Congress Eyes Whois Crackdown 396
Decius6i5 writes "The Washington Post is reporting on a Congressional hearing in which it was proposed that putting false or misleading information in your DNS whois record should be a federal crime. Texas Representative Lamar Smith is quoted as saying 'The Government must play a greater role in punishing those who conceal their identities online.' The article claims 'Smith and Berman drafted the bill after receiving complaints from the entertainment and software industries that much of their material is made available for free on Web sites whose owners are impossible to track down because their domain name registrations often contain made-up names.' Its funny, I don't recall the RIAA having any trouble tracking down P2P users whose IP addresses didn't have any DNS names associated with them at all. This isn't the first time the issue has been raised in Congress but apparently Congress hasn't gotten any more clued after several hearings."
I find this idea disturbing. (Score:5, Insightful)
And, at the same time, the WHOIS database is a feeding trough for spammers and scammers, encouraging otherwise honest people to put false information into their WHOIS records just to keep those spammers and scammers from getting their names, email addresses, snail mail addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers, mothers' maiden names, and whatever else their registrars ask for.
I could create a brand new, non-obvious email address on one of my domain accounts and put it in as the Admin Contact for a record I own, and use that email address absolutely nowhere else, and I bet that within three months that email address would be getting buckets full of spam.
There's an old saying you still see on bumper stickers, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." While that idea might be more accurately stated as "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their own kids," the original sentiment holds for WHOIS, that is to say, "When falsified WHOIS data is outlawed, only outlaws will falsify their WHOIS data."
If the RIAA and MPAA can't find the fake WHOIS record owners, how is the government going to track down the WHOIS record owners and punish them? Why waste time passing a law that, in the end, only punishes honest people who would rather not give their unlisted home phone numbers out when buying a domain name for their kids?
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Just spend a little bit of time trying to track them down. Then cancel their domains. Let them present themselves for identification when they want the domains un-canceled.
A fully validated WHOIS database would make it trivial to enforce punishment against people who use spammers to promote the websites and scams on said websites registered to them.
Hmmm.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Any other ideas?
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:5, Interesting)
The current cost of a domain name is about $10. You can't get any type of address verification/authentication lookup from a reliable database for less than $20. If you want the result to be at all reliable it would cost at least $100 and most likely $200 - sound familliar? Thats what SSL certs cost.
The rule for domain names is quite simple, you use a false address, someone complains, you are likely to never get notice of the complaint, you lose the domain. Or you use a false address, you never get the renewal notice, you lose the domain. You have no idea how many IETF privacy nuts complained about not getting their renewal notices after typing in bogus address data, well DUUHHH!!
The only reason that WHOIS data is public in the first place is that when ICANN was being set up the competing registrars insisted that the rules should allow them to see Network solution's customer list so they could spam them with transfer offers. The other registrars then did what everyone else has done since, they created nominees to hide the true identities of the holder.
WHOIS would be best shut down. The spammers are never going to give valid data anyway. Instead use the reverse DNS to advertise a contact address to go to when you have a problem with info comming from an IP record. Nice thing here is that in many cases the delegation of reverse DNS reaches exactly to the level you would want to pick up a phone to talk to someone about a hacker comming from their net.
Of course you would need to authenticate any use of that data, telephone numbers would only be given out on a need to know basis etc. But we could do a lot better than whois. I have never traced a hacker successfully using whois data.
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's crazy. If someone's DNS server isn't retiring an old entry that puts my domain at an improper address, I want to be able to reach them with as little hassle as possible. Not demand contact information from my friends in Australia who pointed out that they couldn't get to my site.
(That's happened to me, BTW... www.grnet.com [grnet.com] somehow ended up having an old DNS entry with a fubar'd expiration date, but only on a high-level machine in Australia.)
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:4, Interesting)
When renewal time comes around I get two emails, one to the billing contact email and one to the one I gave register.com/godaddy. I also recieve a letter in the mail to my real address reminding me to pay up.
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:4, Interesting)
This may not validate the identity of the user, but it should go a long way toward validating the email address, snail mail address, and phone number that the user provided.
The registrar could even require this validation to be performed once a year, initiated by sending an email to the given address and a letter to the snail mail address. This would be good incentive for people to keep their information updated.
