Russia to Halt Public Access to .RU Whois Data? 97
An anonymous reader writes "A Domain Tools blog post is reporting on a Russian newspaper article regarding a provision of Russian law that would prohibit public access or posting of Whois data for the .RU TLD without written permission. The Personal Data law, which the article states went into effect on January 30, 2007, will require compliance by RosNIIROSa (www.ripn.net) by 2010."
In Canada... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
I conclude anonymity should take a backseat when someone registers a domain - this from a privacy freak and eternal AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. The whole point of whois was to have a contact person of record for a domain. i.e. somebody to go to if that domain is causing problems for other sites. The whole idea behind the Internet, of a network of peers interconnecting for mutual benefit, breaks down if you can't contact the other systems.
Personally I think the solution is to disconnect/firewall off any system without a
Somebody has to say this... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
SO am I right in thinking... (Score:5, Interesting)
Is that a bad thing? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I should go register me a nice
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SO am I right in thinking... (Score:4, Insightful)
I do believe that is the goal. It's the Russian embrace of western capitalism. The Russians are looking to attract (and protect) the type of web site entrepreneurs who would be in violation of the stricter U.S. laws. Periodically you will see news items where U.S. authorities crack down on web site operators whose servers are hosted in Russia but the persons behind the operations reside in the United States.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
True, but you can do a domain lookup at http://www.nic.ar/ [www.nic.ar]
Mmmmm.... a conspracy... (Score:2)
I do believe that is the goal. It's the Russian embrace of western capitalism. The Russians are looking to attract (and protect) the type of web site entrepreneurs who would be in violation of the stricter U.S. laws. Periodically you will see news items where U.S. authorities crack down on web site operators whose servers are hosted in Russia but the persons behind the operations reside in the United States.
Are you sure you aren't reading way to much into what is probably no more than perfectly normal bout of good, old fashioned, Russian paranoia?
Re: (Score:2)
Can't it be both? Actions have multiple consequences, so why can't they have multiple causes?
Re:Mmmmm.... a conspracy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Inconceivable! If that were the case, then how could we continue to blame videogames for violence, blame WMD's for the invasion on Iraq, and incompetence for that which could be ascribed to malice?!
Wrong (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't, perchance, related to the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, are you?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Any foreigner can register
Re: (Score:2)
!
I take it that you shopped around when you were breaking a multitude of laws in both your home country and Russia. I wonder about that because my wife's new passport is going to cost between £93 and £140 (that's approximately USD 180 to 280 depending on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're obviously attempting to establish a false identity with the fake passport that you and your associates are conspiring together to acquire. Abundant reports from America (and the UK, as I can attest, and other parts of Europe as some of my workmates tell me) are that the authorities take an extremely dim view of anyone making any attempt to establish a false identity. Getting a fake passport is a pretty high-end step towards
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
That's not going to work with China, unless none of your users is involved with trade/imports from there. I suppose that's possible in some sectors, but don't be surprised if anyone involved in retail, for instance, applies their own `ham-fisted policy` to the idea of using your services!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Works for me. I hate the fact that it's required. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever had the bright idea to mandate that for ending spam didn't think clearly. Perhaps Russia (while not their motivation for this move) is on the right track.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And your hosting company should just reject all requests and complaints. They are just a hosting company and have no need to get involved with anything else. You pay, they host, right?
If you want to post software, movies, music and child porn that should be nobody's business but yours and the rest of the world can just get stuffed. If someone has a problem with tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And your hosting company should just reject all requests and complaints. They are just a hosting company and have no need to get involved with anything else. You pay, they host, right?
You mean like the additional fees that the registrars/hosts get for hiding your personal contact information if you so choose? So this rule should apply only to people who don't want to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Biiiiiiiig difference between people wanting to contact me and me wanting them to contact me.
And anyone that would need to use registration info to find me - I don't want to hear from, period.
You pay, they host, right?
Sounds like you get it so far (sarcasm ignored)...
If you want to post software, movies, music and child porn that should be nobody's business but yours
Re: (Score:1)
First of all, the only people likely to notice such activity, the host, would have my contact info (they like getting paid, dontcha know). That falls a whole world of difference from having my info visible to every spammer, stalker, and general jackoff who wants to annoy me.
