Whois Record Falsification Closer To Illegality

PipianJ writes "Reuters is reporting that the House of Representatives has recently passed the bill that would approve of penalties for those using fraudulent WHOIS records (H.R. 3632). Interestingly however, this does not directly outlaw it, instead extending the penalty by seven years for felonies performed using such fraudulent websites. The Senate has not yet passed their version (S.2242). The bill as originally written, however, focuses primarily on penalties for promoting counterfeit music, computer programs, and other media with identical labeling."

Comments

Now if they

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine spammers who use information in whois records, it might be more acceptable. As it is now, my choices are to do a domain by proxy or falsify (oops, typo!) some of my information.

Re:Now if they

[AKAImBatman]

C: Well you know how these programmers are with names these days. They've got to pick something screwy. If they're not careful, they'll wind up falsifying their whois records!

A: Who's records?

C: No, WHOIS records.

A: That's what I said.

C: No, you said who's records.

A: Listen buster! I know what I said! Who's falsifying the records!

C: WHOIS RECORDS!

A: ARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!

Re:Now if they

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a P.O. Box.

Re:Now if they

[Anonymous Coward]

And that will stop them from emailing me, or sending junk mail to me how?

Re:Now if they

[Anonymous Coward]

No one said you had to check it.

Re:Now if they

[Anonymous Coward]

And for my phone number? Should I go get an extra number just so I can not answer it either?

Re:Now if they

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knows whose whois record who's The Who?

Re:Now if they

[Anonymous Coward]

And for my phone number? Should I go get an extra number just so I can not answer it either?

http://www.donotcall.gov

Re:Now if they

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because spammers always follow the law. If they outsource their operations to another country, ie India, this does nothing.

Re:Now if they

[sangreal66]

The only people who outsource to india are people who already have your money. DNC is quite effective actually.

Hope you like spam...

[0racle]

...beacuse when you have to change your records, your gonna be swimming in it.

Re:Hope you like spam...

[Nos.]

I wonder exactly what makes a record false. My registrar provides (free) forwarding accounts. For example, the record for foundonp2p.com is showing D-23108frrb@usersa3.domainsatcost.ca right now, but within a week or so, it will change. The email is forwarded to my real address, so it is a legitmate address to email if you want to get a hold of me.

Re:Hope you like spam...

[stratjakt]

Unless you're comitting a crime you don't need to change anything.

Businesses need a legitimate contact address, but people dont. The WHOIS could say Peanut McGee at 123 Fake St, just like I'd tell Radio Shack or anyone else who asks me for my personal info that has no reason to know. The registrar only needs to know their getting paid.

Everyone should be allowed to (and is) publish their opinions anonymously, that's what America's about.

Laws already exist to cover all the fraud whatnot with internet crimes, but judges these days need it all spelled out for them.

Re:Hope you like spam...

[LnxAddct]

I use my gmail account in my records. Google is amazing with spam, I have used it for several months and not one missed legit email, and I have not received *any* spam at all. At first I was being careful and rarely giving away my gmail name, but within the past few months I've been putting it everywhere and still no spam, its amazing. WhoIs used to be a big source for harvesting, I guess its either not important to spammers anymore or Google really is just that good.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Hope you like spam...

[mwood]

I don't recall anonymity being mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. There's nothing about a right to petition for redress of grievances while wearing a false face. I am consistently amazed by citizens who demand the right to be heard but would rather die than be seen.

Re:Hope you like spam...

[hadaso]

> The email is forwarded to my real address...

If the email is delivered to you, then it is not a falsified address.

I would say that if spam filtered address is worse than a forwarding address that delivers everything, because a filtered address does not accept all email.

I use a sneakemail.com forwarding address in my whois record, and it receives spam about once a week. If it gets much worse I would just replace it. It would have been nicer if the address published on the whois database could have been automatically changed every once in a while, making it useless to harvest addresses from whois records.

Re:Hope you like spam...

[hadaso]

I have seen a lot of ham (legitimate email) classified as spam by gmail.

One risk of having the whois publish address subject to spam filtering is that if the registrar decides to test everybody's email addresses published on the whois, then the messages sent would certainly display spam characteristics (and would certainly be bulk mail) and might be reasonably classified as spam by spam filters (especially centralized ones that might have the additional info that the same message was received by thousands of other users).

Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

providing "555-555-5555" as a phone number or "Small Wok Way, Chopstick Town, WI" as a street address.

I need to change my phone no. and move now.

Re:Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony here being that chopsticks were not actually invented (or popular) in Wisconsin, but in California 200 years ago by Chinese immigrants seeking to differentiate their restaurants from more common fare.

Now they account for something like 2.5% of our lumber exports. But they don't have anything to do with cheese.

Re:Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

Minnesota is the number one exporter of chopsticks in the world.

Wisconsin sucks. :p

Re:Damn

[sparks]

> chopsticks were not actually invented (or popular) in Wisconsin, but in California 200 years ago

Have you ever thought that your view of world history might be a little American-centric?

For your information, chopsticks were not invented "in California 200 years ago" but in China at least five THOUSAND years ago.

Re:Damn

[kalidasa]

Tell him to google kuai zi.

Re:Damn

[phasm42]

FYI, what he said is actually a rather famous troll. YHBT. YHL. HAND.

What about those concerned with privacy?

[mind21_98]

I'm sick of getting mail from "registrars" charging $40 and up for two year renewals and so forth. People wouldn't have to falsify records if ICANN did not require registrars to sell their records to whoever wants them. On that note, I'll probably move all my domains to Gandi as they begin to expire because of this (they allow me to exclude my records from the stuff they sell).

Also, will this penalize people who use their real names but false addresses? From the sound of it, it looks like it would.

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[Kenja]

Jebus. People aren't even reading the summery, much less the article. Here, let me refresh your memory.

Interestingly however, this does not directly outlaw it, instead extending the penalty by seven years for felonies performed using such fraudulent websites.

So when you use false information to avoid SPAM or protect your privacy are you committing fraud?

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[justkarl]

So when you use false information to avoid SPAM or protect your privacy are you committing fraud?

Yes. The problem lies within the reality that the gov't has the spammers' back-we're talking the economy here. Providing false information-whether it be for registration info or for good prices on canadian viagra and whatnot- is still fraud. Spammers just have enough money to get the gov't to "look the other way".

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[MrWa]

So when you use false information to avoid SPAM or protect your privacy are you committing fraud?

Yes. You are depriving the company supported by the SPAM of revenue, according to the logic used by the RIAA, and, as a result, should be fine the sum total amount of all lost penis enlargement sales that would have resulted if you provided the correct contact information in your WHOIS registration and not committed fraud.

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[MrLint]

This concerns me more than even that. Lets say for the sake of argument that your business gets caught up in a customer complaint and it escalates to a civil suit, or you are falsely accused of spam or god forbid get caught up in an RIAA/MPAA random word search DCMA action, and you are 'hiding' your whois info. Well i can certainly see some overzealous DA go on a fishing filing these charges against you while all the other stuff is being cleared up (because they throw in the kitchen sink to see what will stick) and you may get nailed on this alone, as its the only "real" charge left over from the fishing expedition.

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[\\]

Why would you wait for your domains to begin expiring? Transfer them now - you don't lose any registration time, you don't have to sweat any deadlines or your domains accidently dropping because you cut it too close, etc.

I never understand why people wait until their domain is about to expire before deciding it's a good idea to change registrars.

This new law may not be so bad, but I guess it's just the next step in privacy loss. "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile", whoever came up with that gem.

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[thegoogler]

Yes, but is the excluding in and of itself illegal? and also, after checking through that site i see you can have "spam protection", meaning they dont put your real email(possibly no email?) into the WHOIS. would that be illegal?

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[kfg]

So when you use false information to avoid SPAM or protect your privacy are you committing fraud?

No. You are "lying" in terms of applying a masquerade, like when you wear a Holloween mask.

There is no crime in wearing a Donald Trump mask, or even in calling yourself Donald Trump while wearing one unless you do so with the actual intent to make people believe you really are Donald Trump in order to get money from them. That is the fraud, not the disguise.

In my state you don't even have to go to court to change your name. Simply start using any alias you want and it defacto becomes your identifier, so long as you don't do so with intent to hide who you are for the purpose of fraud ( such as to evade legitimate debts or court action).

This law is perfectly inline with American legal philosophy, case law and existing code.

It is the crime that is the crime and we don't need any more laws making more crimes where there never were any before to "reduce crime."

Go after the 419 scammers as best you can, but don't make the people hiding themselves from them criminals.

KFG

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[tukkayoot]

The economy? Give me a break, most spam isn't even taxed (since it's illegal). And I don't think spammers have a powerful Washington lobby, yet, anyway.

You really think politicians really care about protecting the economic interests of a bunch of criminals who can't/won't even help them get reelected?

And, IANAL, but I don't think providing false information is always considered fraud from a legal stand point. It's legal to use a pseudonym, ect. under certain circumstances.

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[pseudochaotic]

So. What's the number of missed spams, times the cost, times zero? And don't say zero!

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[dissy]

Well i can certainly see some overzealous DA go on a fishing filing these charges against you while all the other stuff is being cleared up (because they throw in the kitchen sink to see what will stick) and you may get nailed on this alone, as its the only "real" charge left over from the fishing expedition.

But if no felony charges stick, then this 'charge' won't matter.

this does not directly outlaw it, instead extending the penalty by seven years for felonies performed using such fraudulent websites.

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[maxpublic]

But if no felony charges stick, then this 'charge' won't matter.

Except for the legal costs, which you'll have to pay, and the time spent in jail if you can't make bail.

Sounds to me like this is a pretty nifty way for a government body that doesn't happen to like your version of free speech to level false charges backed with ridiculous jail times as a credible threat. And if you think that the government is above such things, or that you'll somehow get justice for these acts, you've been smoking waaaaay too much crack.

Not to mention the ludicrous nature of trying to enforce U.S. laws on a world-wide system (we've seen how effective that stupidity's been so far) or the idea that spam that isn't fraud is somehow a criminal, rather than civil, offense.

Like I've said all along, just what we need! More inane laws! Soon I won't be able to take a shit without permission.

Max

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[jrumney]

So when you use false information to avoid SPAM or protect your privacy are you committing fraud?

No, but under the new RIAA/MPAA DCMA regime, you will be assumed guilty until proven innocent.

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[syntap]

Yes. You are depriving the company supported by the SPAM of revenue, according to the logic used by the RIAA, and, as a result, should be fine the sum total amount of all lost penis enlargement sales that would have resulted if you provided the correct contact information in your WHOIS registration and not committed fraud.

I'm a girl you insensitive clod!

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[Elbows]

Then clearly you should be fined for the lost penis enlargement sales that would have resulted had you been male and insecure about your penis size.

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[MrLint]

While I certainly see your point, i just dont trust that it would 'go away' with the rest of them. I guess i dont have any faith anymore in 'the right thing'

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[tarp]

How would the District Attorney be involved? The examples you mention are CIVIL suits, which usually don't involve the district attorney.

Re:What about those concerned with privacy?

[nzhavok]

I'm sick of getting mail from "registrars" charging $40 and up for two year renewals and so forth

Hi, if you're interested I've been using godaddy for about 2 years now. The seem fine and are quite cheap (about $8 per year). Although I've only used them for registration and not DNS or hosting.

It's going to be interesting...

[rel4x]

..watching them try to enforce it. It appears that the U.S, like other countries, has still not gotten the idea it's going to be nearly impossible to legislate the internet. I have a feeling this is going to be used more as one of those charges they use when they need an excuse to do a raid, and dont have enough evidence for what they're going for.
Disagree? Lemme hear it.

Re:It's going to be interesting...

[Jameth]

I do disagree. I don't think this will be used too much in raids, but I do think that it will be tacked onto the tail-end of countless lists of offenses that criminals are charged with, allowing the prosecutors to easily add a few years to the sentence.

Re:It's going to be interesting...

[firewood]

It appears that the U.S, like other countries, has still not gotten the idea it's going to be nearly impossible to legislate the internet.

The "internet" can't be regulated, but, if physically located inside US jurisdiction, the registrants and admins can be thrown in jail and the servers can be unplugged. That makes for defacto control of a big portion of the "net".

Re:It's going to be interesting...

[hunterx11]

Sounds a lot like mail fraud. Whenever they charge a guy with a white collar crime you hear, "He lied for years! He stole millions from the pension fund! He destroyed the company! He ruined people's lives! And worst of all...he committed mail fraud!!!"

Re:It's going to be interesting...

[dissy]

[snip]I have a feeling this is going to be used more as one of those charges they use when they need an excuse to do a raid, and dont have enough evidence for what they're going for.
Disagree? Lemme hear it.

As this item only applys to a felony charge related to the false info, chances are if they suspect you commited a felony they will raid you and do whatever anyways.

Re:It's going to be interesting...

[maxpublic]

That makes for defacto control of a big portion of the "net".

An ever-smaller portion of the net with each passing year. So far all such laws have been abysmal failures, and that situation doesn't seem to be changing.

Max

Re:It's going to be interesting...

[ratamacue]

going to be nearly impossible to legislate the internet

Sure, but that won't stop them from spending billions trying, and exploiting the "problem" for yet even more power and revenue. When you're spending other people's money, you've got nothing to lose, and everything to gain. It's a zero-risk investment. No matter the outcome -- even if a handful of the powerful elite are "fired" -- they've already cashed in on administration (both directly and indirectly).

Re:It's going to be interesting...

[Thomas Shaddack]

The "internet" can't be regulated, but, if physically located inside US jurisdiction, the registrants and admins can be thrown in jail and the servers can be unplugged.