Other than the initial setup, this process shouldn't come close to costing $5 for each validation attempt.
As for identity verification; I have no idea how to do that. In the US, the social security office only wants to see your (or *someone's*) birth certificate before they will issue a replacement card. The department of motor vehicles only wants to see your (or *someone's*) birth certificate or social security card before they will issue a replacement driver's license. Neither the social security card nor the birth cetificate has *ANY* information on it that can be used to even roughly validate my identity. The fact that a driver's license and passport both rely on those documents for verification is absurd.
After having my wallet stolen and having to get my license replaced, I'm no longer surprised that identity theft is so easy and common. All you have to know is a name, their parent's names, their birthplace, and their birthdate, and with that you can get a birth certificate for $5-$10. You'll find out their social security number after waiting 2 weeks for the social security office to mail you "your" new card. Maybe now that many DMV offices do your license photo electronically, a clerk *might* pull up "your" previous photo and question you if you look too obviously different (oh wow! I used to look even fatter than I thought! This diet is amazing!), but maybe not. After that, and maybe a little research on the web, you've got pretty much all you need to check credit reports (to get credit card numbers, etc) and obtain a passport.
I had to do all this for myself once, and the ultimate proof that I was me is that I was able to obtain a copy of a birth certificate with my name on it.
However, I don't know what more they could require and still have validation be possible. Maybe eventually, the social security office or the DMV will start requiring a full set of fingerprints for initial cards or licenses, and a new set for comparison before a replacement is issued.
Maybe then identity verification could work.
Hang on a minute (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. And the check would be done in every language from English (different variants of it) to Urdu? Also, let's hope the person isn't hearing impaired.
Let's hope the person is able to read the instructions.
Now I understand. I don't know how to bre
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the only reason the whois data is publicly available is because it lways has been, even when it was hosted by DARPA, and it used to contain a lot more info than just domain reg stuff, such as email to realworld name, what domains were registered to sp
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:3, Informative)
Note, prefixes of the form N11 are never valid. Since those are used for special services (and it is now defined for all N from 2 to 9, btw, see the North American Numbering Plan Administration [nanpa.com] page for details.)
Makes me want to kick somebody... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:3, Interesting)
A fully validated WHOIS database would also make it trivial to enforce punishment against those who express politically dissident views. It would no longer be possible to create a domain for political discussion without the government knowing who you are and where you are.
But I guess you're okay with that scenario as long as i
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean like this [domainsbyproxy.com]? The whois record for my domain does not list my info.
RegisterFLY (Score:3, Informative)
I posted a Registrar Comparison [danhendricks.com] on my web site, but it lacks Network Solutions since I have never tried them. If anyone has any expe
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:2, Funny)
By your measure, I think correctly it would be, "When falsified WHOIS data is outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot th
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's exactly what I did... and had exactly the result you described. Hundreds of spam messages a week to an address used only for domain registrations.
However, I seem to have found a solution. A poster in the hallowed halls of Slashdot was trying to determine the level of email harvesting, but wasn't getting any bites. But the word "spam" was in his email address... so I tried a new domain registration email address that also has "spam" in it.
Results after about a month: no spam to the "domspam@..." address. I don't know if perhaps they're sending mail to "dom@...", 'cause I'm not monitoring it. But the only messages I've recieved at "domspam" are valid messages from the registrars.
Of course, I haven't bothered to update my snail mail address since I moved. I hope the folks who bought our house are enjoying the offers for low-cost hosting and convenient "renewals". I guess I'll have to add that to my growing dossier of criminal activities [dixie-chicks.com]...
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:2, Funny)
You WERE onto something, but not anymore.
Since you posted this, now the spammers will simply stop the filtering and the heck with rejected addresses
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:3, Informative)
Don't underestimate the enemy. Just because they're weasels doesn't make them stupid. There's money involved.
-B
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:4, Funny)
answer to problems (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think WHOIS data should be *entirely* optional. Just because I happen to run a domain does not mean that I want my email address, home address, real name and telephone number availible to anyone who wishes to see it. If not optional, then it *definitely* should not be criminal to give false information.
In more direct terms, government, get your ugly freakin nose out of the internet.
