Slashdot Mirror
ICANN's Plan To End Commercial Website Anonymity Creates Real Problems
An anonymous reader notes that ICANN is closing the comment period for its plan to prevent owners of commercial websites from keeping their personal details out of a site's public-facing registration information. Digital rights groups are taking the opportunity to explain how real harm can result from this decision. The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative posted an open letter to ICANN pointing out the rise of doxing and swatting: "Our concern about doxing is not hypothetical. Randi Harper, a technologist, anti-harassment activist, and founder of the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative, was swatted based on information obtained from the Whois record for her domain. The only reason law enforcement did not draw their weapons and break down Harper’s door was that she had previously warned her local police department about swatting."
Cathy Gellis at Popehat refers to the situation surrounding Charles Carreon, the man who antagonized The Oatmeal (Matthew Inman's webcomic) and issued legal threats to those who called him out. "In that case the critic had selected a domain incorporating Carreon's name in order to best get his point about Carreon's thuggery across, which the First Amendment and federal trademark law allowed him to do. ... Unfortunately, the registrar immediately caved to Carreon's pressure and disclosed the critic's identifying information, thereby eviscerating the privacy protection the critic expected to have, and depended on, for his commentary."
Cathy Gellis at Popehat refers to the situation surrounding Charles Carreon, the man who antagonized The Oatmeal (Matthew Inman's webcomic) and issued legal threats to those who called him out. "In that case the critic had selected a domain incorporating Carreon's name in order to best get his point about Carreon's thuggery across, which the First Amendment and federal trademark law allowed him to do. ... Unfortunately, the registrar immediately caved to Carreon's pressure and disclosed the critic's identifying information, thereby eviscerating the privacy protection the critic expected to have, and depended on, for his commentary."
Randi Harper is a notorious harrasser and citing her in relation to anything (especially harrassment prevention) seriously damages the credibility of your cause.
This is particularly concerning for organisations who speak the truth about Islam. The "religion of peace" has a habit of violence towards those who expose it's true nature.
The problem, IMO, is that .com(.*) sites are not exclusively commercial, and other TLDs can be commercial. If you want to run a commercial site that takes money (not advertising revenue) from sales - you should provide publicly accessible, verified, identification and contact details.
If your site doesn't sell things then you should be able to protect your details from the public.
You should also be able to not be liable for people speaking their mind, within limitations - but that's another complex issue.
Given that it's been associated with people that harass under the banner of "anti-harassment", their claims are impossible to believe. The only reason that such "anti-harassment" groups exist is for the coordinated silencing of individuals that present uncomfortable, narrative-breaking facts.
The bulk of their harassment claims end up being disproven, while their harassment of individuals is well-proven (see Chelsea "ZQ" van Valkenberg, R.H., and others).
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
What's appalling is that the /. editors must be aware of her history by now. It's been pointed out repeatedly in the comments of multiple stories posted to the front page (including OAPI's founding). They're exploiting serious issues to try to build publicity and goodwill for hypocritical, attention-seeking "activists" who clearly deserve the opposite.
Just because your speech is free - you are not resolved of the consequences. Also if Businesses are people why should they be able to hide behind ownership anoniminty when that is a courtesy they try to deny the rest of us?
It is all Gooses and ganders.
Here's something completely different to consider...
1. Someone finds a website (of someone they don't like)
2. Get the persons details from the WHOIS report
3. Load up Tor and falsely accuse the person of being a child molester
4. Wait for mob mentality to kick in and the person gets murdered as a result
And I live in the UK, a country that has a general "kill first, ask questions later" mentality when it comes to people accused of being pedophiles and child molesters.
So, yeah, this is pretty fucking bad.
I don't care very much for Randy Harper and her "harassment" escapades, but I can't wait for domain whois blockers to go away. If people are using your contact information to ring your phone off the hook, then complain to the police and phone companies. I've been a domain holder since around 2000, and my current domains since at least 2006. Never once have I been contacted by anyone malicious, except for that one registrar that likes to pretend they're the Canadian government... but I just throw their letters in the trash.
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
Never post anything I wouldn't want my kids to read, this was long time ago; knowing that one day they may search my post out.
I've never been in a flame war and the only curse word I've ever used on-line - was go figure when chatting to my youngest :) now mid 20's.
I used a handle on the Usenet and only posted there, Googling that handle now gets 12,000 hits and all of them on .com sites, they are everywhere. Chances are very good if you Google a computer help question you'll come across a post of mine as a first hit at tomshardware.com (they must pay for that honor), a place I found as many of my post were showing as being from there..
Now many sites it appears use the Usenet postings as showing how busy/active their comment sections are. At least most are now showing up as "guest" or not able to be replied to (a reply that would never be seen nor sent).
I can't be held accountable for anything posted to a .com site under that handle, as I can't vouch for any of them not being edited.
Are we talking about the woman who doxxed a debt collection agency director?
The one woman who harassed silicon valley ceo and feminist Whadwa?
Who told her ally Claire Shuman to get fucked because she wanted was to fine common ground with the group Harper wants to vilify and put on employment blacklists?
Lmao, ok.
Let's say religions are make-believe.
