The Elephant in the Room--Chef Patrick and Oversee Breach of Customer Info

[Ms Domainer]

*

I never know with this site

http://domaingang.com/editorial/there-will-be-no-post-about-chef-patrick/​

what's real or fake, but another site also confirms this.

If true, sad day, indeed.

Either way, because it's out there, Chef Patrick needs to address this issue ASAP to either clear his name or apologize.


*

 

[Dave_Z]

There is 'nothing' that important someone at a domain registry would need to breach policy to get personal info. Without a court order that is.

Again, that depends what the registrar's policies say. For instance, but not limited to:

http://www.godaddy.com/agreements/ShowDoc.aspx?pageid=DOMAIN_NAMEPROXY

You understand and agree that DBP has the absolute right and power, in its sole discretion and without any liability to You whatsoever, to either:

2. Reveal Your name and personal information that You provided to DBP when:
A. Required by law, in the good faith belief that such action is necessary in order to conform to the edicts of the law;
B. To comply with a legal process served upon DBP; or
C. In order to comply with ICANN rules, policies or procedures

http://www.enom.com/terms/idprotect_agreement.asp

You understand and agree that Backend Service Provider has the absolute right and power, in its sole discretion and without any liability to You whatsoever, to suspend the IDP Services, close Your Account, terminate provisionment of the IDP Services, list the information You provided in section 2 in the Whois output or provide the information You provided in section 2 to a claimant, resolve any and all third party claims, whether threatened or made, arising out of Your use of IDP Domain, or take any other action which Backend Service Provider deems necessary.

http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/static-service-agreement.jsp#d

You acknowledge and agree that Network Solutions has the absolute right and power, as it deems necessary in its sole discretion, without providing notice and without any liability to you whatsoever, to (a) reveal to third parties the contact information provided by you to Network Solutions in connection with the account for the applicable domain name, (b) populate the public WHOIS database with the registrant's name, primary postal address, email address and/or telephone number as provided by you to Network Solutions

And so on and so forth. It's fine if you don't personally agree with any of those terms, but they all mainly spell out what the registrar can and won't (?) do with the privacy service you opt or pay for.

While your registrar isn't going to spell out exactly they won't do this or they won't do that, it can help to essentially understand what they'll do for the most part. Unfortunately many registrars virtually have similar, if not the same, WHOIS privacy policies.

OTOH, should you find yourself in a potential breach of trust arising from something like this, you can still contact your registrar and see if things can be worked out. Hope this doesn't happen, though it can.

 

[labrocca]

And this brings up some serious questions about how Whois Privacy is really a sham anyways. It's mainly protection against spammers imho. It's not going to protect you from any legal action. Sure if you don't want your wife to know you own a domain this could be useful but overall whois privacy imho is a sham. I pay for it on one domain I own and that's because I get a lot of spam from it.

 

[DU]

And this brings up some serious questions about how Whois Privacy is really a sham anyways.

Ding. Especially if you PAY for it. Can you imagine the following:

You have a domain under privacy. LegitScript marks it as bad.

No way you are getting it back because you can't even prove it's YOURS.. lol

 

[GF]

What does Moniker have to say about this?

 

[exsedo]

They will say " It was not a member of our staff. We have investigated and Halverez no longer works for our organization "

Then 2 years later they will fess up :lol:

 

[the_poet]

What I didn't understand is why Mr. Schwartz took offense and requires the chef to publicly apologize: what the heck does he have to do with the whole story? He doesn't own Oversee, he didn't register that domain and isn't the registrant's employer

 

[labrocca]

What I didn't understand is why Mr. Schwartz took offense and requires the chef to publicly apologize

It seems that he was put into the middle of all this by being contacted by a few parties for advice in the situation. Schwartz is a big mouth kind of guy. He knew that a wrong was done here. He was expecting someone to correct if for his friend but it ended up they just brushed it under the wrong without a formal apology or explanation. And I guess he wanted it public. The public part is why he's catching flack over some of this.

That's how I interpret this.

I don't Rick as making the wrong move here but certainly some people would have been comfortable ignoring it and allowing it to fade. Rick ain't that kind of guy apparently. I give him props for that.