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:5, Informative)
Trouble is, that's not what they're doing. They're talking about creating harsher penalties for people who commit fraud with a website registered under fake credentials.
They're not going to go hunting you down for having false information. Rather, if they catch you committing fraud on your website, they'll tack another few years onto your sentence if the site info wasn't accurate.
You gotta stop believing what they say in the front-page blurbs.
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really think that it makes sense to provide a harsher penalty for people who have registered under fake credentials?
I might agree if the registration under fake credentials was done solely for the purpose of committing crime - maybe.
Don't the courts already take into account how heineous your actions were, presumably including hte use of false identification, in committing the crime? What does the stacking of penalty after penalty really accomplish?
Unfortunately I can see this leading to innoc
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:2)
Right now it's set to your isp.. you are also able to set it to an agreeable third party.
Setting it to the wrong info only makes it that much harder for those of use who use the w
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:5, Informative)
Very simple. If the registrar can't contact you because you gave them bogus info then the registration gets dumped. Quite an effective and fair punishment - you are abusing a priviledge so that priviledge gets revoked.
Although I do understand where you are comming from with regard to address harvesting from public WHOIS records. If you were to implement this policy you would have to provide the option for registrants info to remain private to the registrar. Then it wouldn't be such a burden for honest people to provide the correct information.
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite an effective and fair punishment - you are abusing a priviledge so that priviledge gets revoked.
No, I'm buying a service, not using a privelege. Or should the state be able to confiscate your car if its registration expires?
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:3, Informative)
that idea might be more accurately stated as "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their own kids,"
Your statement would imply that there are a lot of accidental shootings. You seem to be buying the gun control and media hype. Statistically, there are VERY few. Taken from guncite.com [guncite.com]
"The risk of being a victim of a fatal gun accident can be better appreciated if it is compared to a more familiar risk...Each
Read the terms and conditions when you register! (Score:5, Interesting)
When you read the terms and conditions when you register, you are required to put in valid whois information. The problem is many registrars do not enforce it. Then when people complain, the registrar may do someone about it in 6 months, and then update it with invalid information. ICANN investigated some reports who network solutions, but failed to do anything. One address from their investigation, 123 Yellow Brick Road, Oz, Kansas, is still there.
RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
In other words, you can fake your WHOIS information as long is your website isn't used to commit fraud or distribute copyrighted material. As l
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:3, Informative)
The bill would not affect people who are trying to safeguard their privacy because it only makes it a crime to submit false registration data when it is done to help commit a crime, said Mark Bohannon, senior vice president for public policy at the Software & Information Industry Association, which supports the bill.
About whois... (Score:3, Informative)
I get mail on a regular basis to these addresses from such companies as: IBM, Microsoft, HP, SUN, AT&T and all the other companies who have paid tens of millions of dollars to DC lobbyists to make sure the domain name system is the way they want it.
Each time year hear some DC inside
Re:I find this idea disturbing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me?
People who are anonymous must be punished?
Are all Texans as offensive as their elected representative?
Hey, terrorist boy, Congressman Smith is right.
Why did you know that once there where these three guys, three anonymous agitators, and they hid behind a fake name, "Publius", and wrote a bunch of stuff that completely changed the government of their country?
Anyway, these three guys started out as rebels and terrorists and traitors, and once things got settled down again, first thing they done was to get together all anonymous like, and they decided to change things yet again.
But they figured that people might not be as convinced of their ideas ifin people know'd it was these rebel traitors behind the ideas, so they made up that fake name "Publius" and published under it.
And what they wrote completely changed the government of their country. It got rid of the Articles of Confederation and made it impossible that the country would ever again be ruled by King George, who they'd rebelled against, and it set up a Constitution and a central government -- actually it was a Federation and them anonymous papers was called The Federalist Papers -- and as a by-product of the debate over them papers, they added ten Amendments to their new Constitution, the first one of which guaranteed, among other things, Freedom of Speech.
And years later one of them anonymous rebels became the Secretary of Treasury of the new country they'd created with their anonymous papers, and one of the then rebels became the First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the country they created with their anonymous papers, and the other one, well, he became the fourth President of their new country which they had created with their anonymous papers, a country they called "The United States of America."
