and he's in trouble with the law.
what a hypocrite! | |
|
|
|
·
·
·