Simple cure: offshore registration, offshore hosting. Maybe few bucks more expensive, but in most locations still very affordable.

Enforcement?

[Anonymous Coward]

How are they going to enforce it when a large portion of those registrants are actually non-US?

Re:Enforcement?

[Toresica]

Note to self: Put a fake address that would be located in Taiwan, not in Wisconsin.

Re:Enforcement?

[Pig Hogger]

How are they going to enforce it when a large portion of those registrants are actually non-US?

The Project for the New American Century will take care of that pesky problem.

Re:Enforcement?

[Epistax]

Well they just knocked out 300,000,000 people from doing it. Now the other 5,700,000,000 people need to have similar law. This is one thing I think the UN should be very big on. I for one think my country (the US) is far to egocentric and it needs to have more international laws and agreements in place. Conversely the US should try to make any laws it really enjoys international as well (er that is, present them as options, not enforce them with righteousness).

Re:Enforcement?

[Yorrike]

" I for one think my country (the US) is far to[o] egocentric and it needs to have more international laws and agreements in place."

I agree. Although they have a lot of respect to earn, considering your country has basically ignored international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and continues to stomp around like it owns the place.

Most Americans I've met are top class people, but your country's image outside your borders is less than stellar.

But getting back to the issue at hand, if laws like this WHOIS thing are to succeed on the internet (which is a global project), then the whole world needs to agree.

There's a UN Security Council (which needs to be overhauled), why not set up a functional international internet council within the UN?

Re:Enforcement?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hope that site is a subtle satire.

Re:Enforcement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Declare them as the missing WMD's and invade.

Re:Enforcement?

[legirons]

"How are they going to enforce it when a large portion of those registrants are actually non-US?"

In the UK at least, ICANN policy overrides national laws (yes I got a letter from the Information Commissioner basically admitting this)

Re:Enforcement?

[mwood]

I would submit that the U.S. learned how to be full of its own sense of importance from observation of many worthy predecessors in international politics. That doesn't make it right, of course, and I'll try to remember that whenever people around the world are asking, "why doesn't the U.S. do something about X?"

Anyway you see how much agreement there is *within* the U.S. on this issue, so that should give you some idea of just how long it would take international bodies, which typically love to talk about their authority but never assert it, to come to such an agreement.

Several more years on top of existing penalties?

[ShatteredDream]

I will confess that much my knowledge of federal penalties is second hand, having lived with two former federal agents most of my life, but what good does this do, really? The federal penalties for most crimes seem to already be aimed at simply "crushing the perp and ruining him/her forever" rather than anything resembling pursuit of justice.

Yet another good reason to vote for Michael Badnarik in November. He wants to move us toward a system based on restitution, not simply locking the perp away and throwing away the key.

Well...

[Emperor Tiberius]

This will only become acceptable if you cut down on the fraudulent abuse of WHOIS. For example the Domain Registry of America garbage. You also have to take into account annoyances. I remember originally having my authentic WHOIS info and getting called by people wanting to "buy" my domain, for a good price; and various other crap.

Re:Well...

[mwood]

Time for another DNS blacklist? This one to maintain a list of domains which have registered falsified contact information, and provide a source of "negative hits" to those who wish to use it? We'd need some work on the domain resolvers to take advantage of it, of course.

Probably redundant..

[JasonUCF]

How about enforcing fines, penalties, and heck jailtime for all the fuckhead spammers (both V.AGRA and Register.com) who abuse the whois registry data? Or who want to charge you $10 to "protect your privacy" on top of your $10 registration per month? It's a shell game. I wish we still lived in some magical utopian internet bubble where only good geeks(tm) were on the net, but fact is we're up to our elbows in fuckheads and if I have to put in (555) because I don't want to be telemarketed.. well.. do something about the fuckheads and I'll put a good number in.

Mmm... now that's a mature reply.. "Congressmen, it's a principle of fuckheads. Take that to the floor!"

Re:Probably redundant..

[Pig Hogger]

now that's a mature reply.. "Congressmen, it's a principle of fuckheads. Take that to the floor!" You can't expect congress to make itself illegal, don't you???

Re:Probably redundant..

[ocelotbob]

Dude, use your cell phone number for your whois info. Then you get $500 for every call. Problem solved, no need to fake your info.

Re:Probably redundant..

[Anonymous Coward]

Just use (area_code)555-1212. This is a legitimate number for directory lookup services, but one has to pay to use it, more than just 411 too. Or just put "unlisted" which several registrars will allow in the phone number line.

Re:Probably redundant..

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish we still lived in some magical utopian internet bubble where only good geeks(tm) were on the net

AMEN!

Re:Several more years on top of existing penalties

[Reducer2001]

This is America, please check your new, original ideas at the door. We only accept old, tired ideas that don't work.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Doesn't outlaw anonymity now, but...

[anthony_dipierro]

"The government must play a greater role in detecting those who conceal their identities online," said Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, a sponsor of the bill.

Scared yet?

Re:Doesn't outlaw anonymity now, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all. Of course, I'm not doing anything that I'm afraid they'll find out about... what about you?

Re:Doesn't outlaw anonymity now, but...

[justkarl]

Scared yet?

I'm scared of everything in Texas.

Re:Doesn't outlaw anonymity now, but...

[DriedClexler]

The point of privacy is to protect even those with nothing to hide.

Re:Doesn't outlaw anonymity now, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that posting anonymously. Why not use your real identity so we can add you to our foes list?

If you have a brain, you'll see this has a point deeper than the joke.

Re:Doesn't outlaw anonymity now, but...

[DAldredge]

Why?

Re:Doesn't outlaw anonymity now, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

One word...Dubya.

Re:Doesn't outlaw anonymity now, but...

[DAldredge]

He isn't from Texas as the only way to be a Texan is to have been born in the state.

He wasn't.

Re:Doesn't outlaw anonymity now, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not doing anything that I'm afraid they'll find out about... what about you?

Lots.

Re:Doesn't outlaw anonymity now, but...

[babybird]

Yeah, like his name is really "Smith." ;)

Re:Doesn't outlaw anonymity now, but...

[mwood]

"The point of privacy is to protect even those with nothing to hide."

Protect us from what?

Re:Doesn't outlaw anonymity now, but...

[realityfighter]

Man, this is gonna suck for Alternate Reality Gamers.

Hide your info with...

[BobSutan]

http://domainsbyproxy.com/

Nuff said.

Re:Hide your info with...

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't do you much good, since you don't own the domain and can lose it really fast. Anyway, the law only applies to fraudulent webstites.

Re:Hide your info with...

[firewood]

http://domainsbyproxy.com/

Not this particular service necessarily, but this method in general seems to be the standard method to hide ownership (maybe, IANAL). Big corporations get their law firm to incorporate a shell company in the Bahama's or Cayman, and the shell company then buys the property anonymous from the real source of the money. Add more levels of indirection and blind trusts for fancier schemes to hide assets from bankruptcy, lawsuits, divorce settlements, etc. Maybe even legally.

For a little privacy, all you need is money. Same should work for domain name "ownership".

Re:Hide your info with...

[.com b4 .storm]

Yeah, except if someone sends a letter (even if it's bogus) to your domainsbyproxy.com address, they'll charge $20 just for telling you it arrived and where it's from. Then, if you want to actually READ the mail, you have to pay even more to have it actually forwarded or read through by a human being. Think hourly lawyer fees, because that's basically what you get with this service. If somebody sneezes in the general direction of your domain, some desk clerk will press a button and charge your credit card for it.

I had a domain through domainsbyproxy.com, and I ended up receiving a letter accusing me of infringing on a trademark (one that is easily proven to be common and in prior use via Google or Usenet archives, and even previous to the birth of the internet). I turned over the domain because I'm just a student who lacks the resources to challenge a trademark, no matter how obviously invalid, especially for a novelty domain. But I ended up eating that bogus $20 "you've got mail" cost. It's all in the domainsbyproxy.com contract of course, but it's definitely got its drawbacks that a lot of people might not be aware of.

I think its a bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us prefer to have our names listed as: Anonymous Coward on our website registrations

Re:I think its a bad idea

[metlin]

I know this is supposed to be funny, but I really had a domain registered as Anonymous Coward for a while. I had given an actual address and was stupid enough to provide my school e-mail address (this domain was registered when spam wasn't *that* big a thing, yet).

So, when spammers got into the business bandwagon, I must have been one of the oldest in their records, because I started getting spammed really bad -- both physical and virtual. I got so fed up of receiving spam (physical and junk-mail) that I just changed the name to Anonymous Coward, and provided some J Random Address.

I changed it a while ago, when Slashdot had a discussion warning people with false registration information to set their information right.

Heh. Those were the days.

Then use DomainsByProxy.com

[mr_rangr]

I register my domains at GoDaddy.com, and use DBP for my WHOIS information. I rarely get any spam coming through my mydomain.com@domainsbyproxy.com address.
At least with this legislative leniency, my approach won't be outlawed yet.

Yes, it's true...

[xstonedogx]

...I'm trying to conceal my identity online.

I have no problem with people knowing where I live and having my (now out of date) cell number, but I'll be damned if they're getting my fax number!

999-999-9999 FOREVER!!

No, no wait... what I'm really doing is stealing from Network Solutions, since I'm not paying them $9/year to hide this information for me.

Re:Yes, it's true...

[LoadWB]

"No, no wait... what I'm really doing is stealing from Network Solutions, since I'm not paying them $9/year to hide this information for me. "

Watch out! If someone up there at NSI reads this, they'll get an idea and send the cops knocking on your door for circumventing their service...

Re:Yes, it's true...

[aussie_a]

I'm trying to conceal my identity online.

Perhaps you should have ticked the "Post Anonymously" box then.

I don't get it...

[LostCluster]

Would somebody please show us where exactly the law prohibts registering with 555-555-5555 as a phone number?

I think we've got the wrong bill associated with this story.

Re:I don't get it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um.. its pretty simple. Did you even bother to read the article?

If your number is not 555-555-5555 and you put it in as your phone number, then the law comes into effect.

Re:I don't get it...

[thpr]

Sorry for crosslinks to my other post, but yours wasn't up yet when I started typing... see here

Re:I don't get it...

[Anonymous Coward]

68.40.202.243

Pepsi operates "at a world class level", but they "just have a different flavor" than Coca-Cola.Burger King operates "at a world class level", but they "just have a different flavor" than McDonalds.

Re:I don't get it...

[LostCluster]

I read the article. In fact, I submitted it earlier tonight. However, I linked to a different bill in the Thomas system... that's the mistake.

Re:I don't get it...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the mistake is that, as usual, you did not RTFA. The article clearly explains why it is illegal.

Stop trying to cry wolf to gain karma.

Re:I don't get it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you bother to read the law? The text of the law linked S2242, in case its edited by the editors has lots to say about selling bootlegs of copyrighted works that appear to be authentic, but nothing at all to say about names and addresses and phone numbers.

In fact, I suspect that the only way to have fake whois information actionable under any part of this law is if you changed your whois info to match that of, say, DreamWorks, and then glue the whois dump of your domain to the cover of your bootleg DVD.

Re:I don't get it...

[Anonymous Coward]

The law mentioned in the article is correct. What are you smoking, LostCluster?

How ridiculous...

[DroopyStonx]

Flat out and to the point: I have a right to privacy.

My domain is a personal one. It's not meant to be a high profile public site... I get maybe 5 anonymous visitors a month.. why should I provide valid whois info? I don't feel comfortable with doing that and I will NEVER provide real info.

Instead, how about making sites that involve monetary transactions register valid names?

I don't give a rat's ass if "this is the internet, it's public," my right to privacy is my own. If you don't like it, tough shit. If they wanna make it illegal, then bring it on - I still won't provide valid info.

What are they gonna do?

Re:How ridiculous...

[DroopyStonx]

...you are an idiot.

Anyone who uses "murder" as an analogy to internet activities is automatically an idiot - just FYI.

Re:How ridiculous...

[DriedClexler]

Fine, if that's really hanging you up, substitute in "internet bank wire fraud". The logic holds: you can't just use privacy of your internet usage as a cover for illegal acts.

Re:How ridiculous...

[justkarl]

What are they gonna do?

Well, if they do make it illegal, they'll put your insurgent ass in jail. It's called the American way. Yes, you have a reasonableright to privacy, but part of having an "internet(read: public) presence" is being accesible to someone that you probably don't want. Live with it.

Re:How ridiculous...

[killua]

This all sounds kind of shady to me. They want to use lieing on the whois information as justification to increase the sentence of "fraudulent users" and "thieves". IMHO it would be better to just increase the sentence for the above acts all together, vice pass a shady law to do the same. But what do i know.

Re:How ridiculous...

[jdreed1024]

Flat out and to the point: I have a right to privacy.

Yes, and no. If you want U.S. Mail service, your address is published by the USPS and sold to marketing agencies and city directories. If you want phone service, your phone number and name (or initials) are published in the phone book. Why should it not be the case that if you want your own domain, you provide correct information?

Contrary to popular belief, you can in fact live without having your own domain. It is not one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to people. If you needed it to live, that would be different. If the grocery store required you to publish contact info to buy food, that would be different.

my right to privacy is my own. If you don't like it, tough shit.

And their right to refuse to sell you a domain is their own. And if you don't like it, tough shit.

I fail to see why everyone gets so pissy about publishing whois info, and yet doesn't seem to care about having their phone number publish in the phone book. In both cases, you can pay to have it unlisted.

Re:How ridiculous...

[gujo-odori]

To the best of my knowledge (and yours, I'm sure), the person against whom you are leveling these (unfounded) copyright infringement claims has not unlawfully copied any movie, game, or music. That person does, however, have a personal domain, as have I. The general public does not have a right to that information. My whois info shows an address where I lived some year ago. It's in another country. I have no intention of updating it. My registrar contacts me by my email address. That is sufficient. The general public has neither a right nor a need to know.

