Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Private .US Registrations Disallowed by NTIA

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-.us-for-you dept.

jnetsurfer writes "Apparently, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA") has decided that domains under the TLD .US have no right to privacy. New domain names ending in .US will not be able to be registered as "private" and current owners of .US names will be forced to reveal their contact information starting "no later than January 26, 2006". This means that you can't run an annonymous website with a .US TLD. If you don't like this, feel free to sign the petition."

8 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. Who cares, it's a stupid domain anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Get a .COM

  2. Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was under the impression that DNS ownership records for other TLDs (E.g. .com) had to be publically? At least in theory, it should also be geniune and correct.

    Why should .us be a special case? Being able to find accurate data from a simple whois is an important tool for a lot of network administrators.

  3. Links to decision? by Jumbo+Jimbo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is an interesting story but the Original poster gives 2 links to the petition website but not links to the decision by the NTIA.

    By following the link from the petition site to the NTIA home page, there's nothing there about this particular decision, and some preliminary hunting hasn't shown up the relevant article for this.

    Most of the time us Slashdot readers can find the information for ourselves, but here we are being asked to sign a petition based on the evidence presented by the poster, not by reading the docs for ourselves (of cause we would all have RTFA if it was posted, obviously). I think it's a bit underhand asking us to sign this petition on an obsure decision that is not easy to find, without providing a link to the decision.

    If anyone can find a link to the decision I'd be very grateful.

  4. Constitutional right to privacy by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The constitutional right to privacy in the United States springs from an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure combined with the et-cetera clauses in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

    1. Re:Constitutional right to privacy by Fastolfe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you buy land, or register a name for your business, you have to provide certain details about yourself to your local government, which becomes public information.

      Why is this any different? Why does a "constitutional right to privacy" not apply to these situations, but should apply to someone registering a DNS domain? A DNS domain is intended to reflect an administrative domain over Internet infrastructure. We need published contact information if you intend on connecting infrastructure to the Internet when that infrastructure is significant enough to warrant its own second-level DNS domain. If you intend to (ab)use a DNS domain as a content label for your Interweb content, you need to be aware of what the DNS domain is intended to represent, and be prepared to abide by the requirements that result from that even though you aren't using your DNS domain for what it was designed.

      It's like me going downtown and buying a lot of land just so that I can post some signs carrying some anti-government statements, and then balking because the evil government wants me to identify myself as the owner of that parcel of land. I don't have to own that land in order to exercise my right to free speech. You don't have to own your own little DNS domain in order to have a web outlet for your content.

  5. Re:I'd sign the petition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course, there is a huge problem with putting domain ownership contact information out in the public. Not everyone is a business and not everyone has a PO box.

    There are plenty of ignorant people out there who can only react to differing opinions, beliefs or behavior with threats and violence. I run a very popular niche goth site and, while I'm not exactly goth myself, there are a lot of people out there who react to things like the school shooting this month by making threats to anyone they can find that fits whatever their own perverted (media-given) impression of a "goth" or "punk" is.

    Or, perhaps, a woman running an abortion rights action site who would like to keep her information private. Last thing you want to be is in the crosshairs of some religious nut who believes god is directing him or her to save the fetuses by blowing your brains out.

    There are any number of valid reasons to want to maintain some sort of privacy to keep the freaks and nutcases from tracking you down. The most violent thing I've ever seen a goth kid do is pick his nose. But I tell you, I sure was thinking about going into hiding recently when the school shooting occurred.

  6. Re:I'd sign the petition... by Malor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally, I don't like the fact that as a private citizen that wants to host his own email server, I have to reveal my real name, phone number, and ADDRESS to every human being on the globe with access to WHOIS.

    This can be badly misused, and has been already by spammers. I get an enormous amount of spam aimed at my (formerly) published contact emails, and a lot of it comes in complete with the (obsolete) address data from back then. The ONLY way they could have gotten this information is from WHOIS, and I'm not happy about them having it; they have no legitimate reason to be in possession of that data.

    I really like what Namecheap is doing. For an extra five or six bucks a year, they'll hide your real address and give you an anonymized contact address... mail sent to this random address will be forwarded to your real email, invisibly to the sender. So, if there is a problem with your domain, you are still contactable. If there's a legal problem with a domain, then of course the real info is going to be available to any form of law enforcement.

    But it's hidden from the casual spammer/identity thief, and I am very, very happy about this.

    Requiring people to publish information about a domain is sort of a presumption of guilt...."if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide!" Well, I am innocent and I have plenty to hide...like where I live. If I want to host an mail or a web server, my responsibility is to make sure I can be contacted in case of problems. My responsibility is not and never was to tell you exactly who and where I am, no matter what ICANN happens to think.

  7. Re:Most people with privacy needs don't need a dom by macdaddy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Like it or not, the purpose of a DNS domain is to identify a namespace for hosts under your control. In short, a DNS domain reflects Internet infrastructure, not some vanity content label. If you're going to connect infrastructure to the Internet, you should be prepared to announce your identity to the rest of the Internet so that if/when you cause problems, you can be contacted.

    Do you own a car? If so then you are part of the automotive infrastructure of whatever state/country you live in. What would you say if a government agency unilaterally required that all members of the automotive infrastructure post their name, address and telephone number in big bold letters on all their vehicles? That way all the other members of the automotive infrastructure can clearly see your identity so that if/when you cause problems, you can be contacted. Sound good to you? It must because that's exactly what you're condoning for the owners of .us TLDs.

    This is not 1988. The Internet can't be summed up in a hosts file. Get your head out of the glory days of the past and join the rest of us in the real world.