It doesn't change that Islam happens to currently have very violent adherents, culturally approved by many of those that happen to make up the demographic.
Your diatribe is a strawman where you discard the common sense facts.
In Syria, they might throw you off a rooftop.
Any website that accepts payment for goods or services via the Internet should be required (as part of its PCI compliance for payment processing) to have first party verifiable (i.e. not anonymous or 3rd party) contact details for their domain name.
And that's the extent to which "commercial" websites or domains should be required to be not anonymous for their owner(s).
This plan would perhaps make limited sense if companies would actually answer emails and snail mail. They often don't, especially not in the problematic cases when anonymity could also be a nuisance. No, you will not suddenly be able to contact the poker company on Malta registered by a strawman in order to tell them that they should kindly delete your credit card information. It's not going to happen.
The whole construction is useless. A de-anonymization will not give any advantage to customers of businesses, it will online increase online harassment, particularly of semi-commercial bloggers and media, and increase the amount of spurious legal letters sent to small businesses by copyright and patent trolls.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-h...
Yeah it practically screams "credibility." Slashdice should be ashamed of this.
The solution is to stop SWATTing being a viable action for silencing people.
Solve the SWAT teams and the police.
Is there anything about this post related to the topic at hand?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Several christians have moved to Islam. Why? Because EVERY religion puts faith as the only proof required. The more unlikely the faith, the better it is, the more good you are.
They are a gateway drug to fundamentalism.
Oh, by the way, your christian peeps in the USA (and in other countries: Anders Brevik anyone?) have killed far more people in the USA than any muslim attacks since 11/9.
Yet somehow it's not those racist *Christian* nutbars that are the problem (they're just insane isolated nutjobs, not to be confused with being *christian*, being told time and time again that there's a "Baby killer" out there "Killing your baby, all you need is $5000 and they'll kill your baby", that doesn't count because Bill isn't telling people what to do, he's just "telling the truth"!), but those muslims who go out and kill because someone tells them that the Great Satan is killing muslim babies and women. And those imams and hate preachers must be found and punished for telling those "lies".
Your meek and mild religion still requires you believe in insane shit just because you've been told it's true. And when you believe in one insane piece of crap because you've been told God wants it, what's to stop you from believing another insane thing? Or a hundred more?
What about that self-proclaimed christian that shot up those 9 people praying in a church?
Daddy, I'm disappointed and embarrassed to discover that you are such a pussy.
Since you can always get the information by showing legal cause and obtaining a court order, I really don't see what use de-anonymizing domain name registration serves, other than to make it less expensive to obtain large amounts of information for relatively little cost, as opposed to having to be sure enough of something that you can justify the court order.
The ICANN proposal as it stands is pretty stupid, and Doug Brent would likely have never had his name associated with it while he was COO, and Jon Postel sure as *hell* would not want his name associated with it.
Existing domain owners should be grandfathered to existing rules allowing privacy, new purchases or transfers could be forced to publish their contact info.
We're not obligated to make life maximally easy for activists, nor to sacrifice everything else we want (like transparency) for their comfort. Here, I think transparency is more important. Activists should just need to learn not to expect anonymity in owning domains, and to figure out how to do their activism without. There are more important things at stake.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
ICANN exists to make money. This plan is not helpful for that goal. They are just doing this to get people to pay attention to them again to justify the salaries they pay to their top management. In another few weeks they will announce a "compromise" that will make this all go away and make them look like they are pro-privacy (or in some other way good for the hobbyists who they actually don't give a shit about).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
and shoot you in your sleep... based off of an unverified anonymous tip... is not a problem with the internet.
Its a problem with our police force.
Rotherham: a certain set of BBC-defined "Asians" from the Middle East avoid prosecution for fear of offending their culture.
In the government: If you're high enough up in the government (individuals such as Mr. Savile), you get a pass.
In both cases, the accuser is more likely to be the target of government-protected retribution.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Really, there would be more public stoning if there was a literal interpretation of the Bible? Care to cite any sources for that invalid opinion? You do not have to accept christianity as true to note that the New testament says to not stone people, quite the opposite. Instead of stoning, individuals are instructed to forgive, now the government is encouraged to use "the sword" but that is different than stonings those are public state sponsored executions.
See:
John 8:2-11 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”]]
Romans 3:22-23 For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
11 Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. 12 The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.
I had this rule before I was even on Internet. I knew that some things come back to bite you because things change. I had these discussion about what privacy was and what should be public. We had these discussions at the age of 15.
Politicians are not even allowed to change their minds ever.
That said, I have seen things I posted on Usenet where I have the complete opposite opinion right now. People change ideas. Extra information becomes available. What was OK a while ago is not ok now and the other way around.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Wotamoron!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting
I ***LOVE*** the asshat pretending ignorance just to make a claim they loathe cost someone more than it needed.
PS in case you whine "he didn't say he was a christian!" and demand I dig THAT out too, remember you keep whining about how your country is a Christian Country, ergo "In God We Trust (but we're going to do what he's supposed to do, in case we're wrong about him existing)".