Look at it this way: I have a wife and two young children. Placing valid whois information on the Internet potentially puts them in danger. I will not provide valid whois information to the pubic even if that becomes a federal crime. Nor will I relinquish my domain. I will use a service such as Domains by Proxy, I will get an overseas friend to register it with my friend's business address, or I will just plain lie. But I will not put that information in whois.

I keep an unlisted phone number for the same reason: no one to whom I do not personally choose to provide my address or phone number has either a right or need to know that, and freely providing that information puts you at greater risk of identify theft or worse. If the government has a need to know, they can find out without using whois. Or if they can't, all they have to do is email me and ask me. After verifying that it really is a representative of the government and finding out why they want to know, I will be happy to provide that information.

To further illustrate just how shallow - and what a red herring - your argument is, surely you must know that a registered domain is not necessary to either distribute or receive illegally copied music, movies, or games. You do realize, don't you, that P2P has nothing to do with having a domain name? All you need to do P2P file exchange is Internet access and some software. Heck, you can even run a warez FTP site without a domain name; all you need is an IP address on a zombie somewhere.

Your claim, that we do not have a right to privacy is just plain wrong, and none of your arguments support it, not even tangentially. All you have done is to throw out a bogus claim (maybe you were even just trolling, in which case I apologize to everyone for feeding a troll) with no support whatsoever.

We do have a right to privacy. A law banning unlisted phone numbers would probably be easily overturned. Whois information is no different, and a law forbidding it to be private is equally likely to be overturned. And even if it is not, enforcing a law that millions of people refuse to obey is pretty much impossible. The copyright infringement you cite is a good case in point; copyright infringement is against the law and has been for centuries, and despite the passage of even stricter laws against it, enforcement has never been more difficult because of the tens of millions of people who are violating those laws. If every holder of a vanity domain tells them to take their accurate whois info and shove it, well, they can't arrest us all.

Re:How ridiculous...

[Pig Hogger]

I don't give a rat's ass if "this is the internet, it's public," my right to privacy is my own. If you don't like it, tough shit. If they wanna make it illegal, then bring it on - I still won't provide valid info.
What are they gonna do?

You see, there are those dudes that are called the cops, the fuzz, the pigs. Those people view civilians (non-cops) as inferior. They deem themselves superior to civilians, and as such, they like to poke their snotty noses everywhere. And whenever an inferior tells them to fuck-off (either directly, or indirectly, such as using invalid WHOIS data), they tend to be pissed-off, and will not hesitate to use an army of means they have at their disposal, anyone of them being able to really make your day.

Re:How ridiculous...

[stratjakt]

You don't need your real name on your mail or in the phone book, and there's no law against listing false ones that I'm aware of. Maybe providing false info to a govt agency (the PO), but that's a tangent. I can have my mail addressed to Occupant and have an unlisted phone number.

Obviously they have your phone number or address (PO Box), but then anyone who has your WHOIS has your IP address. There's only a certain amount of privacy you have to give up.

If you aren't committing an act of fraud then it's not illegal.

Re:How ridiculous...

[DriedClexler]

Strawman. I did not claim you have no right to privacy, and believe me, I have no intention of watching you in the bathroom. My claim was that you cannot use privacy rights as a shield against liability for copyright infringement. You claim that there's no evidence it exists, but give me a break! What else is p2p used for? Distributing open source software? Hah! The fact that it's on a p2p network is evidence it's being shared illegally. You can verify this by any search of such a network.

You should be required to say who you are if there's evidence you broke the law. That's been the precedent since Miranda, and it's not a violation of your privacy rights.

Let me put it this way: one day, police will be able to look at your face and then use facial recognition technology to look up loads of info on you. Will you then say it's a violation of your privacy rights for a cop to observe your face (i.e., look at you)?

Re:How ridiculous...

[DroopyStonx]

hhahaha yeah, I'm sure I'll bit sitting in jail for providing fake whois information for a site that servers absolutely no purpose *laughs*

Re:How ridiculous...

[DroopyStonx]

How about you live with it? I have a right to privacy. Right now, my name appears as Mr. Roboto on my domain. It will stay that way and there's nothing wrong with it. My domain has a few paragraphs... one of which is about Lynndie England looking like a freak, theo the other two are meaningless nonsense I use to test my php scripts with. If you think someone will actually arrest me for providing "Mr Roboto" for a domain that serves no purpose, then you truly have problems...

Re:How ridiculous...

[DroopyStonx]

Actually, I provide a valid email. The name/address on my domain remains invalid. If someone wants to contact me, they can email me.

That's all they get, and sorry ,but I do have a right to keep my information private, regardless of what anyone says.

If any authority figure has a problem with it, I'll glady tell them to kiss my ass. If they want to try and do something about it, bring it the fuck on, because they'll be in for quite a surprise.

Re:How ridiculous...

[pilkul]

What else is p2p used for? Distributing open source software? Hah! The fact that it's on a p2p network is evidence it's being shared illegally. You can verify this by any search of such a network.

Please take the time to read posts before you reply to them. He clearly explained to you that p2p has nothing at all to do with domain name registrations.

You should be required to say who you are if there's evidence you broke the law.

Whois information is required from every user of the DNS system, regardless of whether there's any evidence they broke the law. Nobody's saying suspected criminals shouldn't be tracked down. Were the data kept private it could still easily be obtained through a warrant from the registrar.

Let me put it this way: one day, police will be able to look at your face and then use facial recognition technology to look up loads of info on you. Will you then say it's a violation of your privacy rights for a cop to observe your face (i.e., look at you)?

The main violation of privacy happened when the police collected all this data on innocent citizens in the first place. But also, in order to scan your face the policeman would have to photograph you (not just look at you), which in police jargon is known as a "mugshot". Geez, rebutting your arguments is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Re:How ridiculous...

[gujo-odori]

I seem to recall having explained it before, but maybe it was too complicated for you (BTW, scarecrow, it's amusing that you should accuse me of raising strawmen), but I'll take another shot at it:

You do not need a domain name to do P2P. This it not about P2P. It is about whois information.

No one - repeat, NO ONE - has a right to my whois information. The whois information associated with my domain is invalid and has been for several years. I am not going to do anything about that because the public does not have a right to know. Clear now?

To burn *your* strawmen even further, Miranda:

1) Has nothing to do with the public's right (or lack thereof) to know anything; it is about the individual's right to privacy;

2) Miranda specifically *upholds* the individual's right to privacy. In case you don't remember, allow me to refresh your memory. When the police Mirandize a suspect, they recite (from a card, if they are being very careful) boilerplate text that begins with the words "You have the right to remain silent." You don't have to tell them anything, get it? That's enshrined in the Constitution (Fifth Amendment).

To torch your final strawman, about the police looking at my face and using facial recognition to find out information about me, no, that is not a violation of privacy. Why? Because when you walk out in public, your right of privacy is significantly diminished. Pretty much anyone can observe you, photograph you, whatever, and there's not much you can do about it. That's how papparazzi make their living.

However, this was never about the government's right to know anything, or about law enforcement agencies' right to know anything. This is about the general public. Whois (do you even know what that is?!) is like a phone book. The general public does not have a right to know my phone number. The general public does not have a right to know my address. The general public does not have a right to know what state or even what country I live in. As I am not a public figure, they don't even have a right to know my true name. The general public has no right to know anything about me. I may choose - or not - to reveal information about myself, but the public has no right to know anything.

The unlisted phone number principle which I previously presented was most illustrative, it's a shame you apparently missed it (OK, I know you really just chose to ignore it because you have no counter). I keep my phone number unlisted. I will keep my whois info unlisted, too. Law or no law. The government can always find out, with a court order, my unlisted phone number. Heck, they can probably just call up my telco and the telco will spill the beans. I have no problem with that. If they want to pass a bill requiring registrars to have that information and hold it in escrow, I will support it. Then the registrars can just keep everyone's whois info secret directly. Will this make whois as a tool (a tool which I use in my work as an email security analyst) useless? Yes, it will. That's a price I'm willing to pay, though.

By the way, my condolences that your clexler dried up. A crying shame. Especially tragic that your brain appears to have dried up along with it.

Re:How ridiculous...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I fail to see why everyone gets so pissy about publishing whois info, and yet doesn't seem to care about having their phone number publish in the phone book. In both cases, you can pay to have it unlisted.

We do get pissy. The defaults should be for privacy and if you want it to be public you need to take action to make it so.

Just because the current system is fucked up doesn't mean we should quietly accept it when things get worse. I want my domain info to be private by default and I want my telephone and address info to be private by default too. Just like some states have figured out that our driver's license info should be private by default too - of course it took the murder of an actress to change that law in California. I sure hope it doesn't take the murder of a domain owner for congress to pull their collective head out of their collective ass.

Re:How ridiculous...

[Peyna]

Miranda specifically *upholds* the individual's right to privacy.

Miranda has been held only to apply to accused individuals in custody. If you are questioned without being accused of a crime and in custody of the police, and you incriminate yourself without being read your Miranda rights, everything you said is still admissible in court.

Re:How ridiculous...

[Tim C]

What does p2p use have to do with WHOIS information? You don't need a domain to use eMule, etc.

(Yes, yes, I know, IHBT, IHL, I will not HAND)

Re:How ridiculous...

[maxpublic]

It is not one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to people.

The 9th and 10th Amendments clearly state that every power not expressly granted to the government via the Constitution belongs to the people. The government can only obtain the right to violate anonymity if we grant it to them, and under the specific cases that we allow.

Do try to remember that the government is our servant, and not our master.

Max

Re:How ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to popular belief, you can in fact live without having your own domain. It is not one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to people. If you needed it to live, that would be different. If the grocery store required you to publish contact info to buy food, that would be different.
[...]
I fail to see why everyone gets so pissy about publishing whois info, and yet doesn't seem to care about having their phone number publish in the phone book. In both cases, you can pay to have it unlisted.

Necessity of accessability has no bearing on ones right to privacy. You don't need lawyers, but there is such a thing as attorney/client privilege. One certainly doesn't need the church, but they do listen to confessions.

By your definition, lawyers have every right to tell a friend or the press about their client's personal information, and priests should be exposing every juicy bit of gossip that comes their way.

Also, you're also making a bit of a ridiculous claim there in that last paragraph... you're making the assumption that people who complain about whois info don't care about their number being listed.

Does that really make sense?

Odds are, if they care about domain info being public, they probably also have unlisted numbers. Don't make up things to try and win your already weak and selfish argument.

Just because you don't seem to care about your privacy, and can build up all these lame bullshit excuses, doesn't mean others shouldn't have it.

Re:How ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Your claim, that we do not have a right to privacy is just plain wrong, and none of your arguments support it, not even tangentially. All you have done is to throw out a bogus claim (maybe you were even just trolling, in which case I apologize to everyone for feeding a troll) with no support whatsoever.

You can argue until your blue in the face, but no one is forcing you to have a web domain. Once you choice to have a web presence, you agree to the policy of the registrant and any law that applys to them, so get over it, if your privacy is that important to you and your family, then the right decision is to not publish a web page.

Plus i dont think theres a need for the law anyway, i think 99% of theses hosts require you to list valid information by ICANN and if they dont inforce it they can loose there hosting business?? Am i correct?? I am not 100% sure of this.

Re:How ridiculous...

[Tassach]

Do try to remember that the government is our servant, and not our master.

The USA was founded on the theory that government was to to be the servant of the people. Reality, however, diverges from the theory. Nowadays, the Constitution is routinely ignored by the government except when it serves the interest of those in power to invoke it. Sad, but true.

The only way those in power will start to respect the Constitution is if we, the people, demand it. Unfortunately, most people are far to apathetic and self-centered to make a stand. Things will only continue to get worse until the entire system collapses.

Re:How ridiculous...

[maximilln]

Nowadays, the Constitution is routinely ignored by the government except when it serves the interest of those in power to invoke it

Agreed.

Unfortunately, most people are far to apathetic and self-centered to make a stand.

What a crock. Standing in the food line at the Salvation Army because you decided to "make a stand" gets old real quick. We cannot demand that our government abide by the Constitution for two reasons: 1) We're too far down the wrong road, and 2) The size 16 authoritarian boot is quite adept at kicking our butts.

The prevailing rebuke from those in power is always,"If you don't like it then you're free to leave." Those of us with the foolishness to actually try leaving find out first hand how homeless shelters and food lines work. To add insult to injury, when we return, we have no finances, no vehicle, and are piled under a mound of debt.

Re:How ridiculous...

[maximilln]

Plus i dont think theres a need for the law anyway, i think 99% of theses hosts require you to list valid information by ICANN and if they dont inforce it they can loose there hosting business?? Am i correct?? I am not 100% sure of this

I think you are correct but it's much easier to offload the penalties on individual users than to start a Registrar vs. ICANN war. Registrars are businesses (grain of salt) backed by investments and attorneys.

The difference between fraudulent and anonymous.

[mikeophile]

"The government must play a greater role in detecting those who conceal their identities online," said Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, a sponsor of the bill.

With all due respect to the Representative from Texas, I call bullshit.

I can understand the problems deliberately fraudulent registration information can be when trying to track down the owners of a malfeasant commerce site, but what about the option to reveal no information to the public?

At least link to the right Bill: HR3754

[thpr]

This is the correct bill...

Re:more gmail 4 u

[xstonedogx]

Check out the URL carefully. Unless you like penisbird, no clicky.

If you truly want a gmail invite and haven't gotten one yet, mail me. I've got a few.

Simple.

