Should Domain-Name Registrations Require A Verifiable Real Name? (blogspot.com) 241
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?
"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?
Discourage? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Ideas cant be owned in a real sense, only in law.
Making legal ownership transparent would make people more accountable to the law, but whos law... is it fair to judge people based on the law in foreign countries ?
The Internet doesn't understand borders, it never will, trying to make the Internet conform to borders is an automatic fail.
Re: (Score:2)
https://news.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"or we don't agree on what SJW refers to."
I don't think it's a well defined term, whenever I hear people rant about 'SJW's I quite honestly am not sure exactly what they are ranting about because of the massive ambiguity.
It's like a meta-rant, and I'm pretty much not interested because rants about SJW are so devoid of actual facts, they're more a kind of hate speech.
SCOTUS: Anonymity necessary for free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:SCOTUS: Anonymity necessary for free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
"Chilling effect" is the intended outcome here. Don't kid yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to remain anonymous by not registering a domain with a real name would surely fail, though, wouldn't it? Any transfer of funds can eventually be traced.
Re: (Score:2)
(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".)
Not necessary to include quotes around "fake news" -- they were by any measure fake news sites.
And if the actual definitions of "fake news" sites coincides strongly with conservative sources, that's a problem for conservatives - why the dependence on fake news?
Re:SCOTUS: Anonymity necessary for free speech (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
This is all you need to know: https://www.eff.org/issues/ano... [eff.org]
SuperPACs can go first (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Money doesn't influence elections.
Ohhh, that must be why so many poor people become president.
I think the GP meant that in a "guns don't kill people" sense. Obviously, they do, but not simply by themselves. It is the obligations tied to receiving the money, and the advertising that it buys that influence the election and what direction things take after the election, but the money is a fundamental tool that enables it.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
The guy who takes the bribe is the 'evil' one, not the guy who offers it.
Not according to the law, and not according to common sense, and not according to any moral or ethical standard I'm familiar with.
Seriously....where is it "okay" to offer a bribe, but "not okay" to accept it?
Is your sense of ethics really that fucked up? Bribery starts with the offer, not with the acceptance. Both are wrong unless your moral compass is fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
Attempted bribery that is rejected in nothing. It is meaningless.
You're an idiot if you think that's true. Go offer a bribe to a police officer and see what happens.
"But judge, I only offered a bribe to the officer, he didn't accept it!"
Re: (Score:2)
Marijuana is illegal too.
Not where I live. I can drive less than a mile and walk into a state-licensed weed store and buy 50 different kinds of marijuana buds, candies, extracts, etc etc.
-
Attempted bribery is a bullshit charge
Then attempted murder must be a bullshit charge too, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you still maintain that offering a bribe isn't illegal?
Try and bribe a judge or a police officer sometime and let me know what happens. You can argue it was "consensual" all you want, but it won't be a accepted as a viable defense at your prosecution.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you still maintain that offering a bribe isn't illegal?
Illegal it is, but unjustly so.
So you think that anyone who has the money should be allowed to try and corrupt the system, get special favors, subvert democracy, or escape the consequences of their actions. Nice.
The bad news is that people like you, yes YOU are the reason that attempted bribery is illegal.
The good news is that you're gonna love our new president!
Re: (Score:2)
So you think that anyone who has the money should be allowed to try and corrupt the system, get special favors, subvert democracy...
They can try.
Now this is just fucked up. Given human nature and needs, people like you will fuck up the world beyond repair if given half a chance. I'll bet you're a libertarian, aren't you?
So you REALLY think it's fair that I should get a job that you're more qualified for or I should get medical care that you need just because I have a little more money in my pocket? You are one fucked up whack job. Thank goodness twats like you don't run the world.
-
That is illogical. I'm old, but not that old. Bribery was made illegal long before I was born.
Bribery was made illegal long before you were born because dickheads
Re: (Score:2)
Your little tirade has become tiresome...
The truth hurts when people follow your addle-brained bullshit to its logical conclusions, doesn't it? :)
So, you're a quasi-libertarian Trump supporter who thinks offering bribes is okay....lovely.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when you want to understand the difference between offering and accepting.