 

[exsedo]

Maybe he cares about the domain industry and wants to do what he can to improve its image.
After all, when these scandals break, they do damage, which in turn must have an impact (however small) on all of the domaining community.
They had 3 months to clear this up before Rick forced the issue, so you have to question whether they would have owned up at all without that push.
My guess is that they would not.
Domaining has a long way to go yet to clean up its image, and prominant figures pulling stunts like this are not helping.

 

[stingrae]

This is not an industry scandal. This is an overhyped, news seeking story of a rogue employee using his position inappropriately to obtain private information. There is no evidence that this is more than an isolated incident and the employer has taken the appropriate steps to punish the offender.

I don't see any reason for Moniker to do anything other than handle this internally. That doesn't mean it's being swept under the rug.

 

[DU]

This is not an industry scandal. This is an overhyped, news seeking story of a rogue employee using his position inappropriately to obtain private information. There is no evidence that this is more than an isolated incident and the employer has taken the appropriate steps to punish the offender.

I don't see any reason for Moniker to do anything other than handle this internally. That doesn't mean it's being swept under the rug.

When you are a business and you run multiple conflicting interests there is an issue when you experience multiple flagrant lapses of judgment by what you call rogue employees.

The reality is that a serious business that has an active interest in being reputable and trustworthy builds an environment where not only are there few rogue employees, but more importantly, those rogue employees lack opportunity to act.

When a company has multiple instances of questionable activity you have to ask whether they are trying to correct the issue. Firing Chef Patrick doesn't do anything. It's one employee effing up being told to leave. How are they stopping Sous-Chef Patrice doing the same thing?

How is Sommelier Sam prevented from accessing my credit card and defrauding me? How is Host Halvarez prevented from bidding? The problem is a company can only blame employees for so long. Sooner or later you have to build a proper environment with no conflicts.

In my opinion, the repeated failures are nothing less than a continuous neglect of proper business practices. If you can't trust them with a DOMAIN PRIVACY how can you trust them with a valuable domain, your credit card? As a broker - are they misusing your information?

Whois misuse is a huge issue for ICANN right now. How whois is maintained, managed and used is a hot button topic. Bottom line is that a potentially meaningless action shows a continued lack of business CONTROLS on their part. The simply don't have the appropriate procedures, or more importantly, rules in place to effectively monitor their staff's activities.

IF you had ever been in a business that had been audited you would realize just how poor their procedures and data management must be.

All. Just IMO.

---------- Post added at 11:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 PM ----------

One final thought. Say Rick had done this but the subject was Chef Patrick (a nice guy) but it was say, the CEO of Enron before that got ripped open would that make it better or worse? What if someone had mentioned Bernie Madoff early on? What about Kevin Leto?

I'm not saying the level of activity is the same in each of these but the fact is that you have no idea where this was going. Was CP looking at Whois under privacy all the time as part of his role as a broker? Was he sharing this with other parties for a long period?

If this had been reported by the New York Times or the Guardian would it have made a difference to your opinion? Lots of stupid hypotheticals. Whistleblowers are never popular - less so when you are already hated by many to begin with like RS.

The lone reality is that imo Moniker isn't trustworthy until it explains how it intends to correct the issue (agents can't go under privacy unless they are authorized and their access is logged and reviewed monthly) etc

 

[Dave_Z]

Interesting updates:

http://www.ricksblog.com/my_weblog/2011/03/it-is-far-from-over.html

http://www.chefpatrick.com/chefpatricksucks-com-the-real-truth

Popcorn?

 

[Archangel]

I've seen Patrick in this thread yesterday. I was hoping he'd leave a post but he didn't.

 

[~ The 34 Year Buzz!!]

...What if someone had mentioned Bernie Madoff early on?

Google it you'll be amazed.
Reports were filed with the SEC in the late 90's (plus more a few years later), and they didn't follow through.

 

[Michelle]

Just a point

I see alittle more here at Namepros then some as a TL and I would NEVER use this in any way for my own gain and if I ever did, this would not imo be the fault of Namepros or their trust in me but .... me....my doing

That said, I did mention above that there does appear to be a very dark shady cloud on this whole sad thing

 

[~ The 34 Year Buzz!!]

Is this the real truth?