[Weaselmancer]

"Regime change".

Re:Simple.

[lachlan76]

Might be offtopic, but I remember hearing that before.

Re:Simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, and hopefully by going out and voting.
Though I'd love to see a revolution, ala the Rose Revolution, happen in the US, should it ever become necessary.

"The simplest solutions are often the most profound."

So...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Set up some public keys for federal agencies, and let us post our info in encrypted form... they can read it whenever they want, and no worry of it being harvested by spammers.

Re:So...

[MonsterChicharo]

Just how long do you think the private key would last? A good coordinated brute force attack, sponsored by spammers, harvesting some kind of zombie machines (easily available under $200) going at it 24 hours a day, for weeks, months and if needed, years, will eventually break any private key you can imagine.

Perhaps you would trust that system. I'd rather not.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, those low-paid federal employees are legendarily uncorruptible. They'd never sell the unencrypted data to spammers for some extra bucks.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

i rather the spammers have my personal info than the fbi...

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

The just use your own private key--it'll be required to be escrowed with the feds anyway pretty soon.

Counterfeit Music?

[MarsCtrl]

The bill as originally written, however, focuses primarily on penalties for promoting counterfeit music, computer programs, and other media with identical labeling.

Counterfeit music? As in, "Made in imitation of what is genuine with the intent to defraud"? Does this mean an end to top-40 radio?

Re:Counterfeit Music?

[Excen]

Does this mean an end to top-40 radio?

Or the current state of TV right now. 5 different CSIs, 3 Law and Orders and 50 different "Reality" TV shows with no basis whatsoever on anybody's perception of what the world is.

The linked-to bill is scarier than the real one

[0x0d0a]

The Federal Anticounterfeiting Act of 2004, the bill that was *actually* linked to, is some scary stuff.

Writing a program like Daemon Tools (no, not the *IX suite of software, the CD image software) or bnetd (a FOSS Battle.net implementation) would become illegal, with a potential five year federal prison penalty.

Why have I not heard about this before?

Re:The linked-to bill is scarier than the real one

[stratjakt]

Where does it say that writing a program like daemon tools would get you 5 years?

Re:The linked-to bill is scarier than the real one

[0x0d0a]

Well, up to five years, not a guaranteed five years. 3.a.2.B lists the "illicit authentication feature" that I'm referring to, and 3.a.3 lists the five year prison penalty.

3.6.A has a definition of what an illicit authentication feature is.

Re:The linked-to bill is scarier than the real one

[slaad]

Don't blame Bush. Blame how you voted in the last election (or didn't vote).

Hey now, I voted for the guy who ended up with the most votes, but we still got the other guy. I'll feel free to blame Bush as much as I please.

Dick-bird BS

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really tired of you trolls posting this... just stop.

The House of Representatives are Hypocrits

[lcreech]

As they demostrated by their voice (anonymous) vote. Not wanting to be accountable for thier actions. The "Voice Vote" itself should be outlawed.

Re:Several more years on top of existing penalties

[Anonymous Coward]

Badnarik is the reason that I no longer identify myself as a Libertarian.

Okay, him and the knuckleheads at NORML.

Seriously, the guy is a tinfoil madhatter.

From now on, I am Independent.

Let's see

[0x0d0a]

We have two bills -- one of the two linked-to ones makes writing software like Daemon Tools, no-CD patches, and bnetd (a libre open source battle.net implementation) a federal crime.

The second bill makes not providing identifying information to let the feds track you down if they know what your website is illegal. (What if I want to speak freely, without fears of being harassed? I can post papers anonymously, but not be anonymous on the Web?) Add in the next obvious thing, a requirement for webmasters to log and be able to provide information for who posted something, and federal law enforcement can track anyone down.

Combine this with the fact that Cat Stevens just fell under the eye of the Homeland Security Watch List, had his plane diverted to Maine and was kicked out of the United
States. As far as I can tell, his main crime was criticizing US involvement in Iraq.

And Bush's polls are looking better than ever.

It's an authoritarian next few years for all of us...

Re:Let's see

[AndroidCat]

Don't these bills come with a EULA so that if you install one, you know get the other one as well?

So far, those EULAs have worked so well to keep spyware off of computers .. right? ;)

As for the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens, Yusuf Islam or whatever, didn't he voice support of the fatwa death sentence on Salmon Rushdie for Satanic Verses? Karmic payback is a bitch.

Oh baby baby, it's a wild world...

Re:Let's see

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Combine this with the fact that Cat Stevens just fell under the eye of the Homeland Security Watch List, had his plane diverted to Maine and was kicked out of the United States. As far as I can tell, his main crime was criticizing US involvement in Iraq.

According to the article, he was identified by the "Advanced Passenger Information System." In other words, Bush just took a piss on Cat Stevens.

Re:Let's see

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought cats pissed on bushes and not the other way around.

Re:Let's see

[Anonymous Coward]

US 'involvement in Iraq'? Try 'instigation of the clusterfuck that is now known as Iraq'.
No point in calling a spade anything other than a spade...

Re:How ridiculous... are anonymous cowards

[lcreech]

But they the "House of Representatives" are "anonymous cowards" by the way they vote

Privacy Issue?

[ValiantSoul]

I have my right to privacy, if this passes, it takes away that right by forcing me to give away personal information.
So all I have to do is take over Microsoft and set my laywers against the government to appeal dumb things like this that get passed.

Enforcement

[yintercept]

watching them try to enforce it.

Sounds more like this effort is about increasing criminal penalties to people who use the fraudulent information in their registry for scams than it is about forcing everyone to give their cell phone and primary email account in their registration.

For example, imagine a company that uses the address for a local bank in their program to harvest credit card numbers from web surfers. If caught the whois records add to the fraud case.

If this is the intention of the legislation, then enforcement is not a major issue...since it is something tacked onto other scams.

Torn

[Deliveranc3]

I'm really torn on this issue on the one hand I like privacy on the web.

On the other I would like to see people who run spamming and other illegitimate websites to be terribly molested.

Why not some kind of commercial website whois notice related to accepting funds or displaying product for eventual sale, just because lawmakers are concerned about creating a complicated law in this case they are losing sight of some of the major freedoms they are trying to protect.

Re:Torn

[Tablizer]

I'm really torn on this issue on the one hand I like privacy on the web. On the other I would like to see people who run spamming and other illegitimate websites to be terribly molested.

That is a false dichotomy. Supplying correct info to the registering agency and supplying it to the world are two different things. I feel addresses should be kept private. If a crime is commited, THEN the restering agency can give that info to the police. Supplying it to the police for investigation and letting everybody see it crime or not are two different things.

Better Question...

[BalorTFL]

Does this mean that the RIAA's plan to flood P2P networks with bogus songs is soon to be illegal?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I thought this already was...

[Chuck Bucket]

I thought this was illegal, I rem filling out something with some legal stuff when I signed up for my domains, and I was bummed that I would have to put my personal details out there. Then I found Domains by proxy and I didn't have to. So, I didn't break the law, but you can't find my name/address/email with a simple whois!

CB

Re:I thought this already was...

[JenovaSynthesis]

Exactly. I mangle my e-mail because when I originally signed up for my domain, the account started filling with spam. I changed it to "username @ domain.com" and the volume dropped dramaticly from 10 a day to 1 at most.

For the rest of the info, I put the host's stuff for everything by the Org Contact. And for that the only difference is my name.

Re:Let's see, he is still an idiot

[lcreech]

Though Bush is an mostly idiot, propagnada and control of the right news casts (fox, drudge, etc) do work in his favor. Something his advisors, and his daddy (ex-CIA) have learned over the years from our enemies and from his fundlementalist background. Peolple are losing rights, and corporate money is buying theselves rights at our expense.

I confused myself

[kongit]

I don't know whether this is good or bad. I could possibly gain security from the gov't's attempts to stop users from using WHOIS records falesly...ie. they might be using my name or phone number or etc. to do something devious. Or, will I be losing privacy because internet anonymity is slowly becoming illegal?

Re:The House of Representatives are Hypocrits

[Anonymous Coward]

Fool, voice vote is invoked if there is a clear majority supporting/opposed to the bill in the interest of expediency. Anyone can call for a show of hands or ballot vote, and anyone can hear what their neighbors are yelling. Since their voting system is electronic and updates the score as soon as they vote, even ballots aren't anonymous. With good reason, it's public policy and they're accountable to their constituents.

I wonder

[WindBourne]

how soon this congress and admin will outlaw that horrible chemical HOH. It is responsible for so many deaths and can hide terrorists activity. Perhaps, we can get this fine group of people to outlaw such a dangerous item. After all, it would be just about as easy to enforce this one as the whois record as well.

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

HOH is a minor concern in this world today... right now, we need to ban dihydrogen monoxide, or DHMO.

DHMO can be used as a weapon, either when propelled at high speed or when delivered in a number of methods at low speed, such as in a rubber sleeve that explodes on impact. It does have positive aspects, don't get me wrong - depending on the initial state of the DHMO, anything it touches will be cleaned to some extent. But, if the initial state is different - say, slightly more acidic, it may lead to destruction of foliage and erosion of rocks (cliffs, etc.)

Join the coalition to ban DHMO!!

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Hydric acid is a MUCH bigger threat then either DHMO or HOH! In it's gaseous form it will cause sever burns to flesh and in it's sold form can also cause sever life threatening tissue damage. It can corrode metals and is commonly used as an industrial fire suppressant or coolant. And yet it is also commonly used in the manufacture of plastic eating utensils and Styrofoam cups that people blithely use every day! It shouldn't be any surprise that with the wide industrial use of hydric acid that it is a major component of acid rain. When will someone step up and save the environment from dangers like the unregulated over use of hydric acid!

Re:The difference between fraudulent and anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

but what about the option to reveal no information to the public?

Well, if you don't engage in any malfeasance, then you have nothing to worry about. As the submitter notes, providing fake information is not being outlawed. You only have to worry if your domain is used for illegal activity and you use falsified registration information.

no Tin-foil Hat required - IHBTADFC

[teamhasnoi]

I'm not doing anything that I'm afraid they'll find out about.

Yet.

Funny - a few years ago it was legal to to reverse engineer things, and post the results. Now we have the DMCA.

I guess you can continue in your mistaken belief that what you do now won't potentialy be held against you later.

It's a crazy world, run by people who want to keep what they have, and gather more. If they think you or your 'innocent' doings threaten their way of life, your ass will be legislated to illegality in the blink of an eye.

After all, it's far easier to do what you want to people when they're all criminals.

Wait and see.

Re:no Tin-foil Hat required - IHBTADFC

[John Courtland]

This is probably one of the greatest retorts to that completely IDIOTIC phrase: "I have nothing to hide, DO YOOOOOUUUUU?" Seriously, that has to be one of the most ignorant things ever said. Let's just forget the past all together, I mean, those Jews, they had something to hide, right? Damn, being a Jew in 1930's Germany, what a freakin' CRIME! Fools.

the whole system is perveted...

[SuperBanana]

The federal penalties for most crimes seem to already be aimed at simply "crushing the perp and ruining him/her forever" rather than anything resembling pursuit of justice.

It's also massively perverted. While the popular example is pot- I'll give you the reverse. In Massachusetts, if you're caught drunk driving, you get a MAXIMUM of 2.5 years, $5k, license suspension for one year (unless you need to get to work- then you're eligible for a limited license after just 3 months, and if you have "hardships" you're allowed to get a limited license in 6 mo).

Keep in mind drunk driving is a HUGE cause of vehicle-related fatalities in the US; about 40%, and I believe that puts it at #1. 1.4 million people are arrested and charged with DUI every year. That is a -staggering- number; almost 1 in every 100 people has been charged with DUI.

Re:the whole system is perveted...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if that laxed Mass. law is designed just for Ted Kennedy?

Re:the whole system is perveted...

[Alioth]

And this is why the US as a whole will not get rid of its drink driving problem.

In Britain, if you get banned for drink driving you are BANNED. You have to find another method of transport to get into work. What's the point of a drink driving ban if it's not a ban at all? You also have to retake your driving test afterwards (and the driving test is *hard* - I've done a US driving test and it was trivial).

Re:the whole system is perveted...

[Radar|TGS]

Of course it's hard, they make you drive on the wrong side of the road!

Re:the whole system is perveted...

[mwood]

"In Britain, if you get banned for drink driving you are BANNED."

Wimps. Kids around here, when they reach driving age, get a nice little handout explaining that in some countries your first DUI gets you *executed*.

Re:the whole system is perveted...

[Idarubicin]

That is a -staggering- number; almost 1 in every 100 people has been charged with DUI.

Including the President and Vice President. Great example for the kids....

I provide real contact info..

[lpontiac]

domain sullust.net
status production
owner Andrew Francis
email locust@bur.st
title Mr
address PO Box 5009
city Dalkeith
state WA
postal-code 6009
country AU
admin-c locust@bur.st#0
tech-c locust@bur.st#0
billing-c locust@bur.st#0
nserver ns1.bur.st
nserver ns2.bur.st
nserver ns3.bur.st
nserver ns4.bur.st
registrar JORE-1
created 2002-03-25 12:35:22 UTC JORE-1
modified 2004-03-01 14:21:26 UTC JORE-1
expires 2008-03-25 06:35:06 UTC
source joker.com

So What?

[Lord Kano]

I think this is the right way to go about this.

It shouldn't be illegal to falsify whois records. Lookup the whois info on your favorite pr0n site. I'll bet it's not a real person that you find. It should be legal to put false information into the whois database because sometimes you're better off without people being able to find out who you are.

It should be treated with the highest level of seriousness when someone hides behind false information to commit crimes, but providing that false information shouldn't be a crime in and of itself.