Let me know when you understand that offering a bribe is illegal.
-
It's pretty huge.
Definitely a Trump supporter, but you forgot the words "tremendous" and "disaster".
Re: (Score:2)
We have you to thank for his victory. You are the Trump supporter, not me.
Sounds like projection to me. Especially since I've made no secret of the fact that I voted against him. :)
It's people like YOU that see nothing wrong with offering a bribe who are the kind of actors that legitimize corruption. Trump is your guy, as he would be right there with you defending your rights to subvert the honest flow of commerce, justice, and democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy who takes the bribe is one the one legitimizing corruption.
The one who takes the bribe is participating in and completing the corruption, but without the offer there would nothing to participate in.
The first mover in this case is the one who offers, and even if the bribe isn't taken it's still against the law. Why do you suppose that is? It's because it opens the door to the acceptance of the bribe, it begins the criminal action. Without the offer there would be no chance of the crime being committed. And that's why just the offering of a bribe is considered as a c
Re: (Score:2)
Since you believe that offering a bribe should be legal, why don't you protest this by offering a judge a bribe, then filing a civil suit against the court when you get arrested?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing I can do...
That's right.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, it only proves that people are obtuse about the truth that the only crime is in the taking the offer.
No. Face it, if you actively seek to subvert the course of justice, you are committing a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, the only subversion comes from the taking.
Not on my planet, and not on yours either.
Re: (Score:2)
Being the majority does not make one right, it only makes them the majority.
Sometimes the majority is right, though, and there's no getting around that, fustakrakich. People everywhere overwhelmingly think that offering a bribe is wrong, and there's a reason for that: it's because it's seen as the initiation of a crime against what's right or just.
Sometimes the majority is the majority because it's the right position. Not always, but often.
BTW, I suspect /. is going to archive this thread shortly, so if I don't reply, that's why.
Re: (Score:2)
Bribes would not be offered if they weren't accepted.
You have it backwards...bribes would not be accepted if they weren't offered.
Seriously, which comes first, the offer or the acceptance?
Re: (Score:2)
A very true quote I saw in Time magazine, paraphrased: *I don't worry about Rush Limbaugh. I worry about his followers*.
You really don't get it, do you? Without Rush Limbaugh, there would be no followers.
Re: (Score:2)
Without Rush Limbaugh, another guy spreading the same garbage would have his followers.
Lol, that's a cop-out and you've just undermined everything you've said while simultaneously admitting that I'm right.
The offer is what kicks things off, and we both know it- you just acknowledged that above. :)
-
Without the followers Rush Limbaugh would not be getting 400 mil a year.
Again, you're agreeing with and validating my whole point. :) Without Rush (or someone like him), there would be no one to follow, period, end of story. You can't commit bribery without the offer, the acceptance is the result of the offer. :)
Re: (Score:2)
This has gone as far as I can take it.
Well we can certainly agree on that. :)
When you deny both common sense and reality it's almost inevitable that you'll end up refuting yourself and proving the other side's point.
Re: (Score:2)
And I recognized my minority status a very long time ago, and, being actually right and all, will stick my guns to the very end.
Being a minority doesn't make you right. Your position is untenable, and you more or less copped to that with the "another guy spreading the same garbage would have his followers" statement.
If you had the courage of your convictions you'd find a judge or cop and start offering bribes so you could make your case in front of the world, but you won't do that. I'm sure you've got all sorts of convenient excuses as to why, but the point is that if you really believe in what you're saying, put your money where yo
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't have to lift a finger. It's all there for anyone who wants to see. Offering bribes is obviously widely accepted. The people that accept them are always winning the elections. They and the voters make my case. If bribes were considered so evil, it wouldn't be so.
Virtually every single thing you said proves my case even more solidly. You're really, really undercutting your own argument here. :)
"The people that accept them are always winning the elections" - if this is true, then it's even more reason for both the offering and the accepting of bribes to be illegal.