And I, honest to god this isn't mere rhetoric on my part, I have tears in my eyes right now when I think of all that those three disreputable anonymous rebels created, and the tears are streaming down my cheeks when I think of the Constitution of the United States of America that Alexander Hamilton and John Jay and James Madison agitated for in their anonymous Federalist Papers, and I get a lump in my throat when I think of the glorious First Amendment to that Constitution, which, among other things according to the US Supreme Court, guarantees a right to anonymity to protect our freedom to engage in political discourse and debate.
And Lamar Alexander -- Lamar Alexander, elected to the Congress planned and created by the same Constitution -- when he says that "The Government must play a greater role in punishing those who conceal their identities", well, I have to ask, when is the last time Lamar Alexander read that fine Constitution, that Constitution created by those three anonymous men publishing under a fake name?
And by god! I contend that the those who stand up for that Constitution, and for Free Speech, and for a right to anonymity -- those persons -- and not Big Brother's lackeys with their newspeak "Patriot Act" -- are the real American Patriots.
Who controls WHOIS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who controls WHOIS? (Score:5, Informative)
From their website:
ICANN then contracts out services to corporations for manage the DNS registrations. Currently, VeriSign controls
Inform your representatives (Score:4, Informative)
Lesser of two evils? (Score:4, Interesting)
Which do I choose?
Arrr....
spam (Score:3, Funny)
Re:spam (Score:5, Funny)
It's about time (Score:4, Interesting)
False or missing information in whois records is already a problem that helps (for instance) spammers hide their contact information from people with legitimate reasons to contact them. If you get no response from the contact listed in the domain's SOA record, abuse, admin, webmaster, postmaster, etc, and there is no contact information posted on the site (or false contact information), what do you do? You check out the WHOIS record for the domain. If the info that's supposed to be there is present and accurate, you have a way to contact somebody, if it isn't, you have ammo for asking the registrar to suspend the domain registration, and if *they* won't, you have ammo to ask ICANN to suspend the registrar's activities.
Unfortunately, people don't realize the reason that WHOIS records exist, which is to provide contact information. That's the WHOLE reason. Removing that information makes the WHOIS database useless.
This is just silly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Crackdowns we'd like to see... (Score:5, Funny)
- false email headers
- spoofed IP addresses
- misleading web pop-ups
- spyware authors
- technomorons who install spyware
- coverage of mydoom by the BBC
- jj's boobs
Fun with White Aryans and DNS..... (Score:5, Funny)
Next step was to modify the cgi to regurgitate the IP address where the user got a message that said..
Your IP Address: xx.xx.xx.xx has been recorded for forwarding to the proper authorities. Have a nice day
Then I got tired of picking on Tom Metzger [resist.com] and his retarded ilk and just donated the domains to another group (not the W.A.R.).
You bet your ass I used fake info in my WHOIS then.
I do wonder though if there are legitimate cases of where people run sites where it's best to not know the identity. Much in the same way that an abused woman could never call home from a shelter because her husband who beats her would know where she is thanks to caller ID.
Maybe the Chinese Communists would send goons to whack all the Falun Gong website owners or something (I'm sure you have better examples).
Re:Fun with White Aryans and DNS..... (Score:3, Interesting)
So basically you want all the benefits of free speech, but none of the responsibilities. All the latitude, none of the culpability. You are afraid to stand behind your words and actions.
Ever notice how on Slashdot, Anonymous Cowards rarely get modded up past +2?
Good grief. (Score:5, Insightful)
So - that sentence can end at the first comma, and be no less accurate in representing his opinion.
Smith and Berman drafted the bill after receiving complaints from the entertainment and software industries...
'Of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations'
The bill would not affect people who are trying to safeguard their privacy because it
only makes it a crime to submit false registration data when it is done to help commit a
crime...
Now if we could only keep that pesky concept of what constitutes a "crime" from continually
expanding...
<grrr>
Re:Good grief. (Score:5, Insightful)
This story is brought to you by the color "yellow" (Score:5, Informative)
The bill would not affect people who are trying to safeguard their privacy because it only makes it a crime to submit false registration data when it is done to help commit a crime, said Mark Bohannon, senior vice president for public policy at the Software & Information Industry Association, which supports the bill.