LK

Re:So What?

[Reziac]

Occurs to me this has another impact: AFAIK, at present in meatspace you can legally CALL yourself anything you want, *so long as there is no intent to defraud*.

If it becomes unlawful to call yourself whatever you want in cyberspace (and think about it, this could readily be extended to ALL nyms everywhere) it's a short step to doing the same for meatspace.

Re:So What?

[Lord Kano]

I sometimes get mail in the name KANO. In my state (PA) it is perfectly legal to use whatever name you choose as long as there is no fraudulent intent.

LK

Re:The difference between fraudulent and anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

Government. Transgression...ex post facto. A nefarious spam-happy individual salivates. Your ears are burning. A black-robed magistrate is deciding malfeasance...the gavel falls, you're dumbstruck. Guilty. Falsifying information pertaining to a, " who-is, " registry. " Perhaps...you've carried this anonymity a bit to far ? "

Think now. Why would a culture thousands of years advanced, wait until say, circa 1800 San Francisco time, to fabricate eating utensils...hmm?

Plenty of time.

And this affects $INDIAN_REGISTRAR how?

[EvilStein]

More toothless legislation.

Quite a lot of the spam I get these days can be traced back to registrars in India. How is this law going to to good in the US?

It's not. As usual.

i investigated it a little bit

[JeanBaptiste]

as it stands, 1st of all, it is _not_ illegal to use fake WHOIS records, even under the provisions of the legislature being discussed. All this does is to add jail time (up to 7 years according to the wording of the bill) to those that then go on to use the fraudulent domain for spamming,fraud,con activities. It just makes the punishment for those that are already doing illegal things worse.

i run an internationally political website, and if I used my real name, phone, address, etc, I would have been physically attacked, at best. This law does not affect me in any way as I am not doing any fraud, spam, con-games, nigerian emails, or what have you.

I would add that other laws that have been struck down HAVE made what I am doing illegal, fortunately nothing like that has stuck. In summary, the discussed law is not a problem for anyone, as long as they are not spammers, fraudsters, nigerians, etc.

Agreed, its a step in the wrong direction. But as for now, as long as you are not engaged in other illegal activities, you (should not) dont have to worry.

this merely adds penalties onto already illegal activities if you fake your WHOIS records.

I am not a lawyer, but I play one on /.

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[JeanBaptiste]

"i run an internationally political website"

me again, i should have mentioned. its not nazi-ism, communism, hard capitalism, or anything extreme like that. just a forum which all types congregate. i would post it here, but im not a whore and dont need hits. still i get death threats. glad im not legally required to put my real name, address, and phone on a WHOIS.

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[bigtangringo]

This is the same type of law that is currently in place (in many states) for things such as body armor and lock picks. It is perfectly legal to have these things, but if you use them in a crime the penalty is much worse.

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[JeanBaptiste]

i dont know about lock picks

but i know that certain types of body armor are illegal in california. find some good body armor, wear it, then walk into a cop-shop in california. you will be charged with a felony. while i dont know from personal experience, try it, i'll betcha you dont leave happy.

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[Brandybuck]

Agreed, its a step in the wrong direction.

I've been thinking about this for the past hour, and I'm thinking it really isn't. We can argue all day long whether this is a step in the right direction, I would have to disagree that it's a step in the wrong direction.

I'm a hardcore libertarian and I'm saying this! My reasoning is that I don't think there's a "right to lie". In fact, I think most lies border on fraud to begin with. I can't support anyone's right to falsify WHOIS records anymore than I could support their right to falsify their personal resume or travel under a false identity.

At the same time, I would fully support the right of everyone to answer "Decline to State" or "MYOB" with regards to any personal information.

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[Anonymous Coward]

"I can't support anyone's right to falsify WHOIS records "

really? lets say you set up a libertarian website. shortly thereafter, some pro-government thugs decide they want to find you and kill you, because big government is the be all and end all.

your recourse?

i cant believe you are truly a libertarian. You seem to be promoting international governmental control over such things as WHOIS records. Sounds like the exact opposite of libertarianism.

im not saying i have the 'right to lie', but as i run an international political website, i'd classify it as more as a 'right to speak without getting dead'

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[Anonymous Coward]

hardcore libertarians should think first of personal privacy rights and second of whois records.

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[aminorex]

The SCOTUS has repeatedly found that the right to anonymity is protected under the 1st amendment.
The law would be unconstitutional if it were not limited to applying conditional penalties to other
(criminal) acts.

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[Fulcrum of Evil]

My reasoning is that I don't think there's a "right to lie".

Sure there is. Rather, there are no legal penalties for lying unless and until it harms someone (court testimony, fraud). Outside of that, I can say anything I like. The only penalties will be social.

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[mwood]

You are not alone. If someone wants to give a name he wasn't born with, let him file a D.B.A. or something.

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[mwood]

[thugs want to kill libertarian webmaster]

"your recourse?"

A really big gun? A libertarian would believe that people should be able to own weapons for their protection and to use appropriate violence, if necessary, in defense of their lives, no?

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[Brandybuck]

You seem to be promoting international governmental control over such things as WHOIS records.

Not at all! I fully support your right to submit "none of your freakin business" as contact information. I fully support your right to use a different database if WHOIS won't accept that. I fully support your right to create a new database in the event you can't find another that is suitable.

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[Brandybuck]

there are no legal penalties for lying unless and until it harms someone

The problem here is that English has only one word for lying, when there are two distinct meanings. The first meaning is to knowingly utter a false statement. Obviously I think you should have the right to tell your kids about Santa Claus.

But the other definition is to willfully deceive another. This is what I don't think people have the right to do. If such an act occurs during a financial transaction, you are comitting fraud. Bu t the damage is just as real if there are no financials involved.

To take a trite example, you might feel you have the right to lie to your wife about your affair. Only a cad and scoundrel would claim that your wife is not hurt by your lying, even if the damage is not immediately apparent. The damage might only be between you and her, and no one else's business, but it is damage and it is there.

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[itsnotthenetwork]

Only a cad and scoundrel would claim that your wife is not hurt by your lying, even if the damage is not immediately apparent. The damage might only be between you and her, and no one else's business, but it is damage and it is there.

What would be the purpose of telling her ?
She would be hurt by the knowledge, not by the lack of knowledge.
I must be a CAD or a scoundrel (*gasp*). The hurt would come after the telling. I think your confusing the confession with the crime.
The affair would be the wrong thing to do, but not telling about it wouldn't compound the crime.
Not a good analogy.

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[Fulcrum of Evil]

To take a trite example, you might feel you have the right to lie to your wife about your affair. Only a cad and scoundrel would claim that your wife is not hurt by your lying, even if the damage is not immediately apparent. The damage might only be between you and her, and no one else's business, but it is damage and it is there.

Is that a legal consequence or a social one?

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[Brandybuck]

If she sues you for divorce it becomes a legal consequence. Of course, she can sue you for having the affair even if you didn't lie, but since you did lie it's going to cost you more.

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[tgrigsby]

i run an internationally political website, and if I used my real name, phone, address, etc, I would have been physically attacked, at best. This law does not affect me in any way as I am not doing any fraud, spam, con-games, nigerian emails, or what have you.


JeanBaptiste? AKA The Republicrat Rat? AT LAST, WE HAVE FOUND YOU! Guys! Get your baseball bats and your voter registration cards, we're gonna do a Tonya Harding on his ole punk ass tonight!

Re:i investigated it a little bit

[eathan13]

I think I may have missed where it mentioned increased penalties specifically for Nigerians. ;)

867-5309

[Kn0xy]

"The government must play a greater role in detecting those who conceal their identities online,"

Gee, how big of a role is the government going to fill here? Falsifying information on your reg for a domain is not just a trick that spammers and pirates use. People like me, who would prefer to not have my address and phone numbers posted for any stranger to look at, also falsifying or 'fudge' out records. This is surely going to have the privacy nuts in an uproar.

And granted, they state they are mainly looking for people who run pirate sites (music, software, etc.) who use false information in their registar, but I wonder what restrictions, if there are any, are written in to keep this and the government from applying this on a wider scope.

Eh, oh well, this should not amaze anyone I guess, in the days when Record Companies control what crap you listen to while giving hand jobs to paranoid government officials, we're destined to put up with this kind of non-sense.

what a stupid comment

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously, the grandparent asked a serious question. you posted something that is useful to _nobody_.

way to take up space.

now im just feeding a troll (you), but seriously, 'regime change'?!?!? lets say that bush gets voted out, and kerry (most likely) gets voted in. will anything change in your life? betcha 10,000,000 dollars that your life will go on as normal.

prove me wrong, kids, prove me wrong - A. Tanzarian.

Re:what a stupid comment

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy are your buttons easy to push. No more coffee for you!

Re:what a stupid comment

[Weaselmancer]

Y'know what's funny? I didn't say which regime would be changing. Ours, by possibly voting out Bush, or the country we invade who fails to comply.

Kinda like holding up the picture of the candlestick. Some people see the candlestick, and some see two faces.

And oh yeah, decaf is just as tasty.

Breaking it in

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm, so I wonder what happens when you register the domain in a real persons name then commit the felonies that brings down the legislation on their head. How long will it take the red tape to get sorted out on the first few cases before some innocent patsies get slammed?

Help find Sean Sullivan - Missing in California - Mirrors here and here.

Most of my records are false

[macdaddy]

I don't use valid records in most of my WHOIS records. I use one domain for posting to usenet, talking mainly about anti-spam stuff. I have another for mailing lists subscriptions. Yet another couple for seeding to spammer's "remove" forms. Then I have a number of personal domains. They all have common DNS records. I don't want spammers getting ahold of my personal information via my other domains. Spammers have a bad habit of attacking anti-spammers. I have also used the proxy registration options of my registrar, Godaddy. Unfortunately that doubles the cost of my domains and isn't very practical. Is there a solution that doesn't cut into your wallet?

so how long untill I become a criminal?

[adaminnj]

The thing is I registered 22 domain names with bulkregister.com and 2 with stargate.com. Thing where good for about 2 years and then I moved into a new house, new town, same state. we where in the house for about 2 months (November 2003). Then all hell broke lose as a markiting target I became a hotspot for email, and now telephone marketers and most of it was due to 2 of my domain names. when I moved I had to chase down passwds and account names for 3 different registrars and I changed the contact info for all of them and luckily I had everything available and not in boxes.

So to get to the point here with a law that makes fraudulent whois records a crime at what point dose not updating records make you a criminal?

And I didn't sigh on to opt in on every email list selling sex, drugs, or rock and roll or any other possible thing in the world that's hitting my spam filters

Domain names are not merely the objects of trademark disputes, they are also important facilitating elements for online speech. Just as it is legal to publish a book or broadsheet with no indicia of authorship or publisher, it should be legal and possible to publish a website or other Internet communication without such identification. Indeed, in the United States, anonymous speech is a constitutionally protected right. Most domain names do not conflict with trademark rights, and ICANN would be overreaching its mandate to subordinate broad free speech interests to this relatively narrow concern.

Above taken from: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-who is/Arc01/msg00028.html

Support Free Trade Campus
get a free account Now!

some how this got posted to a wrong artical a bit ago I hope it's going to the right place now? I don't need the bad karma if it's not

Re:so how long untill I become a criminal?

[stephanruby]

So to get to the point here with a law that makes fraudulent whois records a crime at what point dose not updating records make you a criminal?

Read the article. This act doesn't make you a criminal. It only makes your sentence longer if you were already found to be committing fraud.

Isn't the real issue making the punishment fit?

[ShatteredDream]

I'm all for strict drunk driving laws. In Virginia, where I live, you don't want to get caught on a DUI, especially if you're an incorrigible offender. There was a guy from NC who got slapped on the wrist 8 times in NC for DUIs, when the VA state police caught him in Southern VA, and found out about his previous **8** offenses he was arrested, his car was seized, his license revoked for a long time and last I heard he was sent to rot for 5 years on a felony sentence in a state prison. DUIs can and often do result in very dangerous, at a minimum criminally negligent acts, so I see no problem with severely punishing people after the first offense if they managed to not harm anyone but themselves.

But with white collar crime, like copyright infringement and this area, we have to be very careful. People often do recover quite easily from white collar crime, but violent crime when successful usually does lasting damage. Someone gets maimed or killed. That's why I think that with white collar crime the better approach is make things like fraud weak charges in and of themselves, but make the penalties increase rapidly for people caught committing them en masse or repeat offenders.

Do I think a spammer who operates one fradulent site should get sent to the pokey for 5 years? Absolutely not unless they did a lot of really bad stuff from it. However, someone operating a whole chain of them I'd lock away very quickly.

The best longterm solution for all of this, though, is to keep the laws simple, easy for the public to understand and as enforceable and compatible with the more decent side of human nature as possible. But then again, that would kill most trial and defense lawyers' careers quickly. The public, at least IMO, won't benefit from this law. What the public needs is for the Congress to rewrite the fraud laws from scratch in a way that makes perfectly good sense for our circumstances today, and that the average person can follow. We need to move toward a system where the laws are well-written by design, I mean why do we have all of these "loopholes" that keep getting closed?

Maybe another part of the solution is that the Congress should meet for one month a year to discuss the budget, hear public complaints about the laws, and then either take another month to pass reform measures or go home. In VA, our assembly cannot be busy bodies like the Congress, the General Assembly meets only about 1 month or so a year :)

Re:Isn't the real issue making the punishment fit?

[mwood]

"Keep the laws simple" is a good goal, but the problem is that people are complicated. Like some old book says, "they invent new ways of doing evil" and so law accumulates more and more specifics and corner cases as time marches on.

It's probably a good idea to do a thorough overhaul every generation or two, to see what can be generalized and resimplified.