"If bribes were considered so evil, it wouldn't be so" - except bribery is considered to be evil, and so much so that it's against the law. Lots of things are considered to be "evil" and even though most if
Re: (Score:2)
If people that take bribes win elections, that obviously means people approve, law or no law.
And if people take money to commit murder, that obviously means people approve, law or no law. Right?
But people that reward people who take bribes do approve of offering bribes. Vote them out and the problem is solved. Too simple.
But people that reward people who commit murder do approve of committing murder. Tell them not to do it and the problem is solved. Too simple.
See how silly your 'logic' is? But again, you don't have the courage of your convictions. Time to go put on your MAGA hat and offer some bri
Re: (Score:2)
We usually don't elect politicians who are paid to commit murder, at least not knowingly.
So what? Maybe they were bribed to commit murder.
Again, your argument is a total fail.
In your world it should be legal to offer kids in kindergarten so heroin to pull the fire alarm.
"But officer, I did nothing wrong by offering those kids the heroin, they committed the crime by accepting it!"
um, you have just been proven wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
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 wa
Re: (Score:2)
It's up to the voters to seek out candidates, not wait to have them spoon fed.
Obviously spoon-feeding them works, that's why they do it. That's why they spend hundreds of millions of dollars doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you all refuse to acknowledge the human foible?
I'm not, but without the money the human foible factor would be minimized to insignificance. That's why they lobbied so hard for this, or is that not apparent to you?
-
And stop the scapegoating if you don't want this bullshit to continue indefinitely.
Oh, you mean quit calling out the main motivator and the root of the problem? I'm not scapegoating, I'm pointing out the elephant in the room.
Re: (Score:2)
Without the love of money, the lobbyists have no power at all.
And without hunger, food has no power at all.
I don't know why you keep going on about the "For the love of money" quote, since I never mentioned it at or made reference to it.
I simply pointed out that super-pacs throw hundreds of millions of dollars into elections, and they wouldn't do that if they didn't think it mattered.
Re: (Score:2)
That, sir, is a mistake, even if it does sell, which it does,
I rest my case.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Over 200 Million people couldn't come up with a better choice but a hairpiece vs. a robot?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:3)
It must still be allowed.
Where is that spam checklist when you need it (Score:2)
No, it won't work. In the beginning of the Internet, it was done that way, then slowly people realized you can use shell companies since they are also legal names in a legal sense and then people realized it was just as easy to put a fake name and now you can't even see names anymore in most whois lookups.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, nothing prevents me from cheaply and easily registering a company named John Smith. And John Smith would be a corporate person.
It would also cause more trouble for those whose name change. In some cultures, people's names change when they move, or they get a new name when their parents die, or they get a new name when coming of majority, and in some cultures, about half the population change their name if they marry or divorce. An added burden that hits disproportionately.
Never mind that the WHOIS d
Re: (Score:2)
nothing prevents me from cheaply and easily registering a company named John Smith. And John Smith would be a corporate person.
Except for charter laws requiring a corporate person to be named as such. Depending on the form of the company and the jurisdiction in which the legal person is domiciled, a name might have to include a term such as "Corporation", "Incorporated", "Limited", "LLC", "SpA", "AG", "GmbH", or "KK" (Kabushiki-gaisha).
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, at least, all you need to do is register a DBA (Doing Business As) name. In some states, it doesn't even have to be registered.
And there's nothing that prevents a DBA from being a "normal" person name. Fannie Mae is an example.
Buy a business license or add an alias (Score:2)
Re: Buy a business license or add an alias (Score:2)
Or just don't bother with the domain name. Use the IP address.
a verifiable real name (Score:2)
Now Thats a Stupid Question (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The two can coexist. DNS (through DANE PKI stapling) could allow you to tell which sites have been verified by a CA to belong to a real name, through an EVC, but not require all sites to have an EVC.
How to present this to users is the real question... browser and OS manufacturers would be tempted to put scary indicators up for non-verified identities. How to express to users that a site not vouched for by a real individual but there could be good reasons for such a site to exist, while at the same time en
Voter id example? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, the same people currently complaining about fake news sites also tend to be the ones who fight voter ID programs.
