RE: [DNS] Now I am ANGRY - Privacy Issues

RE: [DNS] Now I am ANGRY - Privacy Issues

From: Cooke, Tony <tony.cooke§>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:56:20 +1100

This will only work if the party using the information has an Annual
Turnover > $3m.  Any organisation with an AT of < $3m, that is otherwise
caught by the legislation, has until 21 December this year to collect
personal information, which will not be subjected to the access provisions
of the NPPs (although some others will apply).  Only information collected
after 21 December 2002 will be accessible by the individual.

Tony Cooke
Senior Associate
p: 8686 6678
m: 0412 TCooke 

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Wright [mailto:newsstuff&#167;]
Sent: Monday, 4 March 2002 10:44 AM
To: dns&#167;
Subject: RE: [DNS] Now I am ANGRY - Privacy Issues

Quoting part of what Mark Hughes posted earlier:

   Sorry, I think I worded my earlier comments poorly.

   My thoughts were more along the line that Registrars will probably hold
   information about a domain name licensee than the whois database will -
   billing contact person, maybe credit card details, etc.  The whois data
   technical and admin contact would I think be just a sub-set of the info
   by a Registrar.  And different Registrars may choose to hold different
   although the data fields that are used to update the whois would be
   across all Registrars.

This strikes a chord with me over privacy issues and potential breaches of
the recent modifications to the Commonwealth privacy laws.

What particularly comes to mind in recent discussion is the "ING issue" and
the notion of rogue resellers and so-called registrar services creating
unsolicited approaches perhaps designed to mislead, deceive and poach by
stealth, customers from other companies.

Surely, the issue is not an issue of this information being held centrally
(although perhaps this would offer some benefits) but rather an issue of
compliance with the privacy legislation whilst still providing a useful
facility.  I believe that is the real challenge!

Oh and here's a thought to all on this list that complain of rogue renewals
being sent to their customers....

I suggest that if your customers and clients are in receipt of such
unsolicited approaches that an approach be made to the annoying party
seeking access to the information that is hold on them.  I then suggest a
request that all information be removed immediately in accordance with the
Privacy Act 1988 and more particularly the Privacy Act (Private Sector)
amendments of 2000 which came into effect on the 21st of December last year.

Upon failure to comply, a complaint to the Federal Privacy Commissioner at will see then tied up in red tape for quite a while and
possible prosecutions under the Federal Act.

Note Data-mining and cross referencing of information from separate sources
and databases is specifically covered by this Act!!

Phil Wright Pty Ltd

List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the 
author, further information at the above URL.  (335 subscribers.)
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:05 UTC