Oh, fer Pete's sake, Taco. Would it really hurt all that much to give a full, accurate blurb on this one?
This isn't about forcing people to use their real name when registering a domain. This is about increasing the severity of the punishment for committing online fraud. Basically, if you commit fraud using a website with faked credentials, you'll face a stiffer penalty than you would had you committed fraud on a website where you used legitimate credentials to register.
I'm not saying I've fully researched this, but it sure as hell isn't the rights-trampling orgy the blurb makes it out to be, Taco. Do your homework before posting half-informed diatribes to the front page.
Re:This story is brought to you by the color "yell (Score:4, Insightful)
I've said before that if someone discovered Linux was in use in a prison system somewhere, the
Down the road ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Is that a good or bad thing? It has its drawbacks, but on the whole I would say good. Fewer viruses, less spam, a modicum of sense from lusers. Less anonymity, yes, but there are always tradeoffs.
Re:Down the road ... (Score:2)
Re:Down the road ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't sound... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't sound... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't sound... (Score:2)
Two words: Public Outrage
That's why it's so important not to allow secret trials. And for the most part, judges are pretty good at keeping things on the up and up (no matter what the FBI or CIA wants).
Should be the other way around (Score:4, Insightful)
what a bunch of bullshit! (Score:5, Interesting)
and now they want me to put my real home phone number and real home address in the DNS records?
WHAT A BUNCH OF SHIT
Re:what a bunch of bullshit! (Score:2)
Its sad that the world is coming to this.
that is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the services that will conceal this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about the services that will conceal this? (Score:2)
Godaddy.com (Score:4, Interesting)
When 'whois'ing your domain it gives the company's email, which gets forwarded to you (after a spam filter if you like). Same with any 'real mail' (except for junk mail if you wish).
Well worth the nominal cost (3 bucks, IIRC) at registration time.
Pointless laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Selling prescription drugs with verifying a valid presecription on the internet (or off it) is a federal crime, but the FBI won't even take a report.
Using a stolen credit card number on the internet (or off it) is a federal crime, but the FBI won't even take a report, even if you have a name and address for the perp.
Who cares if Congress enacts more federal laws that the FBI won't even take a report on?
Re:Pointless laws (Score:3, Insightful)
You should, I should, EVERYONE should. Laws in the book that are not enforced today does not mean they will not be exploited at a later date to harass citizens.
Re:Pointless laws (Score:2)
It appears they only want to catch people who fall for their own sting operations - if you're actively hurting people already, they aren't interested.
Scary thought.
Re:Pointless laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Because when it's in the interest of big business, you better believe the FBI will act on it and exploit every tool at their disposal. Let's be clear: This bill is not for going after child pornographers, it's for busting that most treacherous of terrorists, the Music File Sharer! One of the sponsors, Howard Berman, is a notorious shill [theregister.co.uk] for the music and entertainment industry.
maybe you're doing it wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
you get a pdf reciept for every complaint you file. i know. i've been sending them every piece of spam i get for the last two months.
Re:Pointless laws (Score:3, Insightful)
At least read this if you didn't read the article (Score:3, Informative)
Actually... (Score:2)
I don't agree with this idea, nor do I agree with criminalizing false "whois" I, for one, left old phone numbers and addresses on mine because I am reluctant to have that information so freely available to anybody I might flame via email.
This is excruciatingly unfair to the private citizen, while no big deal to any business with a business adress. It's akin to forcing people to have listed phone numbers.
Maybe we do need a UN type governing body here (Score:3, Interesting)
Lord knows, I might wind up in a Federal Buttslammer for having my fax number listed as 999.999.9999 in my whois db entry... of coourse that would be taking it to the extreme, but after the DMCA and the US govt's persistant display of ignorance and money grabbing from lobbyists, I have come only to expect the worst.
And the irony here is that a country that calls itself the land of the free seems to want to put anyone and everyone into it's butt-parlours for just about anything it can think up.
My rant aside, isn't there a better contribution our government could make for the sake of the internet?
Like education, so the next generation of lawmakers might actually have a shred of a clue?
Or an international council like the UN in which an open forum could be made that is a bit beyond the corporate lobbyists, if not banned from talking to corporate representitives entirely?
