Should Domain-Name Registrations Require A Verifiable Real Name? (blogspot.com)

lpress writes: The Internet was a major source of news -- fake and real -- during the election campaign. The operators of fake sites, whether motivated by politics or greed, are often anonymous. We avoid voter fraud by requiring verification of ones name, age and address. A verifiable real-names domain registration policy would discourage information fraud.
"I understand the wish to protect the privacy of a person or organization registering a domain name," argues the linked-to blog post, "but there is also a public interest." ICANN already requested comments on this back in 2015, but I'm curious what Slashdot's readers think. Should domain name registrations require a verifiable real name?

Comments

Discourage?

[Calydor]

Just two days ago there was an article about a guy who put up what he thought were satirical stories, with the main actors all having HIS OWN NAME.

And people still bought it.

With as little fact-checking as we see today, do you really think a journalist is gonna do a thorough WHOIS lookup on the domain before rushing to post, let alone the average internet surfer?

Re:Discourage?

[SirSlud]

That requires a metric ton of qualifications. (What does still bought it mean? What article? Actors in an article?)

I mean, I'd think the answer would just be "yes". If you want to own property, you need to put it in your name. Journalists pay the price of being more transparent than pretty much anyone else out there. I don't understand the opposition to it. The easier it is to not be transparent, the easier it is for organizations of people, be it companies or otherwise, with the money to do so.

Re:Discourage?

[SirSlud]

At this point, the civilized world doesn't need to worry about the government coming at them - they need to worry about the multinationals coming at their government. Trade agreements are good in theory. This is the problem. People look at trade agreements between countries. They are more like agreements that companies want to make, with no particular interest in being fair. Citizens tend to have no particular interest in being fair either, favoring what is best locally. Governments *should* in theory be working towards a general contract as we do locally. Compromises that are beneficial. But people vote for governments or vote for weakening the power governments have over the single minded goal of industry.

Re:Discourage?

[Etcetera]

Not when money is to be made, which is what wins in the end. My favorite fake news wave wasn't the election stuff, but the "plague' of "social justice warriors" "taking over the country." that made the internet so much over the pasty year or so. Never met any "SJWs" in real life, despite travelling around a lot, spending a lot of time in public places, and yes going to College Campuses. Mostly in California of all places, around San Francisco even! Surely the heartland of SJW scourge, even though it was almost non existent.

I find this, Anonymous Coward, extraordinarily difficult to believe. I'm still quite close to a number of people who are in college at universities here in San Diego, and it's clear from Facebook postings that there are many what can safely be described as "SJW"'s out there. Either you're intentionally avoiding them or we don't agree on what SJW refers to.

SCOTUS: Anonymity necessary for free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

the US Supreme Court has already ruled that anonymity is a necessary requirement to protect free speech. And it's easy to see why.

case closed.

Re:SCOTUS: Anonymity necessary for free speech

[lhowaf]

I don't understand why buying a domain name would be considered free speech. There are plenty of anonymous posts on /. but I don't think any of them were made by the domain name owner (sourceforge media, llc). If domain owners are required to respond to lawful requests/demands, the owner must be reachable.

Re:SCOTUS: Anonymity necessary for free speech

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I don't understand why buying a domain name would be considered free speech.

What part of "slippery slope" or "chilling effect" don't you understand?

Without your own domain you're at the mercy of others to get your words out. (In case you hadn't noticed, a couple of the big-name services are currently engaged in purging "hateful" posters and suppressing display of articles ferom "fake news" sites. When you get down to the actual posters and sites suppressed, the actual definitions seem to actually be "conservative".)

Just as the right to free speech and a free press includes the right to become your own publisher - whether printing leaflets, pamphlets, or newspapers. Look at the documents from the U.S. revolution, things like _The Federalist Papers_. To do that effectively today you'd need your own domain - and publishing your contact information would bring the wrath of several power groups down on your head.

Re:SCOTUS: Anonymity necessary for free speech

[HanzoSpam]

"Chilling effect" is the intended outcome here. Don't kid yourself.