Or was that a load of bollocks?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html
Oh, right, that was a load of bollocks. The NT is a lot more than "Hey, turn the other cheek, dude!".
all you have to nullify this is have the domain "technically" owned by a third party. Then references to the owner will be traced back to a hosting company.
You can't stop people from being anonymous. Who ever came up with this idea is a dipstick.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Is there anything about your reply related to the OP or to the topic at hand?
This initiative is a joke. They abuse and harass and doxx then try to 'justify' their reasons. Randi Harper has been shown to be the fraudster she is.
That being said, domains should be anonymizable in the whois record, or else everyone with a website, unpopular/controversial opinion and/or privacy concern will need to go buy a PO box to register against. This is ludicrous, and wrong. BUT, please stop backing this sham 'anti-abuse' agency.
I just bleed for the scammers and fraudsters who are going to be directly and immediately traced by this change of policy.
As to those who are complaining about their "personal" information being made public: perhaps you'd care to explain why you don't have a business address and corporate officers for your "business"?
Sure there are people who run their businesses out of their homes, but they should not be free of identification requirements just because they're small businesses. Any business should be forced to provide valid contact information in case of problems with the business.
There are far too many "company" websites out there that don't provide any real contact information, just an email form that you can't even be assured routes your issues and complaints anywhere except the great bit bucket. They don't publish email addresses, they don't publish the names of corporate officers, and they don't publish a street address.
If you don't want to provide your contact information, don't get a .com. There are plenty of other options. The .coms should be reserved for professionally run businesses, not a free-for-all for scam artists who are willing to pony up a few dollars for a website registration and then hide behind anonymous information.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
As an early casualty of cyber-stalking (the h@[k3R worked for a credit reporting agency) I strongly resist the idea that anyone can get my information and threaten my life again.
Additionally, people who post this URL have been locked out of Facebook AND some have received Islamic death threats at their very doorstep. There is a good reason that we have layers of privacy shielding available for innocents!
http://TheReligionOfPeace.Com (Hint: Islam has nothing to do with peace except the R.I.P. kind.)
I don't see your real name anywhere... how dare you post on the internet without providing me with your full name and home address. Why should you be free of identity requirements? Why should libel and threats have free reign to hide behind pseudoanonymity? If you don't want to provide your home address, then don't post online.
A freedom-hating Canadian? Why am I not surprised.
(there was another paragraph here actually educating you, but I deleted it because you only deserve insults)
ICANN is full of bottom-feeding scum-sucking algae eaters.
They don't care about policy which furthers the best interests of Internet users they only care about enriching themselves and their fellow algae eaters at the expense of Internet users everywhere.
If you want to encourage domain owners not to lie when registering a domain the only policy available to you is offering *EVERYONE* privacy controls so there is less incentive for them to do so.
I only see two possibilities. 1. You are up to shady shit in which case you won't much care if your domain is taken away given it takes two seconds to register a new one.
2. You are a legitimate business or individual willing to go through extra hoops including paying extra fees to protect your privacy (while still offering some way to be contacted) from the mobs of idiots who inhabit the Internet. You and ONLY you will be fucked over by ICANN policy.
Those in the first category will not be affected in any way because they don't give a shit about rules and there is no credible threat of force to keep them in line. This only hurts people who want to protect themselves.
What I would very much like to see operators get together and create just the threat of an alternate root to put these assholes on notice.
It's the struggle to live a holy life.
And the bible says a shitload more than that. And, no, you don't get to pretend the OT doesn't exist (and in any case, the NT has plenty of "kill people" requirements in it of itself). Without the OT, you have no God, not Original Sin and therefore nothing to worship nor reason for JC to be thanked for dying to absolve us of sins that never happened.
If you have no OT, you have no NT.
That said, I have seen things I posted on Usenet where I have the complete opposite opinion right now. People change ideas. Extra information becomes available. What was OK a while ago is not ok now and the other way around.
Are you sure it wasn't the kool-aid? Or did this magical transformation in opinion occur when you had to start working for a living?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
A corporation has the rights of an individual so I will register under the corporation's name and address and not a person's name.
Again only small business owners get the shit end of the stick.
Way to go ICANN, if you keep proving how irrelevant you are I may get my Christmas wish and you can all pound sand.
It's no longer open; you missed it by a day.
GNSO Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Working Group Initial Report
https://www.icann.org/public-c...
It's simply called growing up and becoming an adult.
The militarization of the police force, and the incompetent rolling out of all that gear and personnel without any kind of rational checks and balances/verification is not a trivial or acceptable situation.
Frankly, I'd like to see WAY more people SWATted, until there's finally some fucking accountability. Every politician should be SWATted, for starters. Maybe SWATting the corporate masters would be even more effective.
And then there's the issue of SWAT existing primarily as a means by which to steal from the public and enforce the insane drug laws and continue to prop-up the failed War on Drugs.
Treating SWAT like it's even remotely acceptable in the first place IS the problem. Not the imaginary abuse of what is already abusive by it's very nature.
of course they do like different agencies would like to have the internet.
ICANN should be a organization of different countries of the world, who want to create a free internet.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
Seeing this modded twice as "Troll" only seems to reflect on the character of individuals that can't take hearing truth.