Prentice actions “strictly forbidden” by InternetNZ

Lynn Prentice often tells the world how well he knows the Internet, but Duncan Brown did a bit of simple checking and shows that when Prentice published the physical addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of Ben Guerin and myself he clearly breached conditions of the use of WHOIS registry searching.

What he did appears to be “strictly forbidden” by InternetNZ – not just a one off slip, it was a series of deliberate actions by Prentice over a two day extended period.

Duncan has details in Vindictive Prentice breaks the rules.

Prentice can’t claim ignorance (maybe). In his  Ben Guerin: a dirty politics fuckwit post he provided a link to clear warnings at the head of the information he re-published:

Registrar Info
% NZRS Limited 
% Users confirm on submission their agreement to all published Terms 
And just underneath:
% Users are advised that the following activities are strictly forbidden. 
% Using multiple WHOIS queries, or using the output of multiple WHOIS 
% queries in conjunction with any other facility or service, to enable 
% or effect a download of part or all of the .nz Register. 
% Using any information contained in the WHOIS query output to attempt a 
% targeted contact campaign with any person, or any organisation, using any 
% medium. 
% A breach of these conditions will be treated as a breach of the .nz Policies 
% and Procedures.  Sanctions in line with those specified in the policies and 
% procedures at may result from any breach. 
% Copyright InternetNZ

It looks clear to me that Prentice breached “Using any information contained in the WHOIS query output to attempt a targeted contact campaign with any person, or any organisation, using any medium.”

In his post he encouraged people to contact Guerin:

FFS: Could someone inform the pathetic dickhead that Dirty Politics was so last year.

He made it clear that he would carefully check any comment before allowing it to go public:

Just a wee warning. Because of the amount of diversion trolling going on on my post (some people like to live dangerously), I’ve put a full moderation on this post.

I’m letting through any half way reasonable comment and mostly answering them. But it’d inadvisable for the usual trolls to try diversion trolling. I’m really not in the mood for it, but I am finding it hilarious to do permanent bans for the fools who do it.

He cleared this comment (which was in response to one of his own):

Atiawa 9.1.1

I just sent him a text letting him know what a shit head he is. Can’t see much harm in anyone else telling him the same.

So he approved of someone using the information he provided to abuse Guerin and who also encouraged more harassment. He heavily censored others and banned several commenters, seemingly more out of spite or anger than anything.

‘Izzy’ responded to Atiawa:

I think it’s disappointing that you saw fit to publish his contact information, which apparently commentators here have now used to send him abusive messages.

Prentice replied to tha, indicazting he was well aware of abuse as a result of WHOIS information he published:

The information that was published was the public information that every registrant for a domain must make public. If you want to change that then I suggest that you talk to IANA.

It is there specifically to allow people to find out who is responsible for uses of that domain. Perhaps you should bestir yourself to find out what the responsibilities are for a domain name holder.

Prentice should have found out what the responsibilities of WHOIS users are. Actually he did find out, he posted a link to them and then breached them.

And allowed and encouraged people to do his dirty work.

He can’t claim he had no knowledge of the abuse as Guerin made it clear in a comment.

Unfortunately, after my personal details including phone number, postal address and email address were published on an article on The Standard, I receive a significant amount of hatred-filled vitriol directly at me personally via txt message, phone calls, emails and messages sent to my personal Facebook and Twitter accounts.

Prentice responded to that by posting my own private address and phone number, and said (amongst other things):

That information is available for ALL domain names and their registrants, admins, and technical contacts. That is because domain names are a privilege requiring personal responsibility. If you put up a website or mail server or anything else under a domain, then you are responsible for the content published under it. The contact details are there for people to contact you. Sometimes that contact may be unpleasant.

He made the contact details available to others at The Standard and encouraged contact that was unpleasant.

From your whinging, personal responsibility appears to be something you are uncomfortable with. Perhaps you should not put up websites until you are better able to bear the burden.

It’s not likely Prentice will follow his own advice, he frequently ignores the rules he imposes on others.

I this case it looks clear he has broken some one else’s rules, something that is clearly “strictly forbidden” by InternetNZ. For all his claimed knowledge about the Internet ignorance is hardly an excuse he can use, and it wouldn’t wash anyway.

Responsibility is not something Prentice has any idea about unless trying to force it on others

Leave a comment


  1. Prentice should have found out what the responsibilities of WHOIS users are. Actually he did find out, he posted a link to them and then breached them.

    Not necessarily. The meaning of “user” is qualified by two points:

    1. contra proferentem: A restrictive interpretation is preferred because it is against InternetNZ’s interest.

    2. “Users confirm on submission their agreement to all published Terms”: There’s no reason to think that by accessing a public resource that Prentice has submitted to anyone or anything – in law submission involves loss of status.

    • There’s ample reason to presume that Prentice knew, or should have known, that he was breaching the conditions. And some who claims as much Internet expertise as him should be well aware it was a very flagrant breach of net etiquette.

      • Prentice wasn’t bound by the conditions, which have no more legal force than a sign that says “The information on this sign is the intellectual property of XYZ Corporation. By reading this sign you agree to pay XYZ Corporation the sum of $100 dollars.”

        You could argue that of was a breach etiquette, but that’s just a social convention.