Re:SCOTUS: Anonymity necessary for free speech

[felrom]

You don't understand; this is the world of a post-Trump election. The left is now beating the drum in support of all kinds of issues they used to oppose: censorship; stripping internet anonymity; gun ownership; violent revolution; succession. Their surveillance state that they loved and supported under Obama, they're now demanding he tear down in his final months lest Trump become its master. The office of the unaccountable god-emperor President, beloved by the American left just 13 days ago, is now their greatest fear.

Simply put, the tantrum response to the election will continue, regardless of previous beliefs, regardless of well-understood reasons for why some things are the way they are, and especially regardless of any Supreme Court ruling. It's all gone upside-down and you should expect to see the left continue to attack free speech. What began years ago as "political correctness" and accelerated more recently into "micro-aggression" and "safe-spaces," has now turned on the afterburner and is proceeding a mach speed into naked censorship.

Free speech was a vital tool for the left 50 years ago when they were the minority. When they became the majority it was no longer necessary. Now that they're a retreating and threatened majority, it's a danger to them.

Anonymity

[darkain]

This is all you need to know: https://www.eff.org/issues/ano...

Re:Anonymity

[No Longer an AC]

Damn, I already used all my mod points.

EFF says it better than I could.

It sounds like a good idea to require a real name, but simply for free speech doing so could have chilling effects and work to silence people.

Most of us are posting somewhat anonymously here even though I don't believe it's an impenetrable mask. We build up our own karma (or lose it) and are identifiable by pseudonym so others can judge our credibility based on past posts.

Complete anonymity can lead to complete lack of credibility which is why so few people here pay any attention to Anonymous Cowards at all.

I hope no one takes this as a challenge, but for some random web surfer I would hope it would not trivial to take off my mask. I'm still careful about what I say, but it's unlikely anyone will google my real name and be able to find everything I've posted here or on other sites and that makes me feel free enough to post at all.

If I were of the wrong political persuasion in a country like Turkey right now I would either be afraid to post at all or I would take greater steps to hide my identity for obvious reasons and yet I believe free speech is a basic human right.

Re:Anonymity

[Kjella]

Welcome to the difficulty of having say a justice system. Do you want to put innocent people in jail? No. Do you want to let guilty people go free? No. But the system is imperfect and you must make a choice. It's the same with anonymity. if you allow it people will make blatant lies and false accusations. If you don't, the people in harm's way won't come forward because they'll get fucked. There is no perfect solution, pick the lesser evil.

No

[rmdingler]

Anonymity can be ridiculed, even dismissed out of hand... talking to you, you fracking cowards!!

It must still be allowed.

Now Thats a Stupid Question

[rtb61]

Domain names are a nickname for an IP address, nothing more. Should you require real name to associate a nickname with an IP address, well, kinda up to each and every single domain name registry, they want a real name, then they get a real name, they don' want a real name, they don't get a real name.

When it comes to fake news, well no one is worse than the multi-national news organisations the very worst example of fake news being Fox News with CNN a close second. So, it is easy, simply make 'NEWS' are protected word, you use that word in your title or identity yourself with that in a substantive sense ie using that nomenclature to attract an audience to generate views and or revenue, than when challenged on veracity you should be required to prove it in court, big or small. Fake news in a corporate sense also means claiming to be a news station when all you produce is celebrity pulp to sell shit, throw in a tiny amount of real news to bring in viewers and censor everything you come across that your main advertisers do not wish the greater public to see. So fake news channels like Fox News and CNN how do you categorise active censorship and not on an individual basis but as a cartel.

Now the main propagandists are just all butt hurt because they have been fucked over by independent media as main stream media could no longer steal an election and nobody much gives a fuck what they write about any more. New York TImes, have not bothered with it in over 4 years, why log into something I could no longer be bothered to read. The BBC went real bad when the 'fake' conservatives took over and stacked it with corporate propagandists from the top down.

In the most absurd fashion imaginable to get more accurate news about any country the last place you go to is that countries news site. So for the US go to RT for Russia, well, you are stuck with the Beeb (BBC) there are still plenty of good journalists in there, etc. Real legislation is required to protect the word NEWS, why, because it is no different from yelling fire in a crowded fire and that is exactly what most of those fuckers have been doing for decades, even lead to war and millions of deaths just in the last couple of decades (US news, you are shite, do not use for anything, except local community news channels which can be quite good and are often far more accurate than the main stream media channels).