Second, if I actually have a compromised machine, the only people who can help me will already ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Works for me. I hate the fact that it's require (Score:2)
Dude, do you not know about GoDaddy's private registration service? I think in the past 3 years I've had exactly 2 emails sent to me through my domains' private registration service. It keeps your personal information from showing up in a WhoIs query.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't trust GoDaddy (Score:1)
They also drop your name in a heartbeat if even a single piece of your registration data is incorrect.
There are, however, a few good registrars (like gandi.net) who take domain ownership and privacy very, very seriously.
Same goes for web hosts. There are a few who take a very aggressive stance against takedown requests, and many offshore who simply ignore them.
Re:Works for me. I hate the fact that it's require (Score:2)
Sometimes the jokes write themselves (Score:4, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, compromat.ru own YOU!
oblig (Score:1, Funny)
....then who do I call? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:....then who do I call? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
WHOIS is broken (Score:3, Insightful)
Just try to write a tool to automatically parse WHOIS output to get the registration date of a domain (a good heuristic when determining whether a domain is spammy -- a 1-day old domain merits a little more investigation than a 1-year old one). Assuming the info is available at all and not hidden behind some captcha-enabled web page (not just to shield from spammer harvesting, but also to throw sales pitches at you), the date field could be anywhere, and in any format. Hell, I've even seen registrars use MM/DD/YY format, two-digit years no less. Some even use multiple formats. It's crazy insane.
RIPE appears to actually have their shit together, and uses a pretty good uniform format. Bully for RIPE, but that's generally only good for IP WHOIS, and the rest is being eroded as the rest of the WHOIS system decays at the seams.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I looked into actually parsing whois results, and not too long after that, gave up.
Possibly by design (Score:2)
Could be they don't want to have too much traffic either. I get the following message prior to the actual information:
Re: (Score:2)
whatis whois (Score:1)
That doesn't compute (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The same goes for my website. If I want the general public to be able to contact me by phone or mail, I'll put the phone number or address on my site. Otherwise, stay out of my business because I don't want to talk to you. I don't want your spam or marketing message
Yes it does (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a hypothetical example, btw, this is a problem someone I know right now is facing.
No Big Loss (Score:4, Interesting)
I try to tell them that just dropping "mail.ru" would be a better longterm strategy, but their minds are usually made up. I think this may be some kind of holdover from the cold war.("The Russian's have internets?! Blockade their commie propaganda!")
Anyway, my point is that lack of whois information is the least of
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
How naive (Score:2)
They cannot say "No Big Loss" because they don't know how much they lost, since any potential deals were rejected before being reviewed.
Obviously this depends on the business, if you're a local company that has no sales on the worldwide market - no pro
Internet is anti-control (Score:2)
That crackdown is going on here in the US. Government wants the DNS keys and to track every message we send.
The world is starting to becoming a very dark place as of late.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
reputation, identity, character... (Score:4, Interesting)
See, for me, this is simply a matter of character. Or the appearance of it. If you don't want me to know who you are, why should I accept mail from your domain at all?
I run the email for a pretty small ISP. When a mail server (or farm) starts going crazy and trying to kill my servers with hundreds of connections per second; the first thing I do is drop the packets from the network. I then check the whois listing to see if it's yahoo! or ebay or something like that and consider unblocking it after I know who I'm dealing with.
When the whois says "NONAME NETOWRK ASSOcIATES" or there simply isn't anything listed, they stay on the drop list. So this is really a handy development. Essentially nothing from .ru will look legit anymore so I can just block all of it, right?
Re: (Score:1)
TOS (Score:2)
Coincidence? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Not unprecedented for a state... but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Such a policy is not without precedent. Tonga's NIC [tonic.to] has kept registration information private for years.
Then again, Tonga's NIC also has a healthy anti-spam policy [tonic.to], including a provision for revealing registration info for domain names canceled for violating that policy.
But does keeping registration info private really help shield spammers? Who's to say that spammers are providing valid registration info in the first place? They abuse public registration records both ways: they falsify their own info to shield their identities, and they appropriate and abuse the info of honest people doing the right thing.
I am all for private registration records. If Russia enacts their law, they will have the exact opposite policy of the United States. And, damn, will I envy those Russians for it.
RTFA... Hiding WHOIS is going to be an optional (Score:2)