Why does our address have to be public?

[Tablizer]

I don't really care if the domain manager knows my home address and e-mail, but why the hell to does the whole goddam world have to see it?

Re:Why does our address have to be public?

[Anonymous Coward]

why the hell to does the whole goddam world have to see it

i can get/order a US phonebook from every state with the address and telephone number of every person
i can also get your housing details from goverment offices and there is no disclaimer that i have to be a US resident to get this information

so the whole world can *already* get your details, they are called "public records"

Re:Why does our address have to be public?

[Tablizer]

i can get/order a US phonebook from every state with the address and telephone number of every person

California has an opt-out option WRT phonebook listings. I don't know about other states.

HELLO HOW ARE YOU

[JeanBaptiste]

"I wonder exactly what makes a record false"

My name is Nobujuta Mussabi, Recently VERY bad things have happened to my father, OKIMBE mussabi. OKIMBE had nearly 10,000,000,00 EUROS in a swiss ACCOUNT. AS he has most UNFORTUNATLY been killed in a PLANE CRASH, I am unable to ACCESS the money. as their is a civil war in my native country of SIERRA LEONE i am UNABLE to access his TREASURE. if you would SEND ME 10,000 for the TRANSFER FEE, i will SPLIT the money.

Please see my 'fake website URL here' for info on how YOU can profit from my misfortune!!!1!'
---

Im sorry, I got carried away. what was your original question? oh yeah, "I wonder exactly what makes a record false.". If you are wondering, they are currently doing. and they aren't nice about it.

Re:HELLO HOW ARE YOU

[CowboyBob500]

I have my real information in my WHOIS records and I don't get that much spam, in fact a lot less than a lot of people here on /. seem to get.

I run a legitimate business and I don't see how I can justify giving false WHOIS information. Reducing the level of spam is IMO not a valid reason for falsifying these records.

This is NOT an invitation for /.ers to phone me up though...

Bob

disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm a hardcore libertarian and I'm saying this! My reasoning is that I don't think there's a "right to lie". In fact, I think most lies border on fraud to begin with. I can't support anyone's right to falsify WHOIS records anymore than I could support their right to falsify their personal resume or travel under a false identity."

i am also a hardcore libertarian. I, for one, dont believe any governemnt (or international body) has any business checking up on me. If you dont like the information I provide, then dont use it. If I enter my name as John Doe when it really is John Deer, what business is that of the government, be it the UN, US, or what have you.

I prefer to remain anonymous, as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights. A _true_ libertarian would agree.

Re:disagree

[mwood]

OTOH if you try to sell me tractor parts, claiming to represent John Deere, when you are in fact John Doe and have no relationship with the company, that *is* the business of the government that I support for my protection.

I wonder what libertarians did in the premodern world, when it was impossible for anyone other than a hermit to establish anonymity, and even few hermits could achieve it.

Re:disagree

[mopslik]

...claiming to represent John Deere, when you are in fact John Doe...

The jokes just write themselves. :)

CRISP/IRIS helps, but only some

[sff0ghead]

The IETF's CRISP working group has developed a replacement for whois: IRIS (Internet Registry Information Service). IRIS allows for different levels of access, so that you don't have whois's "all or nothing" response any more. This will help protect record details like addresses from harvest by J. Random Abuser (spammer, what have you). This is goodness.

I assume that the law enforcement agencies in the country in which the registry is domiciled would have to provide the highest level of access (equivalent to the current whois), but that other LEAs would have to go through the country of domicile.
This is speculation, though; ICANN/registry/registrar policies may make it easier or harder.

Re:The difference between fraudulent and anonymous

[Have Blue]

You're free to withhold all the information you want from the domain name registry- and not have a domain name. This will not impede your use of the Internet or operation of servers in any way; you'll just have to use your IP instead of an easier-to-remember character string when you want to link someone to your server. Think of it as the Internet equivalent of an unlisted phone number.

You have a right to privacy, but you don't have a right to a domain name.

Re:Several more years on top of existing penalties

[bigt_littleodd]

This is *so* OT of the original story, but since you brought up voting for Badnarik...

You can vote for whatever candidate strikes your fancy. AAMOF, I am very happy that you are voting at all, which is more than most people in the US do.

But think about the real outcome of voting for a non-Kerry candidate. If you agree with me that Bush must be ousted from office, voting for any other candidate besides Kerry serves no purpose other than to dilute the non-Bush voter support, thus Bush is even more likely to win the election. In my opinion, Ralph Nader's presence on the ballots pulled just enough support away from Al Gore to keep Gore from winning the 2000 election. Thus, Bush took the prize.

Re:The House of Representatives are Hypocrits

[lcreech]

Since when has anyone babysat on their representative's "voice or hand counted" votes? Show me the trail, electronic or otherwise on who voted which way and I'll conceed. But I and the majority of the public remains sheltered from this information.

This is ridiculous...

[evilviper]

This is absolutely insane... You are a criminal, for doing nothing more serious than wanting a domain, while not wanting to be trivially-easily identified with that domain.

Any such law would be the beginning of the end of personal domains, which is probably the true motive of the big companies behind the scenes, asking for the law. Domain names are so cheap anyone can get a few, but it's expensive for a company to have to sue you to get it (and they've been loosing more and more), so in the future, they can just take it, based on a technicality.

Yes, I understand the need to be able to contact a human. In that case, a vaild email address should be fine, and everything else can be fake. It's not as if law enforcement can't find the real source, if they actually have reason to suspect you of a crime.

This is just another attack on privacy, since the courts said you can't be forced to provide your real name when requested online, this is the next best thing for tracking individuals.

A better solution (and one that will work)

[Chordonblue]

STEAL their domains.

There should be an agency that attempts to confirm WHOIS records. If the information given is false, or the individuals cannot be contacted - the domain DIES.

I Have an Idea...

[severoon]

Let's outlaw more stuff we don't understand.

Congress should pass a law requiring them to repeal two old, stupid laws for every new one they enact. (That's Bill Maher's by the way--one of the political and comic thinkers of our time.)

If the framers had been able to predict what was going to happen, they'd have started a 4th branch of government, the sole purpose of which is to go through existing laws with the power to strike out the old, the irrelevant, the conflicting, and make it understandable so that the common citizen could actually understand the law well enough to abide by it without having to keep a $1000/hr lawyer on retainer.

Great, I have to give spammers my real phone/email

[iamacat]

I registered oleg.ws and now I am in a world of pain. Thanks for those yahoo filters. I think there should be an option for non-commercial (non-.com?) users to hide the info but disclose it to people who make a personal application with a legitamate concern.

As for seven year prison sentence, that's awfully harsh for someone who merely causes an annoyance. Make them do something to compensate the society - like secure public school/library computers - 8hr/day each weekend for a couple of years and most of them will get the message. If they don't and screw up, then put them in jail.

For those that don't get the reference...

[Brendan Byrd]

Jerky Boys' Chickety China the Chinese Chicken

"You press Staaar-Seven-Two-Three."

Probably the only really funny thing the Boys produced.

Whozit

[Secret Chimp]

I've got to wonder if politicians have any idea what these tech bills are actually talking about.

Re:Great, I have to give spammers my real phone/em

[a24061]

I registered oleg.ws and now I am in a world of pain. Thanks for those yahoo filters. I think there should be an option for non-commercial (non-.com?) users to hide the info but disclose it to people who make a personal application with a legitamate concern.

Some registration and hosting companies will hold your details on file but put their own contact information in the whois records and forward and legitimate communications to you. Domains by Proxy specifically advertises such a service but some hosting companies will do it on request.

You Misunderstand what Whois Records Are

[billstewart]

I'm glad it's gotten watered down - the people who asked the legislators to push this bill have been twisting what Whois records are, and many members of the public, apparently including you, haven't understood them well enough not to be misled.

The WHOIS records aren't a legal declaration of your True Name, True Legal Domicile, Phone number you agree to be reached at 24 hours a day by anyone who wants, ICBM address, Subpoena Acceptance Address, Mother's Maiden Name, Fingerprints, and RIAA pre-approved guilty plea that you give The Authorities in exchange for permission to speak on the Internet. They're simply administrative contact information people can use to try to reach you if your system is having trouble. There's a billing address there so that the Registrars can reach you if they want more money. There's a technical address to reach you if things are broken. There's an administrative address for general administrative requests. If somebody can't reach you because your information is out of date or incorrect, that doesn't mean you're an evil miscreant, it just means that you won't get proactive billing notices, and if your DNS isn't working right, people can't reach you to let you know.

It is possible to give the registrars fraudulent information - if you're impersonating someone else who really exists, but that's adequately covered by existing fraud laws. But if you give your name as "Johnny Smith" and put your address as "111 Main Street, Bogustown, USA" or "1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC 90210", that's nobody's business, that's just not a very useful contact handle you're giving somebody. If your payment to the registrar works, it works. And here in California, it was common-law right to use any name you wanted to except for purposes of fraud, though apparently the DMV got that changed a decade or so ago and insists that you need papers from some government or other to have a name.

ICANN seems to have been one of the early prime movers in True Name Whois Information, in spite of the damages to privacy that it causes (e.g. spammers hitting your published admin address.) The "IP" that they're interested in has always been "Intellectual Property", not "Internet Protocol", and they're really grouchy about the concept that anybody could ever use a domain name without agreeing to provide an always-updated True Name and Legal Process Server Address so that trademark owners can find you and sue you if they think they've got a claim on a domain name you're using. More recently, though, the RIAA/MPAA have taken up the cause, because they want to be sure that if you ever even think about sharing copyrighted music on line, they want to be able to drop handcuffs on you. If there's a dispute about domain name ownership, and your Registrar is unsuccessful in contacting you using the contact information you provide, for some reasonable period of time, it's reasonable for them to bounce your domain name.

On the other side of the argument, while I strongly value privacy, most of the time when I try to track down spammers using whois records, the information is bogus, which is annoying, and it's almost always either obviously bogus or else some foreign address that looks hard to track down. The main exceptions are in-your-face spammers like Spamford or Scotty Richter, and spammers with corporate shells to hide behind (e.g. one spammer had a mailbox at the street address of The Company Corporation, which is in the business of setting up cheap Delaware corporations), so they're effectively untraceable.

Meanwhile, if you're a "hardcore libertarian", you need to think about what rights mean. Saying somebody doesn't have the right to do something isn't just a statement about ethics - its equivalent to saying that you have the right to beat them up if they do it. Falsifying your personal resume is attempting to deceive somebody about your skills so they'll give you something that they wouldn't if you'd been honest, and of course that's wrong.

But "Trav

Re:You Misunderstand what Whois Records Are

[mwood]

"If your payment to the registrar works, it works."

If, OTOH, your contact information doesn't work, having made a reasonable effort, the registrar should feel free to consider the registration abandoned and the fee forfeit, stop serving the associated RRs, and accept another registrant for that name as soon as one comes along.

The contact information is not for when your system is *having* trouble, it's for when it is *causing* trouble. And if nobody can reach you to demand that it be fixed, yanking the name mapping is the only other thing that can be done to protect the network.

Re:You Misunderstand what Whois Records Are

[gmack]

Actually ICANN has asked registars to crack down on false whois info. Several registars will disable your nameservers if they discover the whois info is false..

One of my customers has already been burned because the address format in his country doesn't look real to someone used to western style addresses. A single complaint to the registar got the domain disabled with no warning whatsoever even though the email address was real.

Re:You Misunderstand what Whois Records Are

[Brandybuck]

Yes, I understand what WHOIS is. That doesn't change the fact that I think you shouldn't be lying to them. At the same time, I do support the right of everyone to seek a different solution if WHOIS won't accept "mind your own business" as a contact.

This story isn't about criminalizing false WHOIS information, it's about taking false information into account during sentencing for a SEPARATE act. If you want to argue about the morality of extenuating circumstances and other acts accessory to a crime, you may do so. But that's a much wider topic than merely WHOIS.

Where are all the Slashdotters upset that robbery with a firearm incurs more penalty than robbery with a knife? Does this mean that firearms have been criminalized? No! It merely means that crimes committed with a firearm gets a higher penalty. In the very same way, this law means that crimes committed by falsifying WHOIS records get a higher penalty than crimes that don't.

Re:You Misunderstand what Whois Records Are

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the another bill from one of the brilliant congressman who introduced this bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d108:3:./t emp/~bdr3lu:@@@L&summ2=m&

Re:The House of Representatives are Hypocrits

[Peyna]

Learn how Congress works before you try to criticize its processes.

Votes can be taken any number of different ways in the House:

1. Voice vote
2. Divison
3. Recorded

A voice vote is almost always used in the first place, if it's overwhelming, there's no point in wasting time going any further.

Any member can then demand a division, where by those in favor rise, those opposed rise, and are counted, but their votes are not recorded (but the press and others will always note who voted which way).

Then, any member can request a recorded vote, which must be supported by at least 1/5th of a quorum (the rules are slightly modified for any votes by the Committee of the Whole), and then votes are taken by electronic device and officially recorded as to who voted which way.

You can be assured that for almost everything other than entirely non-controversial legislature. Also, most bills regarding income tax increases, and other fiscal measures automatically require a recorded vote.

+1-npa-555-1212 is a fine phone number.

[billstewart]

It's better to be able to simply not provide a phone number, but that's available if the registrar has an automated form that insists on something. (Kind of annoying if your main phone isn't part of the North American Numbering Plan and the web page is over-enthusiastic about validation.)

Perhaps we should call CBS

[Bill_Royle]

I hear Dan Rather has a new story brewing on record falsification.

Not legislate: destroy.