Re:Now Thats a Stupid Question

[skids]

Domain names are a nickname for an IP address, nothing more

No they are resources in their own right. In fact a domain name need not even have an A or AAAA record. It can point to other types of resources.

Anonymity protects from flaming poo

[chubs]

The problem with real-name policies is their speech-chilling effect. Better that 1000 bogus sights hide under anonymity than one legitimate individual feels too intimidated to share his views. And before you get all "Don't you think the government can figure out who you are anyway?", I'm not referring to intimidation and reprisal from three-letter agencies. I'm talking about the guy with views on local building ordinances that may not agree with his next door neighbor but doesn't want that neighbor leaving flaming bags of poo on his doorstep if he voices them.

Voter id example?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

In the US, the same people currently complaining about fake news sites also tend to be the ones who fight voter ID programs. I can't see how a "verified person to has web site" would fly with that crowd.

SuperPACs can go first

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a hell of a lot more 'public interest' in knowing who is behind the SuperPACs that spend orders of magnitudes more money to influence elections, but it's already been ruled that the right to participate anonymously in the political process is still more important.

After those damnable SuperPAC donors shed their anonymity then we can talk about whether to give up anonymity for Internet publishers.

Re:SuperPACs can go first

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Money doesn't influence elections.

Ohhh, that must be why so many poor people become president.

And that must be why large-money donors and super-pacs pour hundreds of millions of dollars into elections, because it has no influence. No siree, none at all. *cough*

Re:SuperPACs can go first

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I think the GP meant that in a "guns don't kill people" sense. Obviously, they do, but not simply by themselves.

Then it's fair to say that heart attacks don't kill people either. It's just the "stoppage of blood flow" that causes death. And car accidents don't kill people, it's the crushing and impact forces on the body that are really to blame.

Obviously no one thinks that a pallet full of $100 bills sitting in a locked room sways an election, it's when the money is used to buy people and influence events that it has an effect. But honestly, I don't see where clarifying this distinction serves any purpose.

Re:SuperPACs can go first

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

That's not the money's fault, or the person who uses it either.

That's where we disagree....unlimited amounts of money can and do subvert the course of democracy. With the Citizens United decision the outcome of elections has more or less been handed over to those with the deepest pockets. If you don't see anything wrong with that, perhaps democracy is not your cup of tea.

Re:SuperPACs can go first

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Money can do nothing.

Which, again, is why super-pacs pour hundreds of millions of dollars into elections. Because it does nothing, nothing at all!

commentsubject

[Falos]

- Shouldn't.
- Couldn't anyway.
- You're still gonna try.

30 years and we still think we can control the internet.

No.

[ArylAkamov]

I own a few parody and """troll""" websites, so I'm biased here.

But I don't think the real name or information of a URL owner should be available to the public. To law enforcement, sure, assuming their reasons for wanting such information are valid and come with a warrant.

I'd rather not have my personal email/name/place of work be flooded with "offended" children that can't understand sarcasm and/or satire demanding that I be fired, thanks.

Re:No.

[Beeftopia]

Anonymity is important on the web. Powerful political or business figures won't take kindly to Joe Average posting unflattering information about them. Anonymity facilitates the flow of information. Also it provides a modicum of protection from the unhinged or stalkers.

Now, must it be absolute? No. If someone is engaging in criminal activity, a warrant should be able to unseal the owner's name. Otherwise, I don't see a societal benefit from forcing domain name registrants to be public information.

There's going to be more howling to "curate" the news and muzzle the Internet as a result of the latest election. One side was the establishment candidate, and that candidate lost. Many very powerful people supported that candidate. They're not going to shrug and walk away from something they perceive thwarted their efforts. That's not how they became powerful.

You can already work around this

[Beeftopia]

"Perfect Privacy LLC" - if you look up clintonemail.com, you'll see them. I've looked up various site owners and their name has popped up before. When you search for the owner of the domain, instead of the true registrant, you'll find this company. There are probably others like it.

