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.
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.
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.
Please don't post stupid. There is no one Islam any-more than there is one Christianity or Buddhism (or Hindu). If all Christians were "true" Christians (literally interpreted all the Bible) there'd be a lot more public stonings (throwing rocks that is). Religion is stupid full-stop - but until the world is solely occupied by those that don't need religion we have a problem. You and your broad brush of hate trying to pass as truth - which invariably hides a fundamentalist religious agenda - are part of the problem.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is there anything about this post related to the topic at hand?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
So if I take PayPal or Bitcoin I don't have too? Not a good plan.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
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.
Your comment is pointless drivel. It doesn't matter if there is one Islam or not.
Of course not... if your only tool is a hammer then only absolutes count and moderation should not be seen as a path to progress. Burn them all (one-bookians that is).[sigh]
In case that isn't clear (I suspect you have one-eyebrow, no neck, and the sort of forehead that keeps the soap out of your eyes during your infrequent showers - the world ain't black and white.
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.
Especially if they take money from you.
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 don't know what parallel universe you live in, but in this one the police and phone company don't give two shits about this sort of thing, except maybe if you are someone famous or influential.
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).
I'd mod you up if I had points - and not just for echoing my own post (not that I'm implying you copied me). The original ICAAN proposal was that .com was for commercial and be transparent - what's happened since is complex, and the cause of the problem.
In short - yes whois should match PCI, but it should be extended to all those who directly benefit from sales (not perusal) - regardless of whether they process the payments themselves or through credit cards. It won't stop scumbag "traders" but it will make it easier for consumers to distinguish (if they can be bothered) and to police scumbags. Note: that ICAAN will (if pressured) remove domain name leases if the registrant is uncontactable, the proposed change of policy is not in the interests of better business or making the market safer for consumers - it's all about invasion of privacy).
It is possible to convert to Judaism, difficult, but possible.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
What self-proclaimed Christian is that? I have not heard about someone claiming to be a Christian shooting up people praying in a church.
If you are talking about the shooting in Charleston, I have not read anything suggesting the shooter was a self-proclaimed Christian.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
It is possible to convert to Judaism, difficult, but possible.
It was so difficult for me that I decided to convert to dentistry instead. Which reminds me: what do you call a doctor who flunks out of medical school? - A dentist.
I'm afraid it's completely unworkable: making that kind of judgement, and the time wasted on doing it, is exactly what the frauds and scammers would rely on to continue their businesses with little noticeable change. Ebay fraud is a classic source of this.
True but there are few religions that call for violence against people that leave the faith.
The simple facts are that the Islamic definition of apostasy includes anyone who leaves the faith. That inst so uncommon among world religions. What is a little more unusual is that Islamic law does hold that the death penalty is appropriate for such cases.
Christianity has some similar history around heretics (centuries ago) and phrases like "thou shall not suffer a witch" are still in print. I don't think any major branch of Christan scholorships still advocates for the killing of people who leave the flock though and that isn't true of Islam.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
It is not even difficult. If you are an uncircumcised male it may be a bit painful, but it is not difficult to become a Jew. You have to claim to be one and follow the religion. Now individual sects of Judaism have their own rules as to joining that sect, but in general the proces is simple, claim to be a Jew and believe Judaism do that for a year and you will be a Jew (because if you believe, you will have done everything over the course of a liturgical year required to be a Jew not because you did it for a year.)
Because EVERY religion puts faith as the only proof required. The more unlikely the faith, the better it is, the more good you are.
Not true. This is mostly valid of semitic religions, which happened to spread over a huge chunk of the world, but several Eastern religions are belief-less.
For example, while there are some Buddhist sects that are belief-based, the older ones are all about experimenting, to the point Gautama told followers that if the techniques he was telling them didn't work, they should seek something that worked instead of losing time with it. In Japan, Shinto is so anti-doctrinal, anti-dogmatic, anti-theological and anti-moralistic, that it doesn't mind you not believing in anything at all and instead being a full-blown atheist who only takes part in its doctrine-less activities for cultural reasons.
As for other polytheisms, animisms etc., they also don't place that much importance in belief. Yes, they have it, but it isn't central. So much so, that when it comes to putting "belief" front and center, Christianity and Islam are really the exceptions to the rule.
Alas, the problem is that these minority of belief-based religions are the ones that are winning, so your argument has merit if we change the focus to saying that a religion becoming belief-based is a winning strategy on the long run. Why that's the case though, I have no idea. On the face of it, it doesn't seem to make sense, but maybe not making sense is actually the point...
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
And there you go again, confusing Islamism with Islam. Any excuse, eh?
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.
Solve the SWAT problems by disbanding all SWAT teams. Militarizing the police has gone too far, and it is the wrong tool for the wrong job. We don't need that in the U.S., it just creates more trouble!
It does invite the question though - why is it (The OT) still so prevalent. Why is it still being quoted to settle arguments in a modern context? The bits hating on gays are fine, but oh let's ignore that crazy stuff about mixed fabrics? Why? What informs these choices? It isn't the Bible. It takes all of itself equally, pitiably, seriously.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Well, it's the year 1436 AH in Islam. I guess in 1436 AD you might have found a lot of Christians acting like that. Yes, I'm effectively calling them medieval and barbaric, on account of how that's what they are.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
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.
