ICANN no privacy idea

[klinton]

just received this email from Namecheap....:

Did you know that your privacy rights are currently under threat? ICANN is
considering introducing a rule that would impact all netizens. If you care
about your online privacy, this is a big deal.

Under new guidelines proposed by MarkMonitor and other organizations who
represent the same industries that backed SOPA, domain holders with sites
associated to "commercial activity" will no longer be able to protect their
private information with WHOIS protection services. "Commercial activity"
casts a wide net, which means a vast number of domain holders will be
affected. Your privacy provider could be forced to publish your contact
data in WHOIS or give it out to anyone who complains about your website,
without due process. Why should a small business owner have to publicize
her home address just to have a website?

We think your privacy should be protected, regardless of whether your
website is personal or commercial, and your confidential info should not be
revealed without due process. If you agree, please contact ICANN right away
and demand your right to privacy and due process. Let them know you object
to any release of info without a court order. There's no time to waste --
the close date for comments is July 7, 2015.
Visit our new site RespectOurPrivacy.com
and we'll guide you through the process of calling or emailing ICANN. Thanks!

[j3rkules]

I already sent a email to ICANN. Privacy is our right and we should fight for it. More info can be found here (OP posted same link as well). After sending email dont forget to click a confirmation url which is sent to your mailbox.
https://www.respectourprivacy.com/

[j3rkules]

I've only had time to briefly skim the document, but I couldn't find the definition of "commercial site." NameCheap claims it is too broad, implying that what most might consider non-commercial sites may be swept under it. Keep in mind that it seems usually if there's a problem with a law or regulation, it's one of definitions.

Also I'm not sure what problem the new rules are attempting to solve. If there is a complaint about a site (commercial or otherwise) there is already a procedure to contact the owner, cloaked or not. If there is a legal issue with a site, again there is already a procedure for that. If the whois info is inaccurate, yet again there is already a procedure for that.

So uh, what do we need to give up our privacy for, again?

[CPA-Rush]

received this messages very annoying

[faxxaff]

I think that is just one step toward a more restricted internet. More shit to come from Icann.

[Google Expert]

Good. Means that scumbags and thieves will have a harder time hiding from justice.

[klinton]

namecheap wrote in that email that these new rules are idea of the same guys that tried to implement SOPA...

Originally Posted by celebsnudehd

Also I'm not sure what problem the new rules are attempting to solve. If there is a complaint about a site (commercial or otherwise) there is already a procedure to contact the owner, cloaked or not. If there is a legal issue with a site, again there is already a procedure for that. If the whois info is inaccurate, yet again there is already a procedure for that.

So uh, what do we need to give up our privacy for, again?

[klinton]

nothing is decided yet

Originally Posted by faxxaff

I think that is just one step toward a more restricted internet. More shit to come from Icann.

[myleene]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

Good. Means that scumbags and thieves will have a harder time hiding from justice.

I'm all for it too.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

Good. Means that scumbags and thieves will have a harder time hiding from justice.

I would believe that if identity theft were not the number one crime.

.

[dobry_den]

Originally Posted by Muad'Dib

Good. Means that scumbags and thieves will have a harder time hiding from justice.

Absolutely not. Scumbags and criminals just lie in their WHOIS.

Honest people just trying to run some adult sites in earnest don't need their websites to show up when friends, family, employers, enemies, etc. google their real name.

As history shows, it's always a mistake to justify the systematic destruction of privacy "because of the {Communists,terrorists,criminals,bad guys}".

For instance, how many terrorist attacks has the TSA stopped?

[klinton]

some people just dont get it and they are ideal sheeps....

Originally Posted by dobry_den

Absolutely not. Scumbags and criminals just lie in their WHOIS.

Honest people just trying to run some adult sites in earnest don't need their websites to show up when friends, family, employers, enemies, etc. google their real name.

As history shows, it's always a mistake to justify the systematic destruction of privacy "because of the {Communists,terrorists,criminals,bad guys}".

For instance, how many terrorist attacks has the TSA stopped?

[Diomed]

Just more ways of censorship folks.

Singling out people, sources, whistle blowers, etc.

Control control control.

Has nothing to do with the scumbags who abuse privacy.

[Barry-xlovecam]

So, I'll file a new DBA it costs $10 and pay the renewal fee in 5 years ($10) then rent a Post office Box and not pay the extra for the privacy registration. The PO box rental is an additional $110/yr

Registrant: Fuckyou Co.
Address: P.O. Box 22345
have to show a city, state and country -- big deal.
And make an email: [email protected]

The DBA makes no money so no separate tax filings are necessary.
The costs are deductible business expense just like the privacy protect is ($2.58 ea domain per year).