[Anonymous Coward]

The government doesn't actually need to legislate anything on the internet. They can destroy the parts they don't like and legislate the parts which they deem useful (and controllable).

Re:The difference between fraudulent and anonymous

[maxpublic]

You have a right to privacy, but you don't have a right to a domain name.

We have every right not expressly granted to the government in the Constitution, and not specifically given to the government by ourselves through our legislators.

Too many people these days think that the only rights we have are those listed in the First through Fifth Amendments, or derivative rights. This isn't true. Refer to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments if you think otherwise.

Max

corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

what's wrong with creating a junk corporation in some republic of vanuatu etc and using that as the registrant? aren't corporate entities legal persons also?

and what about safety

[Suchetha]

now if (hypothetically) i were to create a website about the political situation on country A, saying that the government was being run by gangsters or other such interests and put it online. now the gubmin or the powers behind it decide that i need to be taught a lesson. so they get the whois records out of my domain name, and some Really Large Individuals pay me a visit at night and express their displeasure at my actions in extremely personal and forceful terms

or take it the other way. you see a website done by/for some gorgeous geek chixx0r, you look up her name, address, fone number on the whois and off you go.

something tells me they REALLY didn't think this through

Suchetha

Re:and what about safety

[LocoMan]

Neither of them would have any problems, since they wouldn't be illegal (fraud or anything like that), then it would be 100% legal and ok for them to put fake info on their whois. This law only affects someone that's using the website to do illegal stuff, and when they're caught it's found they also faked their info.

Identifying yourself to Police

[billstewart]

If you're engaged in an activity which the State has gotten away with demanding that you have a license for, e.g. driving, police may be able to demand that you show them license paperwork. Otherwise, you don't have to tell them anything. They can use information you give them voluntarily, and the whole Miranda process is designed to make sure that police cannot force you to disclose information when you're in a non-voluntary situation, or at least can't use that information against you in court. As an American resident, you're presumed to know this, so anything the police tell you in a non-custody situation is presumed to be voluntary. Cases like Brown vs. Texas hold that you don't even have to identify yourself to police if you're arrested - they can book you as "John Doe" if you don't give them a better name.

The one time I've had my Miranda rights read to me, the cops violated them and the Federal Privacy Act after we got back to the cop shop, or as the sergeant said "This isn't a threat, it's just a choice you can make". (I'd been photographing misbehaving small-town cops, and they didn't appreciate it, but this was pre- Rodney King, so it was easier for them to get away with things, and I was supposed to go on vacation the next day and didn't want to spend the weekend in jail instead of getting on my plane, which the cops were quite correct that they could do.) Charges were later dropped, but it was annoying.

Until the recent Hiibel case , the courts were really clear about this; it's an ugly mess, and the Supremes upheld an Nevada law permitting cops to ask people to identify themselves, in spite of the fact that that's not what the cop did in the events under consideration.

Yup, that was him, more or less.

[billstewart]

Seems like he might be getting back on the Peace Train, even though he got kicked off the plane. His websites are getting a bit Slashdotted since the press announcements, but GoogleCache He says he never endorsed the Fatwa, and that he was misquoted - he was explaining that Islamic law is quite clear about killing blasphemers, but also about going through local legal process, and since that's not the law in Britain, Muslims shouldn't go lynching people, they should just get involved in politics. I consider that a pretty wimpy defense, but he apparently wasn't in favor of the Fatwa itself and was really upset when the press reported that he was.

He has made a bunch of statements opposing terrorism over the years, including the recent school invasion in Russia and the 9/11 attacks and the US invasions of Iraq.

Re:Yup, that was him, more or less.

[AndroidCat]

Yes, I thought his explainations at the time were pretty lame, but I doubt he'd ever be in favour of violence. Problems with religious double-think, perhaps. That said, diverting a plane in flight because one of the passengers might be carrying a dangerous opinion is a bit much. (If it was movie, they would have contacted the passenger who was an ex-SEAL debating team champ, who would move in before the terrorist could mouth it off and engage him in man-to-man rhetoric and logic and disarm his arguments.)

GoDaddy and Spam - a Mixed Bag. Gandi..

[billstewart]

Privacy Protection! Yay! Good for them!

Spammers' favorite big registrar! Spammer location obfuscation! Boo! Evil Protectors of Miscreants!

It's the same thing, of course - some of the biggest users of privacy are annoying resource thieves. Oh, well.

Also, GoDaddy is a US company, so anybody in the US who wants to drop legal papers on them can pretty much do so, so your activities may not be outlawed yet, but that could change, and you've got no protection for any useful information you've provided them if you do. For a while, Gandi.net was the politically correct choice for registration - they weren't Verisign, did good customer service, weren't Verisign, were based outside the US so you have to trigger two governments' stupidities before you get hassled, weren't Verisign, charged a reasonable fee (12 euros was pretty low back then, though others are lower), and they weren't Verisign. OpenSRS seems to be the current politically correct approach more recently.

Re:Several more years on top of existing penalties

[babybird]

That's true for swing states, but if you don't happen to live in one of those, you may as well vote for the person you think will be the best candidate regardless of party affiliation. Otherwise the two parties get the message from the voting public that the two parties are all they really want and have no incentive to adapt to reality.

No need to falsify, just obfuscate

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's my solution. First, I pay for a PO Box. It's not too expensive and it's a legal address to register domains. So whois returns the PO Box as the contact address. I also use the PO Box for other things like the university after finding they sometimes "accidently" publish your home information even if you've requested it to be private. In order to get a PO Box, you give your real street address to the post office, so should the feds breathe down your neck, they can't claim you did this to avoid being tracked down. All they'd need to do is get your PO Box registration from the post office to find out your street address and I'm sure they have routes for this.

Second, for phone number, use areacode-555-1212. This is a directory service similar to 411 but localized by area code. If you have a listed number, the interested party would have to pay to use this number to get your listed number. This cuts down greatly on telemarketers who do not wish to pay the fee very often. Also, if you have an unlisted number, this service will just say that. Again, the feds can request even unlisted numbers directly from the phone company so using this phone number does not prevent them from getting your real phone number.

So really all you need to reveal is your real name when you register the account. Some may be a bit leery of even this I know. But my point is in the context of this proposed law. IANAL, but it seems to me that as long as you register using your real name, a PO Box and the 1212 number, the feds would not have a claim to say you falsified your registration. To do so, they'd have to outlaw all anonymizing registatration services that put a middle-man address/phone number into the whois record as this method is basically a free way to achieve the same effect.

The cost of private domains.

[Corvaith]

$20 per *month* to protect your privacy?

I think the going rate is more like $20/year for proxy-registered domains, and that'll probably drop in a few years once competition increases. Considering people used to pay $35 a year for just the domain, that's not exactly an insanely high price. And, for that matter, if you can't afford an extra $.83 a month, maybe you have other priorities to focus on besides your website?

Godaddy

[adzoox]

GoDaddy actually has a good domain "whois" information protection built in - by making you type in a random password to continue to get to the information.

This should be required by all websites/registrars that link to the whois database.

I think what you do is a little overkill.

Can you confirm though that your speaking out against spammers has actually increased your junk email? I have been tracking a spammer in my home state and I have suspected the same.

Re:Godaddy

[macdaddy]

GoDaddy actually has a good domain "whois" information protection built in - by making you type in a random password to continue to get to the information.

IMHO what GoDaddy does with the image verification should violate the ICANN regs. It does stop bots from working but I do think it should break ICANN's rules.

I think what you do is a little overkill.

Some of it could be. I don't have to separate my mailing list account from my other domains. It just worked out that way when I only had a few domains to use. The practice still continues out of habit. I do think participating in the anti-spam community with a dedicated domain has been useful. That domains gets junk mail of all sorts. Rumplestiltskin attack flourish on that domain. Fortunately there's only one valid address for that domains (besides the RFC-required postmaster and abuse of course). That lets me filter all the other crap straight into a spamtrap. Handy.

Can you confirm though that your speaking out against spammers has actually increased your junk email? I have been tracking a spammer in my home state and I have suspected the same.

I received a number of phone calls from spammers and companies sending spam before I started using an alias to hide my identity in NANAE. Not that I'm afraid of a spammer BUT if they know who I am, my address, telephone number, etc they can easily stoop a little bit lower and steal my identity. They could mess with my credit or cause me hassles at work (call up pretending to be detectives from some sex crimes against minors unit or something and start the gossip train rollin'). I now take measures to protect my identity. As far as spam goes, the address I post to in NANAE gets tons. I'm sure it's being picked up by bots. Then again it's in NANAE. I'm sure the more advanced spammers are whitelisting addresses it finds in NANA*. One thing I did notice is that when I made references in NANAE to a Google Groups archived posting, saying that this message was one sent to me and I posted it, I found that many spammers took it upon themselves to pull your address out of that piece of spam and whitelist it. For a long time my spam was kepy unusually low because of that. I've used my one main address for 9 years so far. I post with it everywhere. Up until a few years ago I only posted it rather than the alias I use nowadays. Surprisingly it didn't get that much spam. Now it looks like the spammers don't care about spamming anti-spammers. ISPs are a dime a dozen so when we get one of themt o boot a spammer, they have a dozen more lined up and ready to go. Now they seem to spam me out of spite.

The most fun I had anti-spamming was when I took one of my unused domains, a list of 525,000 proper pronouns, curl, and wget and stuffed 2 dozen spammer's "remove" forms with email addresses based on those 525k pronouns. Before I was finished I was getting a couple thousand pieces of spam per hour. When I changed the MX to 127.0.0.1 I was getting over a hundred thousand a day. I was using procmail to munge the spam, post a copy to NANAS, and forward a copy to the FTC's spambox. The only problem happened when viruses and spammers started joe-jobbing my domain. I couldn't strip the bounces out of the influx of spam reliably, thus flooding NANAS and the FTC with crap. If only it'd worked though... :-)

You are a hero!

[Anonymous Coward]

so... do you want a medal for that?

why is this 'Interesting' anyway?!?!

Re:You are a hero!

[nzhavok]

why is this 'Interesting' anyway?!?!

Because he showed he provided real contact info without revealing his address. Retard.

Re:Several more years on top of existing penalties

[ratamacue]

The reason for "federalizing" laws which already exist is simply to expand the powers and general scope of the federal government. Look at the incredible (exponential?) growth of the US federal government over the past century. History shows that the powerful elite are uninterested in repealing laws or reducing the scope of government. They are here to add new laws and secure more revenue, and further entangle themselves in the market (aka the cookie jar). There's a reason why governments expand over their lifetimes -- because it benefits those in power.

WHOIS illegal; callerID legal

[garaux]

I find it a bit curious and well ludicrous that our overpaid legislators would be so concerned over incorrect or false information on whois records but allow for the falisification of caller ID on our telephones.

Hmm, maybe it's just me but I would think MORE people in America would benefit from non-fradulent CallerID (Darn them telemarketers) than from what the heck a whois record says. Most internet users (even if they own a domain) don't know what WHOIS records are anyhow.

As I read it....

[Anonymous Coward]

..the law in no way requires you to PROVIDE information. It simply requires that information that is PROVIDED must be accurate. From the actual bill:
(6) the term `counterfeit documentation or packaging' means documentation or packaging that appears to be genuine, but is not.

If I list my Address as "1234 Testing Lane," I'm in violation. But if I list it as "Not Disclosed", I don't believe (IANAL) that I am. Same goes for name, or listing the name as "System Administrator." E-mail could be listed as "whois@mydomain.com," which would be legit if that was a real e-mail address...

I don't know a way areound the phone number issue, however. I believe that listing "not disclosed" as a phone number would be within the law, but I'm not sure a registrant will accept that if they validate phone numbers...

Does this make the RIAA's activities illegal?

[waxxie]

"The bill as originally written, however, focuses primarily on penalties for promoting counterfeit music, computer programs, and other media with identical labeling." So promoting (ie spreading/sharing/p2p'ing) files that are not what they appear to be is illegal? Does this make the RIAA's activities of spreading fake files on p2p networks, illegal?

MPAA

[drakyri]

The bill as originally written, however, focuses primarily on penalties for promoting counterfeit music, computer programs, and other media with identical labeling."

Would this include the practice that some music companies have of sharing mp3 files that are the same size as genuine files but 95% static?

WHEW!

[jwcorder]

Man I thought for a minute there that the government was actually going to pass a law that could be applied....then I read on and realized that they intend to actively seek people who falsify their whois information but tact this charge on to anyone that they bust who was doing something illegal with the information....

I believe that if I get busted for let's say warez that illegal whois information is going to be the least of my worries.

Another crappy law that won't actually do anything about the situation.

Now offering a gmail invite to anyone who completes 1 freeipods.com offer using my referral link below.

Re:Several more years on top of existing penalties

[jackbird]

Yeah, those powerful elites just loved the New Deal, environmental regulations, labor laws, civil rights, regulation of stock markets, etc...

One step removed from the real problem

[maximilln]

The real problem isn't false information in WHOIS databases. The real problem was allowing every stock broker with a geek relative to set up a registrar. I don't remember there being a Constitutional right to have a domain name.

In the beginning the internet was ruled (for the most part) by technology people, for technology people. The technology people did a reasonable job keeping their own arena in check. Wall Street showed up when they saw potential dollar signs. The technology people held back, forcing Wall Street to jump through hoops and hurdles to come up with funding and learn the jargon and the ways of computer science. This was wholly unacceptable to Wall Street as it was standing in the way of the technology bubble which would make them extraordinarily rich. Wall Street worked diligently through Congress to use public tax money (namely 401k funding) to subsidize the explosion of companies in the internet sector who both provided the equipment (personal computers, Windows support), the services (ISPs), and the content (web sites) for the web. As more people swamped to the network they learned about domain name registration and everyone wanted to be cool and have one. Domain name registration was no longer NSF subsidized and Wall Street quickly realized that being a registrar was a profitable endeavor. I feel that domain name registration should have remained subsidized to force the politicians to consider the result of their actions. I pay tax money. What's changed between now and '92?