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.
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.
But after 9/11, the Irish Republican Army did the Christian thing (in contrast, I guess, to 9/11 being Muslims doing the Muslim thing)...
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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
It is not a minority. A poll shows that 1.5 million Muslims on the UK support the Islamic state. That works out at 55%, a majority.
you are quite right. Dave420 is a notorious pot-head who doesn't realise that what he calls "Islamist" is the mainstream teaching of Islam.
“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”
At which point Mary stoned her to death.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
They aren't classifiable as Religion, though
Saying something like this is both absurd in light of 150 years of Comparative Religions research, and also extremely dangerous.
In the second half of the 19th century the Japanese government, seeing how Western (idiot) missionaries were all too happy to declare Shinto not a religion as a way to convince the Japanese people to convert to Christianity, adopted this "Shinto isn't a religion" definition to heart. As a result, when it came time to do the "turn into Fascism" that led to a brainwashed population, tons of war crimes and the disastrous Japanese campaign in WW2, they justified their manipulation and usage of Shinto for this purpose by arguing that, since Shinto wasn't a religion, imposing that all the population follow it didn't violate their constitutional right to freedom of religion. After all, any Japanese was still free to follow an "actual" religion, or to be an atheist, while forced to bow to the photo of the Emperor and being taught the marvels of suicide for the descendant of the Sun goddess, no contradiction there at all.
Definitions matter, and this attempt at trying to reduce the term "religion" to "faith-based belief system" is a double edged sword that cuts those who adopt it.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
I failed to find a single reference in there to the shooter being a Christian, or claiming to be a Christian. So, do you want to try again?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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...
I think the Christians' rule is that any part of the Mosaic law reiterated by Paul in the New Testament is still in effect. This includes "murderers" and "men who lie with men". --Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
True but there are few religions that call for violence against people that leave the faith.
That's a corner case - and (Judeao-)Christianity has plenty of it's own. I'm not going to attempt to defend any nut-job belief system.
Nor am I going to attack moderates - as most main stream religions tend to be. To do so only gives strength to the extremist elements.It's the fundamentalist (one-bookian), the only faith is our faith, the written word is the literal word of god that cause the most problems. In this case the Caliphatists. People whose espouse views such as yours are just as bad by lumping all followers of a particular branch of a religion in one bucket and labelling them as extremists.
Both the Islamists and the Christians pull their excuses for extremism from the same sources - the Old Testament. And justify it with later "books". (Islam - the Koran, Christianity has Paul (and Mark).
The simple facts are that the Islamic definition of apostasy includes anyone who leaves the faith. That inst so uncommon among world religions. What is a little more unusual is that Islamic law does hold that the death penalty is appropriate for such cases.
Which just goes to show how little you know about Christianity, and other religions. They all justify death to unbelievers and until they reject and remove those sections of their Bibles - will continue to revive those practices. Any that leave the faithful are unbelievers.
Christianity has some similar history around heretics (centuries ago) and phrases like "thou shall not suffer a witch" are still in print. I don't think any major branch of Christan scholorships still advocates for the killing of people who leave the flock though and that isn't true of Islam.
Many branches of Christianity preach that the Bible (whatever they deem to be "The Bible") is the literal word. Maybe you should actually read the entire Bible?
As for current practises... yes, many of those that claim to be Christians still kill those they deem as unbelievers. And witches. Ironically people like you pretend those practices don't exist by claiming "they aren't real Christians". But the LRA believes they are.
Ireland would not have had much of it's wars without the Catholic/Protestant divide. The Holy Roman Empire was hundreds of years of war on unbelievers - with special emphasis on those that left the true faith.
The whole - current practices, and centuries ago, is a straw man that provides little comfort to those who study history - or who read a little more widely than you. Two hundred years is the blink of an eye in religious history - which is full of repeats. The Caliphists are not the only groups preaching End-Times bullshit, and we are currently on the brink of a return to the fucking Crusades (of stupidity). The US in particular (Australia too) is home to many that believe their duty is to create the conditions that will bring about the return of Jesus and there ascension into Heaven before the war to end all wars. Killing people in the name of your mythical sky god is just stupid. Just as stupid as ignoring some instances and focusing on others (ignore killing doctors, and blacks - look over there they just killed an ex-follower).
tl;dr? You're no better than the Caliphists. Each has something in their eye that stops them from seeing clearly - each builds a platform of righteousness to justify their hatred. I fear the growing cult of "muscular Christians" (Soldiers for Christ is not a empty name) just as much as the Caliphists who seek to provoke them into the last and final battle that both religions have as core elements of the books they base their religion on.
I am an atheist. I am also a Buddhist. The two do not conflict at all. I am still waiting for a reply for my last visa application. I want to return to Nepal and spend some more time in refuge before my life is busy again. I am losing hope but there are alternatives.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
http://www.catholic.com/magazi...
Now, why do you have to analyze a joke so much? Would it have been better if I had said that Jesus stoned her instead?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.