No big deal here for me

For my competitors in bureaucratic places where business name creation is complicated and expensive were porn is not so legal -- Bye Bye

So, I may actually benefit For my personal accounts not Xlove we have business offices and need to have addresses published -- we take money from the public (site sales) it does not matter there anyway -- no real change.

[gmartfin]

Originally Posted by dobry_den

Absolutely not. Scumbags and criminals just lie in their WHOIS.

Exactly. I can show you several that have used our company and whois info (ours is public) to set up scam offerings. In fact you can see by my sig that one of the first times I offered some domains in here to sell someone registered our company name on skype and tried to get some GFY'ers to send money for the domains. Skype wouldn't even respond to our attempted fraud complaints.

Giving up privacy rights won't stop a crook for a second.

There are also a lot of countries privacy laws that this idea will fly in the face of so honestly I think it will fail. Still it's worth making the point to the powers that be that losing privacy is a non starter.

[Tom_PM]

In 16 years I've only had one person phone me based on my whois. Do people care what domains you own? Sheesh. Guess everything is a problem when someone decides it should be one.

[klinton]

..or nothing bothers you when you don't have clue about anything ;)

Originally Posted by Tom_PM

Guess everything is a problem when someone decides it should be one.

[gmartfin]

Originally Posted by Tom_PM

In 16 years I've only had one person phone me based on my whois. Do people care what domains you own? Sheesh. Guess everything is a problem when someone decides it should be one.

We're a domain company and get calls constantly. We have a portfolio of several hundred adult domains and have had a lot of nasty calls and emails over the years from "concerned" or "outraged" blue nosers.

When we owned Vaigra.com and the email spammers were using the term to defeat spam filters I used to get a few death threats or I'm going to get you emails or phone calls etc etc a week!

Although we choose to opt out of privacy for business reasons everyone should have the freedom of choice.

[Tom_PM]

Originally Posted by gmartfin

We're a domain company and get calls constantly. We have a portfolio of several hundred adult domains and have had a lot of nasty calls and emails over the years from "concerned" or "outraged" blue nosers.

When we owned Vaigra.com and the email spammers were using the term to defeat spam filters I used to get a few death threats or I'm going to get you emails or phone calls etc etc a week!

Although we choose to opt out of privacy for business reasons everyone should have the freedom of choice.

Then you certainly see a value in the privacy service and basically need something like it in order to function normally as a business. Why do I need a warrant to see how many pairs of shoes you own but I can look up a record of domains? This area needs legal help and frankly I don't see why you should have to pay if you want it private. It should be private out of the box in the same way that information entered into almost any form is protected to some extent. Fighting to allow them to continue to charge for this service seems fundamentally wrong, but I guess it's the way to go.

[gmartfin]

Originally Posted by Tom_PM

Then you certainly see a value in the privacy service and basically need something like it in order to function normally as a business. Why do I need a warrant to see how many pairs of shoes you own but I can look up a record of domains? This area needs legal help and frankly I don't see why you should have to pay if you want it private. It should be private out of the box in the same way that information entered into almost any form is protected to some extent. Fighting to allow them to continue to charge for this service seems fundamentally wrong, but I guess it's the way to go.

Sorry Tom but you've misunderstood the issue. It isn't about fighting for PAYING for privacy but that a cadre of Trademark Holders want to take away your right to privacy.

Mark Monitor works for trademark holders and monitors for violations in domain registrations. It makes their job easier if they don't have to pursue information beyond the whois.

It's all about a group of TM holders that want to deny you and everyone the right to privacy so they can make their own lives easier.

edit: And BTW in Canada privacy is the default whois setting. You have to opt out. By law! That's why I don't think this will fly in the long run because it would violate too many countries privacy provisions

[Tom_PM]

My position is that a WHOIS record should be treated as private information already. One should not have to opt INTO privacy with money. I agree with the Canadian system if it keeps your info. private by default.

If we're going to say that it's a public record and public records can be kept private with a paid service, then the line to hide police records is going to circle the globe a few times.

Who the fuck are they anyway to tell the world my phone number? Some guy with a suit? Fuck him and his suit.

[gmartfin]

Originally Posted by Tom_PM

Some guy with a suit? Fuck him and his suit.

Now you got the right idea

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by Tom_PM

My position is that a WHOIS record should be treated as private information already. One should not have to opt INTO privacy with money. I agree with the Canadian system if it keeps your info. private by default.

If we're going to say that it's a public record and public records can be kept private with a paid service, then the line to hide police records is going to circle the globe a few times.

Who the fuck are they anyway to tell the world my phone number? Some guy with a suit? Fuck him and his suit.

as a business it should be easy to enough to not use your home phone number...i have thousands of domains. use a po box and one of my cells for the phone number. never been a problem for me. personally i'd never want to hide my info because i want people to email me offers for my domains people might just email you an offer for a domain too...if they can.