The real problem is not the pollution of WHOIS databases. The real problem was the underhanded pillaging of public tax money to bring everyone, good/bad/indifferent, to the open network. If left to its own methods the computing industry would have evolved much more productively. There would never have been a complete sanitation (USENET trolls, a little spam) but the signal to noise ratio would have been preserved as much higher.

"counterfeit media"

[j h woodyatt]

> ...penalties for promoting counterfeit music, computer programs, and other media...

Oh, I think I'm going to just love seeing this language frame the intellectual property debate. Let's nip this one in the bud people--it is not the music that's counterfeit; it's the digital "right to use" that is counterfeit.

Never forget it.

Re:Several more years on top of existing penalties

[ratamacue]

Are you trying to imply that government didn't benefit from any of those power grabs? Even when a government program fails outright (ex. drug prohibition), the powerful elite still win due to increased power and revenue. Look at government (public) education: they constantly demand more revenue to "save" their failing schools, yet every time they get the increase, the bulk of the money goes straight to administration.

civil rights

This isn't an expansion of government. Government cannot pass laws to "create" civil rights. Rights are derived from the reality of human nature, not government. As much as they want you to believe that government is the source of freedom, the opposite is true. We are born free, and from there we can only lose freedom. Government cannot "create" rights, any more than the mafia can create rights. They can only destroy them.

Yeah, uh, woops

[JasonUCF]

Mr. fuckhead here didn't preview his comment sufficiently, c/month/year :-p

And no, I don't think I should have to pay for a protection racket..

Re:Yeah, uh, woops

[Corvaith]

I've got two domains that've been publicly registered for quite some time now. Neither has produced a great deal of spam, junk mailings, or anything else. Not even harassing phone calls, which to be honest I *expected* because one domain hosts a forum that can get rather hot-tempered.

So I don't think it's a protection racket. A person can live without it quite comfortably. For the paranoid or especially at risk, for an extra few cents you can have that peace of mind. Like a home or car security system, you don't need it to live quite comfortably.

If they were *asking* twenty a month, some people would still pay but yes, it'd be exorbitant. Ten dollars a year, though? Considering that yes, they have to maintain all the records and forward correspondence and such? Nothing stops *you* from forming a corporation to act as a proxy, with a post office box and a throwaway email. That, however, would probably still cost you more than $0.83 a month.

Re:The difference between fraudulent and anonymous

[Fulcrum of Evil]

You have a right to privacy, but you don't have a right to a domain name.

I also don't have a right to a cheeseburger. I do have the right to go buy one from anybody that will do business with me. Getting back to the domain issue, I can also put in fake address info, fake email and a fake name, and that's fine. The registrar won't care, so long as they're paid, and apparently, neither does the government, so long as i'm not ripping people off.

I still object to this law, since it's just another boat anchor that they can use against me, shoudl they choose to harrass me, whatever the reason.

I didn't falsify

[the_Bionic_lemming]

I didn't falsify my records when I started my sites.

I have moved twice since then. Somehow - I keep forgetting to update the records...

Anonymous lawbreakers

[cdrguru]

OK, let's see here. Someone registers a domain using your last name and the suffix "sucks" and proceeds to publish photoshopped pictures of you, your children and goes on to write amusing stories about your habits and illegal acts. You find this out because it is linked to on Slashdot or other Internet news board.

I guess there are a couple of things you could do, but after your children start getting harrassed at school you probably find a lawyer and try to get the site taken down. Sorry, that domain is registered to "N.B." with no address - can't contact them and the registrar isn't cooperating. It's against their policy, and besides, they don't really have any better information than what is on WHOIS. Your lawyer suggest you change your name and move to a new city because that is the best that you can do.

Can we talk about Everyone should be allowed to (and is) publish their opinions anonymously, that's what America's about. in a little different context now? Sure, they have broken some laws, but so what? You can't find them and they can freely continue.

What about protection from harrassment?

[StankDawg]

I run several sites, some of which contains information that some people do not like. I provide true information in my WHOIS record, but I am considering changing it to protect my privacy (WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY EXTRA FOR IT). I think I should have a RIGHT to privacy, not the ability to pay for a service to provide the privacy that I have a right to. The problem is that with valid information in my WHOIS record, anyone who doesn't like the content of my site (no, nothing about WAREZ or piracy or terrorism or anything like that) can call me up and harrass me about it.

I have gotten calls at 2 in the morning and people who mess with me simply because they have access to my information. I have a right to not be harrassed or attacked. Calling the police or phone company is a waste of time. I just want the RIGHT to privacy that our forefathers established for us.

Is that really so much to ask?

Re:What about protection from harrassment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Our forefathers?
Cmon guy..

"They that can give up liberty to obtain temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"
-- Ben Franklin

Laws like this are unjust

[Qrlx]

I think laws like this are crap. If you want to make something illegal, just make that activity illegal. Don't make ancillary activities part of the crime.

This is just a way for them to "tack on" all sorts of extra time to your jail sentence. If we really wanted the crime to get that sort of jail time, why not simply up the penalty for that specific crime.

Here in Washington State we have this thing where sex offenders serve their prison terms, and then are kept in "civil confinement" until they have been "rehabilitated" enough to be back in public (and living down the block from your kids.)

Now, obviously nobody wants a sex offender living next to them. But wouldn't it be a lot simpler and saner (and legaler) to simply increase the penalty for the crime? Don't rely on some after-market bolt-on to provide justice. Make the penalty for child molestation life in prison. Trust me, the public would support that!

This is just infuriating to me. If we want to increase the penalty for armed robbery, let's do it. That would be a lot simpler than passing some law which adds time to your sentence for possesion of a handgun while you commit your crime. (And you don't even have to use the handgun, or brandish it; simple possession, which is one of your Constitutional rights, will get you more time.)

No matter how many laws the legislature passes, there's still going to be crime. All this does is make more paperwork, more red tape, and more little options they have for throwing the book at you. We should eliminate these "enhancements" and simply modify the penalty to fit the crime rather than these back-door methods which can be used selectively and in discriminatory fashion.

your websites pwned

[Anonymous Coward]

"www.lanwars.org"

i just went to your website. looks ike you got owned buddy!

Registrars can handle this

[Sheepdot]

Really simple solution for the registrars:
I give them my real info, they provide fake info. Or I get to continue to fake mine.

IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG the authorities can leave a message with the registrar who will contact me and tell me to check my messages. I will gladly talk to them if I hear of any problems. In the meantime, sorry Dotster, your monthly newsletters don't even show up in my Inbox anymore.

If the authorities want, they can yank the website after two weeks of no response from the owner. Or the registrar can choose to give up the owner's info at any time. Who would you register with? Someone that promised to keep your info private or someone that handed it over the very second the feds asked for it?

Two parts to this issue

[cdrguru]

There are people that for legitimate reasons wish to conceal their identity in various ways.

However, there are also people that are doing things online that, if they were done on a streetcorner, would get them arrested. They "know" that they cannot be caught, punished or prosecuted in any way because "online" is a law-free zone.

Why should this be the case? This means that not only spammers and the like can hide in plain sight, but also people that are actively making the Internet truely horrible are allowed to continue. Their actions are decried by governments and corporations alike and, unfortunately, those are the folks that can actually do something to change the nature of the Internet in ways that will be worse for everyone. For example, what would it serve if in order to register a domain you had to be registered as a business? Well, for one thing it would cut out kiddy-porn vendors and 19 sorts of scammers. But, it would also affect a lot of individuals.

I'm all for people protecting their privacy, but owning a domain and being private are not necessarily the same thing. Being able to hide your identity while posting on various dicussion boards is fine. Being able to set up a store where people can buy perscription drugs without a prescription for 10x the normal price isn't fine - but it is almost impossible to track these people down given the current system. Warez boards can be considered a true benefit to society - until you are a software developer with your sole income from sales of software.

I think the best example of this is where someone decides in a vindictive moment to register a domain "johnsmithsucks.com" and puts up pictures of John Smith and his family. Photoshopped pictures. Obscene photoshopped pictures. And amusing stories about John, his children and their dog. Try getting such a thing shut down if you have only "N.B." as the name on the domain registration. Yes, you might be able to track down the hosting, but maybe they are unhelpful or a bargin hosting company in Korea. You might be able to get it shut down, but I doubt it without an incredible amount of work. It would probably be better if you just left down quietly and changed your name.

Is this fair? It can happen today. Would you laugh if it happened to your neighbor? Sure you would, admit it.

Re:Two parts to this issue

[a24061]

I think the best example of this is where someone decides in a vindictive moment to register a domain "johnsmithsucks.com" and puts up pictures of John Smith and his family.

That's a very good point, but we also need to consider protecting someone who sets up foocompanyrippedmeoff.com. Foo Company has a lot of lawyers and it is very expensive and difficult to defend a libel action even if you're right---especially in the UK, for example, where "libel tourism" is popular.

Re:Several more years on top of existing penalties

[mwood]

"Federalization" also comes from the grass roots. People are not getting what they wanted from their state legislatures so they turn to the Feds.

Privacy Protection

[H.E. Pennypacker]

I'm sure they will have fun trying to enforce valid WHOIS data. I 'm curious how privacy protection measures will be addressed with this legislation. I use RegisterFly's WHOIS protection service http://www.registerfly.com/protectfly/index.php. Their info isn't fraudulent, but technically, the data doesn't accurately correspond to the true owner.

Re:Several more years on top of existing penalties

[ratamacue]

People are not getting what they wanted

By "people", of course, you are referring to those who wish to initiate force as a means to an end. I would humbly request that you define the group in real terms instead of implying that all individuals ("the people") fall into this group. Believe it or not, there are people who actually don't want or expect anything from government, and demand to take 100% responsibility for their own lives. (I know because I'm one of them.)

Re:Several more years on top of existing penalties

[mwood]

If I'd meant "all people" ("the people"), I would have said so. Some people are not getting what they wanted. "People are dying" does not mean that we are all dying; it means "there exists a nonempty class D of people such that all members of D are currently dying," which does not deny the existence of some other nonempty class L containing people who are not currently dying.

I honestly don't know what to do for people who don't want to be part of a society. I suppose we could all get together and set aside a place where all governments have agreed not to go or claim. I don't want to live there myself, though, as I expect it will turn out rather like Heinlein's "Coventry".

Re:Several more years on top of existing penalties

[ratamacue]

Oh, I want to be part of society. And I am. I am quite capable of engaging in moral, productive interaction with others. And I do. Yet I still oppose the initiation of force as a means to an end (i.e. government). Were you trying to imply that government and society are the same thing?

What I don't want is to grant ownership over my life and body to anyone but myself. Were you trying to imply that an individual cannot possibly interact morally or productively with others without the "aid" of government?

Government is not morality. Government is pure force. Human beings are quite capable of making moral and rational decisions without being ruled by other human beings.

Re:Several more years on top of existing penalties

[mwood]

I mean to imply, in fact I will assert, that two or more humans cannot live in contact with one another for an extended period without forming a government. Every society has rules, and some of the rules are always about punishing and/or ejecting members who won't follow the rules.

I utterly reject the notion that government==force. Government is people working out norms of behavior and abiding by them.

You have the whole ownership thing backwards. WE own our GOVERNMENT. Sometimes the people we hire from among ourselves to embody our government's purposes need to be reminded of that, but that makes it no less true.

Human beings have proven through millennia that they are NOT capable of always making moral and rational decisions which will be universally accepted by their fellow human beings. That's why we have laws, and lawbreakers.

Try making a society that has no rules. Just try.

A court order

[hadaso]

> ... registrar isn't cooperating. It's against their policy ...
> Your lawyer suggest ... that is the best that you can do.

The lawyer can get a court to order the registrar to reveal the info in the case you describe. Most probably if registrars held identifying info that was not made public in whois then they would have policies to avoid needing court order for most things.

In fact there are ways to register a domain by proxy, that is, someone else (third party)registers the domain for your use, and your contract with that third party is what defines your right to use the domain. The third party's identity and contact info is in the whois, and in most cases the third party can also perform additional administrative stuff for you related to the domain.

I think the way whois is published can be changed so that privacy of domain owners is beeter kept, and at the same time fuller and more accurate identifying info is kept in record. It can be open to the public without being open to spambots. The only difference would be in how that info is requested.

Re:Several more years on top of existing penalties

[ratamacue]

Now you are implying that without government there would be no rules, and hence no peaceful interaction. Again I say bull. Human beings are quite capable of interacting peacefully without being forced. I know I am, and I know you are too.

I utterly reject the notion that government==force.

That's exactly what government teaches you, isn't it? Why don't we ask one of the thousands of civilians who've had thier house and land confiscated through "eminent domain"? The idea that these people somehow "agreed" to have their land confiscated before purchasing it is laughable. Nobody in their right mind would purchase land they know will be stolen later on. That's exactly what you propose, isn't it?

In reality, the social contract theory is void, and always has been. There are exactly 2 modes of human interaction possible: voluntary association, and involuntary association (force). The modes are mutually exclusive -- you cannot interact both ways at the same time. Thus, every possible human interaction falls into exactly one of the two categories. Agreed so far? Now, the social contract theory proposes that we "volunteer" to interact through force (to submit to rule by force). This is illogical. You cannot volunteer to be forced, any more than you can force a person to volunteer. Therefore, the social contract theory is void, and the reality of government is obvious. We submit to government because we are forced to submit, not because we "volunteer" to submit.