Slashdot Mirror
IP Holders Press For Access To WHOIS Data
Stony Stevenson writes to tell us that the battle for access to whois data remains at a stalemate this week. "In a blog post on the Internet Governance Project's (IGP) Web site, Milton Mueller, Professor and Director of the Telecommunications Network Management Program at the Syracuse University School of Information Studies and a partner in the IGP, details the Final Outcomes Report of the WHOIS Working Group, published on Tuesday, and inability of the various stakeholders to reach any kind of consensus."
Personally, I think private domains should be illegal. A contact name and physical address, if not phone number and working email, should be required of every domain owner. If this "real estate" on the internet is so valuable, make the disclosure regulations match physical real estate.
Now get off my lawn...
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Why do people like Mueller always lie?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I think domain owners deserve some privacy both from shady marketers and from Internet crack-pots.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
I use unique email addresses for almost everything online (slashdot.org@mydomainname, etc) so that I can track and block spam effectively. 99% of my spam (about 3000 per month that makes it to my spam folder in Gmail) is sent to technicalContact@mydomainname or administrativeContact@mydomainname or something similar that I have used in registering domains.
I'd be happy if they could just keep my email address private without charging extra for that.
The usual problem here is the Internet is not in the USA it is global - so which Police, which Government should have access to this information?
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
And the fact that they will sell (or provide freely) registration obfuscation services to withhold meaningful registrant contact data shows that many registrars are still in bed with the criminal spammers.
Much better that they give away the information to anyone and everyone who asks so you can get all sorts of junkmail and spam.
You could just as well get a PO box and use a free email account somewhere
So in other words, if I don't want spam, I have to go out of my way not to get it. Thanks, buddy, for a while I was having a hard time there figuring out who exactly was in bed with the spammers.
Unfortunately, one problem with this comes down to defining "illegal materials". By who's laws should that be dictated? There are some countries where child porn is considered more or less acceptable, and plenty of countries where the age of consent is something other than what it is here. All that the owner would have to do to claim that they are not in violation of the law is either have their registered domain or their hosting in a country where whatever they are doing is OK.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I just wanted to comment that you are truly insane, and that there should be no urgency for the government to request "real" details of an IP that can't be handled by means of a warrant. There's a reason for that concept.
SIG: HUP
I think that's taking it a bit too far. Personally, I think they should roll out something similar to UK domains across on to .coms as well.
.uk then you have to show your details unless you are a non-trading individual. If you are such an individual (like me, who run sites as hobbies) then you can opt out of having your details shown and it's free and done by Nominet, not the individual companies you buy domains from.
With a
While I can see a reason for companies not to be able to hide their details (it gives you a definite address for them that you can then match to a trading location, assuming its real), I think individuals have a right to not have their details easily available on the 'net for anyone with a vigilante inclination to be able to find and abuse.
Spoken like someone who doesn't receive fake renewal notices for tens of domains a month from shady vendors, all gleaned from the whois records. I wish private records had existed when I first started registering domains, they won't do me any good at this point. What is unacceptable about contact via proxy?
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
In most US states, each corporation is only required to maintain a registered agent address on file with the state, so anyone who needs to contact your organization can do so. The registered agent can be anyone, so for example, you might have your lawyer be your registered agent, and anyone who wants to know who owns the company has to go through him.
We've currently got the same system with domain names - your registrar can act as your registered agent, serving as a barrier between the public and you. If someone has a legitimate need to contact you, they can do so through your registrar. If not, they can't. I don't see any reason to change this.
paintball
There is a perfectly good system in place (at least in the US) for people who have a legal right to access the private information of a domain registrant. It's called due process.
If you think someone is infringing on your trademark, committing fraud, or some other illegal or actionable offense, then you go before a judge and request the court issue a demand for that information.
Yes, it's expensive. Yes, it's a pain in the posterior. Yes, that is as it should be. The more difficult you make it to pierce the rightful barrier of privacy of an individual, the stronger that barrier is and the less capricious that piercing can be.
The courts are the place to go to acquire this information. The Markets make it profitable for legitimate companies to not hide that information.
Seems that's a pretty good system to me.
I imagine the board meeting went like this:
;)
No way, that was far too coherent. The slashdot blurb was virtually unreadable; since TFA isn't likely to be any better I see no reason to R (eye muss knot bee knew hear, looser). A whois lookup for my site does in fact reveal my identity, although the address and phone numbers are my registrar's, but the email addresses are correct (although the insightbb address won't work; I didn't pay my bill). My other site has all the info, although most of it is out of date with my old apartment (I bought a house), disconnected landline (I'm cell-only now) and email (I changed ISPs).
There is no way to make certain that whois data is current, or even correct. So considering that (and the unparsability of the blurb and presumably TFA as well) I'm having a hard time figuring out what the controversy is. Maybe if I'd used my host's "masking service" it would be easier; and note that my host is in an entirely different country than I am!
FUCK law enforcement; they have more than enough tools to do their dirty, sinful jobs.
-mcgrew
PS- OT, but I'm at work using IE6, and the slashdot headlines are invisible today, white on white (unless you highlight them). Also, I'd like someone to provide me with some reefer to compensate me for this fine but now illegal post! After all, I do own copyright on it, do I not?
Tough luck, psycho. MY ISP protects me from people JUST LIKE YOU by hiding my contact information.
Oooh, you don't like my website? You think somebody ought to "teach me a lesson"? You think you should be able to run around silencing opposing viewpoints, maybe shooting a pro-choice blogger here and there, or beating up someone whose politics you don't agree with? Maybe you don't like a pro-evolution scientist and think that God told you, through your dog Flipper last night, to go kill the guy?
Tough nuts, psycho. You can't find out where anyone lives, so you can go to hell. And they can tell you to do so with impunity, knowing that there's not a damned thing you can do about it. That's a beautiful thing, psycho. It's one of the things preserving freedom of speech (and by extension our way of life).
The system is working EXACTLY the way it's supposed to, and your own posts have demonstrated why it's so important. Now go up your meds...
Incorrect. Most states that aren't tax dodges (I'm looking at you Delaware) also require some combination of annual reports, corporate bylaws, and principals (often just managing partner).
Yes. I've been data-mining that data for SiteTruth, and it's amusing. No two states have the same format, although there's some similarity. Delaware provides less free info than most states. Some states have deliberate weaknesses in their data. Nevada, for example, doesn't require that changes in corporate officers be reported, so many out of state Nevada corporations have the same guy at a corporation service listed as President.
But that's OK. We're working on recognizing certain common patterns. Like "Incorporation state in low-disclosure states list AND NOT in business directories as having operations in incorporation state AND NOT in SEC Edgar AND NOT registered as foreign corporation in state where doing business IMPLIES slimeball".
Anonymous businesses deserve low search rankings. We're making that happen.