"That doesn't sound good at all. Clinton's private email system added third parties into the equation, meaning that a hacker could effectively snoop on US government mail without directly hacking US government servers. Nielsen explained that the domain Clinton used for her private email service—clintonemail.com—is owned by a Florida company called "Perfect Privacy, LLC" and registered to another private company called Network Solutions. The relationship between the two companies is unclear since some details have been masked." -- Gizmodo

No for all kinds of other reasons

[EmperorOfCanada]

If I ran a site about tennis and one of my users Insulted one of the various touchy members of crap country royalty around the world, I could find myself detained as I cross some border. Minimally, I could see some country like that holding me until I handed the keys over to my servers so that they could sift through them to see if they could identify the person who did the insults. Or they could just charge me.

Then there are the legions of US lawyers. I could use a link to another site and they sue me for IP theft as I linked to their site. Or defamation, or whatever shitbrained law that a US lawyer thinks they can exploit to ruin my life for a few bucks.

These are two problems that took me two seconds to think of. I suspect if you think this all the way through it won't just be sort of a bad idea, but the sort of idea that only bad people come up with.

Re:Get used to it.

[BlueStrat]

Once the 'Freedom Gang' gets going, everything online will require a real name - and address - so the Patriots can have frank and candid discussions with those that don't seem American enough.

Nah, Obama and his "choom-gang" Democrat buddies are already lame ducks, though they tried to float the idea of requiring internet access be conditional on authenticating your personal identity, and along with their other oh-so-popular ideas, witch-hunts for whistle-blowers, and general crony-capitalist corruption, brought us Trump.

Thanks, Obama and Democrats! You created this monster.

Strat

Simple and obvious solution

[Kupo]

Just like .edu, .gov all require valid certification (to a degree) for ownership, they could simply institute a new TLD where the registry requires ID validation, and prohibits all privacy services for WHOIS information. Enforce a strict contact availability policy, and you have as good of a system as you can pragmatically setup. As an opt-in TLD, no one would be forced to sacrifice their privacy for their current TLDs, and the sites that want to be legitimate sources of information can host their content on their verified domains.

I don't for a minute think this addresses the problem of the masses believing everything they read on traditional .com sites -- and also especially on social networks. But going this route could potentially improve the accessibility of credible information for those that can be bothered to source-check.

Re: Buy a business license or add an alias

[Threni]

Or just don't bother with the domain name. Use the IP address.

Deanonymization has never helped

[Wuhao]

For the past few years, all we've heard from Google, Facebook, et al., is how deanonymization is going to end trolling and make people Take The Internet Seriously. It hasn't worked. In fact, it has consistently failed spectacularly, and made every problem worse. Doxxing is easier than ever, and is a virtually standard part of arguing on the Internet. Privacy has gone to shit, and the demand for phenomenally unworkable "Right To Be Forgotten" laws has increased, without any concern for the fact that we wouldn't need to forget so many things if people were able to simply remain anonymous.

So no, we should not require real names for domains, or for Youtube accounts, or email, or whatever inane thing it's going to be next. I'm very skeptical that we should have a public WHOIS registry at all, because for many years it has been reduced to a useless racket for registrars to sell "domain privacy" services.

Re:Don't overlook unions

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Labor unions spend far more than "large-money donors and super-pacs".

If you have a citation that appears to prove that assertion, feel free to post it.

um, you have just been proven wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

A little more than a week ago,a guy opposed by all the Wall Street bankers managed to win the White House spending only a fraction of the money his opponent spent. Hillary ran over a hundred million dollars of TV ads that were un-answered by Trump, she had a number of super-PACs dumping all the dirt they could on Trump, including that "grab 'em by the pussy" tape, the stolen tax documents, endless recordings of Trump saying the worst things he has ever said... she dumped her entire war chest on him which was supposed to have been twice the size of Obama's (which was the first to ever spend $1Billion+).

Citizens United is just a left-wing mantra, a progressive talking point. The "money buys the White House" claim is now a PROVEN false meme.

It turns out that voters still matter more than the money of wealthy special interests.