  2. Shagger

     /  16th July 2015

    Prentice is an absolute fuckwit. I’m so over his crap about how XYZ person needs to be gone from the Internet or blogs. His reactionary behavior is due to his lies he has told and it’s catching up so he’s running the Matthew Blomfield defense- throw as much shit as you can and hope something sticks.

  3. Mike C

     /  16th July 2015

    Prentice is nothing but a bullying arsehole who thinks he can get away with anything on the Internet. He is a classic “Do as I Say … Not as I Do” type of person, and I bet he would fall apart if he was banned from Georges Blog 🙂


     /  16th July 2015

    Prentice is the epitome of when someone is nothing but an embarassing low rent joke. He writes nothing but shit. People like him are the very reason why Labour is absolutely nowhere. Elections are won by votes – and the diatribe this fool promotes will never see them back in power. Really he is one of Nationals greatest assets – he has yet to realise it.


     /  16th July 2015

    Prentice should know as after all he is the best SYSOP with the biggest mastabatorium on earth!!!!!

  6. PG: Could you kill that last version of this comment. It was the wordpress login of one of Lyn’s clients who I’d been fixing some HTML for. When are you going to put a delete/edit in here?


    So rather than being a useless lazy critic, lay a complaint with InternetNZ.

    I didn’t incite anyone. I wrote an opinion about a domain owner deliberately misusing their domain by non-transparently masquerading as someone else. To do so, I used and published the chain of evidence that showed who owned the domain and what their affiliations were. There was nothing in my post that was a ” ….attempt a targeted contact campaign with any person, or any organisation…”

    This is exactly what the whois is intended for. Now about of strawman arguments that you, Duncan Brown or any other idiot craphouse lawyers invent.

    Bearing in mind the gutless wonders that you and other people are about acting on your words, which in this case should be to make a complaint, I’ll write to InternetNZ – firstly asking them to inform me of any complaints (I anticipate none to date), and secondly asking for a ruling on what you fuckwits should be asking them based on your idiotic allegations.

    • Ok, that had me really puzzled as you could imagine.

      • Yeah. I’m usually pretty good about reverting after working using someone else’s accounts on my system – usually for Lyn. But at present I have an evil head cold that forced me from work on Thursday after I’d made my third screwup and recovery before I managed to get lunch.

        Still an issue as I’m having to miss the première of the doco that Lyn has been working on for months *sigh*

        BTW: I posted your Open Letter link into the internal forums. I have no idea why you think that we act as a collective (apart from annoying over optimistic statement in the about from 2007 that we have never gotten rid of). We never agree on anything. We operate as a cooperative as has been stated many times and is inherent is the statement about using a trust further in on the about.

        So I’d think that your appeal is likely to be pretty useless, even excluding your strange ideas and that I actually run the plant…. But hey, if an author missed reading it – they now have their chance.

    • That’s quite an assumption accusing me of being lazy isn’t it? How do you know what I have or haven’t done?

      But the fact is you’ve done exactly what you warn people not to do at The Standard.

      As far as I’m concerned it was a gross over-reaction and is dirty politics on your part.

      Bearing in mind the gutless wonders that you and other people are about acting on your words

      Again, you have no idea what I’ve done, have you.

      • No. But I intend to find out. The correct action based on your allegations would have been to lay a complaint to InternetNZ. I intend to find out if you of any of these other useless critics have actually had the conviction of your words.

        Besides, I’d like a ruling on it. Simply to make sure that the ignorant fools who know nothing about how the internet operates get a lesson.

        • So you ripped in to me based on an assumption prior to actually finding out.

          To save you the bother I intend to submit it to InternetNZ and had decided to do so next week – I wanted to give you a few days to have an opportunity to respond, which I thought was fair.

          I’ve posted your response, I think it’s fair to give you equal exposure.

          Prentice right of reply on Ben Guerin post

    • Lynn, you have accused, convicted and sentenced someone driven by emotion rather than common sense and decency.

      A half cocked attempt at Internet vigilantism. It’s a piss poor look for someone who claims to have some idea of how things work on the ‘net.

      • Bullshit. I did what any responsible domain operator should do. Identified a fool operating a domain.

    • “When are you going to put a delete/edit in here?”

      I don’t know if I will. Many blogs don’t enable edits or deletes because that means the time an cost and expertise in hosting it yourself – which is less reliable as down time at The Standard shows – or forking out for someone to host it for you. Or getting sponsors and donors which is an other administrative overhead and risks compromising neutrality and annoying readers and users.

      Unlike you who has a co-operative of authors to share the work with you I only have so much time. I thought you would know that running a blog daily involves quite a bit more commitment than being “a useless lazy critic.

  7. Missy

     /  18th July 2015

    Since you are replying here lprent, why did you take that site so personally? Your response to it was a very personal attack, if you truly just wanted to highlight what an idiot he was, or the alleged inappropriateness of the site you could have done so without calling him childish names or publishing his personal data – that is the sort of thing Cam Slater does, so I guess you and he aren’t really that different after all. Nasty and unnecessary, especially when the guy got abusive text messages as a result.

  1. Prentice right of reply on Ben Guerin post | Your NZ
  2. WHOIS and Prentice’s misuse and motives | Your NZ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s