Scary (Score:2)
If there's no law against using an alias on sites because you don't want your information public
Umm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Cringely thinks ... (Score:2)
An in a related story... (Score:2)
Various media industry contributors were observed quietly withdrawing from the scene with satisfied looks on their faces.
Moot! Can always subpoena the Hosting Provider... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just another shill to give pseudo-law-enforcement's (read: **AA) teeth more bite. If some site is really peddling material they claim is copyrighted, they should just DMCA the hosting provider and then go through the courts to subpoena the provider and get the ide
What about ICANN? (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't this just a case of US lawmakers legislating something that is already (supposedly) required?
Just don't show email addrs in whois records. (Score:3, Insightful)
What there needs to be, IMHO, is a re-vamp of how WHOIS works in storing data, and how the domain registrars handle that data. Things like admin email accounts and contact information (phone numbers, addresses, etc.) should be required to register, but should be in a database maintained by the registrar, and is not available to the rest of the population. If someone has a problem with you (spamming from your domain, etc.), it should be the registrar's issue, since they sold you the domain name. They should be the point of contact, and in turn send you mail with the question or complaint. This will protect people's privacy from the would-be spammer, and then give the government accurate information on who owns what. I don't agree with the whole BB thing either, but having accountability for what one has on his/her website needs to be enforced to a point, and having this data up to date will help enforce that.
Newsflash (Score:4, Funny)
Anyone who is trying to conceal their identity for illegal activities will continue to do so.
Now we may just get more spam.
Something to remember (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone else seeing a pattern?
Anonymity == illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are plenty of legitimate reasons why one would wish to remain anonymous. Not to mention the fact that the US government should have no control over the internet which in essence represents the international community. Just because anonymity can be inconvenient for law enforcement doesn't mean it must be made illegal.
Ski masks, pantyhose, and latex gloves are still available for sale in the US. All these are ideal tools for concealing your identity in real life. Wearing them in real life is not illegal either. It is, however, illegal to commit a crime while employing these tools, although no more so than if one does not employ them.
Some Canadian registrars have the idea re. privacy (Score:5, Informative)
If it becomes a federal crime to lie in domain records, something similar could be implemented to protect those who want to remain (somewhat) anonymous.
What about... (Score:4, Interesting)
Traceroute (Score:2)
What are you in for? (Score:3, Funny)
How will this work? (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't "false or misleading", it? (Score:3, Interesting)
617-861-9507
"The Telemarketer's Nightmare", from the fine folks that brought you "The Rejection Hotline".
Now, it's not really MY phone number, but it IS the phone I want them to have, since I don't want them calling me. My email and home address are valid, so I can still be contacted... just not while I'm sitting down to eat dinner with my family. It's a real phone number, and it doesn't mislead anyone - the message tells someone that I don't want them calling me.
Once again, US != Internet.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress, please read: THE INTERNET EXTENDS WAY BEYOND US BORDERS.
Many scams are perpetrated from sites OUTSIDE the US, how do you think your proposed law helps?
Please stop bowing to the corporate masters!
Yes, I am a Citizen of the United States.
What a turd burglar. (Score:3, Insightful)
In print, I have the express right to remain anonymous. Once more, these ancient old farts think print on a screen isn't print in a paper. SAME RIGHTS, YOU OLD IDIOT!
What is wrong with the government these days? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm voting libertarian from now on.
Laws should be based on things that make sense, not 200 years of repressive precedent, or over hyped "concerns" of the day that get legislated to death and stick.
Congressmen who throw out stupid ideas about taking away freedoms, privacies, or putting government punishments in place where nobody has been hurt, should be fired for violating the basic tenants of freedom, and the constitution.
The government shouldn't be punishing people who falsify private documents. I believe it's not (currently) a crime to misrepresent yourself, and online there's a lot to be said for the added safeties of misrepresentation, anonymity, and privacy.
The FCC doesn't need to decide what we watch on TV, we do. If we don't like what we see on channel whatever we don't watch it anymore. The only thing worse than the government trying to control our private lives is the people asking them to. Go to Europe you bunch of repressed whiners.
I'm sick of this all.