...I did mention above that there does appear to be a very dark shady cloud on this whole sad thing

I'm ready to unsubscribe from this thread, here is a final piece of darkness:

(From the comments of CP's blog)

...And, since you’ve only been doing this for a little over 2
years, I’ll fill you in on a secret: Those who’ve been in this
industry for over a decade have seen the likes of you come
and go with regularity. Watching the train wrecks are entertaining but dismally disappointing at the same time.

Apologize sincerely or get out of this biz voluntarily;
otherwise you’ll likely to be ousted, embarrassed and humiliated
very publicly.

http://www.chefpatrick.com/chefpatricksucks-com-the-real-truth

^^^

• Is that the real truth?

unsubscribing now...
:wave:

 

[Archangel]

I still believe this was pushed to an unnecessary proportion. There may be some explaining to do, yes, but it's ultimately an isolated incident to me.

I did mention above that there does appear to be a very dark shady cloud on this whole sad thing

 

[DU]

Google it you'll be amazed.
Reports were filed with the SEC in the late 90's (plus more a few years later), and they didn't follow through.

Harry Markopolos should have asked Rick to blog about it

But interesting to read...

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 PM ----------

I see alittle more here at Namepros then some as a TL and I would NEVER use this in any way for my own gain and if I ever did, this would not imo be the fault of Namepros or their trust in me but .... me....my doing

What more do you see?

 

[Michelle]

What more do you see?

I see pretty round circles and .. the basement.. but we dont speak of the basement :cy:

 

[Archangel]

I've probably been here since NP's 2nd year and I've seen a lotta disturbing things. Did I tell you what Michelle & Wendy were doing in the basement w/ Rachel holding the camcorder? I can't get it outta my head. And I've been to therapy.

I see pretty round circles and .. the basement.. but we dont speak of the basement :cy:

 

[DU]

I see pretty round circles and .. the basement.. but we dont speak of the basement :cy:

You said that as a TL you see more.

I asked what do you see? I think is a fair question. Do you see PM's for example ? Can you see who is on my ignore list? Can you see when I login ?

Abuse of Access is failing at a personal level. Allowing access to abuse is a failing at the organization level. This is what people fail to understand for some reason. Chef failed at a personal level. Moniker failed organizationally. Two totally separate concepts. Can you imagine a bank saying "well .... Bob stole all your money.. but that was Bob. No one else has done it. Anyway, we fired Bob now". Look at Barings Bank and France's Societe Generale. Upward accountability is the ENTIRE premise behind SOX.

You left it kind of open-ended. I guess you are just intent on feeding the Erdinc machine.

//Translate that to
//mystery on these issues will only serve people who have doubts about the integrity
//and transparency of moderators, for instance Erdinc (and me, to a lesser extent)
//

Me? I'd like to know what the "more" is.

 

[Tippy]

I can honestly say I have never been to his site, never had any interest in him or what he had/has to say... is he a real Chef by the way?

Either way I think Chef Patrick does indeed suck whomever he is or isn't.

 

[Archangel]

Good argument but let me ask you: What, in this analogy, should happen? Applying this analogy to this Moniker incident, what should -- or even could -- be done?

Can you imagine a bank saying "well .... Bob stole all your money.. but that was Bob. No one else has done it. Anyway, we fired Bob now".

 

[Tippy]

Was he fired? Thats the least that should happen to him.

I think most of us who work for a company have some type of access to personal/private information. If we decide to violate this privilege well its the violators fault, not the company as far as I'm concerned.

 

[DU]

Good argument but let me ask you: What, in this analogy, should happen? Applying this analogy to this Moniker incident, what should -- or even could -- be done?

If it was a bank customers would leave. This is what IS happening at Moniker - but I'm not sure it's to a damaging level to their bottom line.

Essentially... there would be firings, legal teams and PR teams involved but that's not my point. My point was that no one would say:

"I like Bob. He needed the money and it was just a lapse of judgment"...

They would be more likely to say:

"How the hell did Bob steal my money? How would they let him do that and not catch it? That's unbelievable!! I'm taking my money and moving it right now!"

The main difference? If you have 1000 names it costs you $8,000 + and effort to move them.

 

[Corey]

A company has a Duty of Care to it's Clients
An employee has a Duty of Care to it's employer and the employers clients.

Cheers
Corey