Canadian Domain Name Registrants To Get More Privacy 89
An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian Internet Registration Authority, which manages the dot-ca
domain, plans to change its WHOIS policy to better protect domain name registrants. Quoting the Canadian Press: '[Law Professor Michael] Geist said the changes have raised the ire of law enforcement and intellectual property lawyers, who have used the Whois search to track down sexual predators and copyright violators.' Despite this, the organization seems committed to following through with the reforms."
Geist also gave a talk recently about digital advocacy; the effectiveness of using modern technology to raise concerns and share ideas about issues such as privacy and copyright law.
Privacy.... (Score:5, Insightful)
A day without privacy is like... well, like a day living in a police state.
As for the reaction to this.... waaaaaa fucking waaaaahhh
While it's still part of the law, you police people will just have to do your jobs the way you were meant to... investigate, get warrants, follow the procedures laid out in the law. Remember, protect and serve? It hasn't changed. You are still charged with those roles in society. If you forget that, or ignore that, you are no better than warlords in mogadishu.
Get over it.
Re:Think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Think of the children! We do (Score:5, Insightful)
Falsification ought to be criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
Or more to the point, if a domain has false information listed, the domain ought to be invalid and can be revoked. I dare any bona fide business to apply for a business license from a government agency giving the kind of information I've seen on most whois databases... especially the dot com types. Business license information is public information and often even published in network accessible databases as well... many even on the web interestingly enough.
Unfortunately, the domain registrars themselves have been allowed to be lax in the kind of information they expect, and is IMHO an example of ICANN and its corruption and mis-management.
For those individuals who are worried about privacy, this isn't to say that you can't communicate and use the internet for private communications. But a domain name was never meant to be private. Insisting upon privacy for what should be public information is a mis-use of the resource.
This is also a situation where a free and just society is required so you can have the freedom to be able to publish your name in a public forum and not fear retribution from those who may want to do harm to you. The real reasons for the desire for privacy is protection from criminal behavior... and it is the criminals who mis-use this information (aka sending spam, threating letters, or abusive prosecution) that should be punished severely. In other words, the desire for privacy stems from a break-down of government in establishing order and consistently prosecuting genuine criminal behavior that most people would consider to be criminal.
Epic Fail? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see your logic. We've got some of the best laws (for consumers rights) in the world, we've got freedom of speech and protection from unlawful persecution.
On top of all that, we've got legalized file sharing in the form of a cd levy! [neil.eton.ca] (Yes, you americans have it too, but your laws still allow the RIAA to run rampant...) Well, so long as it is paid, there is no criminal basis for non-profit filesharing lawsuits!
Why not get a court order to get whois? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Spams and scams (Score:3, Insightful)
While I doubt the whole address needs to be in the whois info a contact email/ number would be preferable to blocking everything.
Re:Spams and scams (Score:3, Insightful)
Possible use, but relying on the choices between, say, Administrative Contact and Technical Contact seems a bit hit-and-miss, given the general nature of that information, and the distinct possibility that the contact may be an arms-length individual like a corporate officer or VP, or a third-party like a lawyer. At any rate, I'd guess the usual abuse, postmaster, hostmaster, etc. addresses would be just as accurate or useful if needing to contact someone by email.
Re:Spams and scams (Score:5, Insightful)
I have domains -- all of them are
All in all, not bad for 3 domains. Personally, I don't believe that fake information in the whois database should be allowed. I believe that the whois registry is like a phone book, or address list, and, because dns addresses are public, the registrants should be listed.
But maybe that's just me.
Provable ownership? (Score:3, Insightful)
A whois record, at the very least, is proof that I own the domain. In fact, I believe certain obfuscation services, like GoDaddy's, may actually involve the registrar taking legal ownership of the domain on your behalf.
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Privacy.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought it was to collect and serve....
At least with most forms of crime enforcement these days they seem to pursue with any vigor...
Re:Spams and scams (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Epic Fail? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, every reasonable person would want to stop the KKK, holocaust deniers and is generally against racism and sexism. Those of us that stand up for those rights don't disagree - we just think the cost of allowing the gov't to proscribe some speech is worse than just living with that speech. It comes down to an unwillingness to allow any one point of view, no matter how wonderful or evidently right, to become an orthodoxy imposed by the gov't. After all, if the KKK is such a terrible idea, it will eventually die out (and pretty much has).
There is only one acceptable response to "bad speech" and that is "good speech" correcting it and persuading people that you are right. If you have to restrict speech that is opposed to your values then you must not have much faith in the power of your ideas.
Re:Think of the children! We do (Score:3, Insightful)