I don't care how this gets modded, I'm fed up, and /. is a as good a place as any to vent.
MPAA/RIAA OWNS BERMAN - $222,791 Payoff! (Score:4, Informative)
The top industries supporting Howard L. Berman [opensecrets.org] are:
1 TV/Movies/Music $222,791
2 Lawyers/Law Firms $117,450
Lamar Smith also gets mondo payola from MPAA/RIAA [opensecrets.org].
Berman was one of the shills who drafted a nutty bill last session that would have allowed movie and music companies to hack into people's personal computers and networks to erase or destroy "copyrighted" material [politechbot.com]. Most notably, it indemnifies corporations against personal torts resulting from their error for damages under $250. So even if you've almost finished the greatest novel ever written but failed to find a buyer yet, if they erase it, you get nothing. If they destroy your hard drives but show the replacement value is below $250, you lose. And so on.
There is nothing Berman would not do to keep sucking at the media industry tit. Even to the degree of drafting such nonsensical law that clearly violates the "equal treament" under privilege or immunity of the 14th Amendment [cornell.edu] by immunizing corporations against felonious activities conducted by them against citizens without considering due process.
THis latest bit of nonsense is just more of the same. Obviously Smith smells some extra cash within reach and is now also busy pandering to the media conglomerates.
Plea bargain crime (Score:3, Insightful)
The submission is misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
The article does seem to hint that the gubermint is going after everyone, though, so I looked up the bill myself. It's true that they will only go after someone for this if a crime has been committed. The problem with it IMHO is that it's pretty broad...It goes after not only the owners of the domain but also "person[s] acting in concert with the violator". And it tacks on 7 years in prison who what one would otherwise get already. And from the text it looks like it's geared strictly towards copyright infringement, never mind ripping off credit card numbers or running a fake shop, or simulating the identity of a reputable company. Of course, coming from Rep. Berman, this is no surprise.
Here's the bill if anyone's interested [loc.gov]
The link looks a little weird to me so if it is broken go to http://thomas.loc.gov and look up bill # "H. R. 3754".
This is not a useful law (Score:3, Insightful)
I think going after fraud from the name angle, is the wrong approach. Those names always end up resolving to an address, and an address is how you (ultimately) track things into the physical world. (Just ask the kids that RIAA has gone after.) Everything about DNS is merely a matter of convenience, and no one should ever have a reasonable expectation that DNS information is trustworthy.
Furthermore, it looks like the article is actually talking about web sites. So use https. Now you've got a CA claiming that someone is who they claim to be. Don't trust (or know anything about) the CA? ("Who is this Thawte company, anyway?") Now you know why x509 sucks and PGP rules. (Oooh, just had to get that little barb in there. ;-) Everything's an illusion until you've met someone face to face. If you can't trust that someone is who they say they are then you just don't know, so don't try to fake it.
If you add legislation to prevent false DNS info, you're just going to increase the false sense of security. "Whois says he's really John Smith, and it's against the law to lie, so I'll give him my credit card number." Guess what, the guy in Asia who you're giving your card # to, doesn't give a fuck about the US law. You should have relied on a trust network to verify him, not the law.
I would LOVE to have accurate WHOIS data! (Score:3, Interesting)
Just last week they added their own DNS servers to my WHOIS data which pointed my web site and all my email to their search page. Because I registered through my hosting company (who in turn registered through Register.com) Register.com's tech support refuse to help me. They say I have to do everything through my hosting company. But when XO communications asked them to make a change they just said "No".
I mean, I'd love to have an accurate phone number and email in my WHOIS. I'd REALLY love to change the registrar of record to anybody except Register.com. But they're holding my domain hostage and won't give me a way (short of sueing) to maintain my own domain.
So don't make it a crime for ME to have false information in my WHOIS. I'd love to change the information. The jerks at Register.com won't let me.
Am I losing it??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Whois is a government regulated collection of information about private individuals. Since when is someone having some privacy on the web a BAD THING???
I thought we all agreed on a few common principles here, free speech, free code and RIGHT TO PRIVACY (ESPECIALLY in our digital world here on the web), and that slashdot needs a built in spellchecker?!!
The government has no damn business either collecting, and especially not publishing the details of domain owners to begin with!