I thought it was more of an issue that voter ID laws preferred specific forms of that supporters of one party are more likely to carry over those that the other party carries, such as firearm permits over student IDs at an accredited high school or college.
commentsubject (Score:3)
- Couldn't anyway.
- You're still gonna try.
30 years and we still think we can control the internet.
Get used to it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Perhaps a root certificate from Ministry of Truth (Score:2)
You just know this is where we are heading.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Impossible to enforce (Score:2)
This is impossible to enforce, because ICANN does not oversight ccTLD domains (such as foo.co), neither does it manage gTLD subdomains (such as foo.bar.com). These will be immediate loopholes to a real name policy.
Enforce through Public Suffix List (Score:2)
Until ICANN requires those offering registrable subdomains of a domain registered in one of its gTLDs to pass the identity requirement through to their subscribers or risk getting kicked out of Mozilla's Public Suffix List [publicsuffix.org] and comparable lists within the ICANN-controlled .org gTLD. If your domain leaves the PSL, your subscribers won't have their cookies separated, nor will they be eligible for a healthy number of domain-validated TLS certificates from ACME CAs such as Let's Encrypt (source [letsencrypt.org]).
Do you... (Score:2)
You can already work around this (Score:3)
"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 [gizmodo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I think just about every domain registrar offers a "privacy" option. The WHOIS data has to lead to identifying the person who bought the domain and runs the domain, but it can do so through a third-party that acts like a privacy screen. Otherwise, everyone who buys a domain name would find their e-mail address(es) spammed to death.
I'm having trouble understanding if the Gizmodo quote was of a "tongue in cheek" statement or not... Network Solutions is the leading domain registrar in the United States, hav
No for all kinds of other reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Simple and obvious solution (Score:2)
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 o
Forget it (Score:2)
The amusing part of this is where people pretend that citizens - or the government - of the US have any meaningful influe
Deanonymization has never helped (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Anonymous Domains (Score:2)
I don't think it should be public. That just provides a handle for people to harass the domain owner.
Next I suppose people will want IP packets to have unique machine identities attached, or for print shops to get ID before doing print runs.
Re: (Score:2)
Next I suppose people will want IP packets to have unique machine identities attached
No, but it would sure be ice if ISPs would ensure they are coming from the actual owner of the subnet.
Photo ID Required (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook accounts may indeed require a photo ID, especially if you've been flagged as using a pseudonym.
Satire (Score:2)
I think I speak for Turkey when I say YES. (Score:2)
I think I speak for Turkey when I say YES.
It will be much easier to find and jail all the dissidents who make fun of the beloved leader.
Published HOW? (Score:2)
Currently, a domain name can be registered with any name at all, and payments can be made in ways that are virtually anonymous. The fact is, that the "WhoIs" feature allows anyone who wants to can find the information that was used to register that website. Because spammers used that information to harvest lots of email addresses, new businesses cropped up to create a layer of identity security; you'll notice the registered name is changed to refer to the entity that holds the information outside the doma
Re: (Score:2)
Law enforcement needs the right to find out who owns a particular domain name,...
No, it does not.
IF ONLY This Were True! (Score:2)
"We avoid voter fraud by requiring verification of ones name, age and address."
Certainly that's the CONCEPT behind voter ID, but the reality is that voter fraud is easy, substantial, and sometimes decisive. For any election decided by less than 1% of the vote, voter fraud could easily have flipped the election.
Identity vs reputation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or DANE [wikipedia.org] with an EVC [wikipedia.org]
PGP WOT depends on the airline industry (Score:2)
How does one make a PGP public key "verifiable" without spending loads of money to fly hundreds of miles to key signing parties?
Re: (Score:2)
I my state you just state your name, and they already have your address in the roll. They mark the entry to indicate I have voted. So if someone tried to use my name, I'd get to the poll and find out they think I already voted. Or if they showed up after me, the poll workers would have to look into them. Further, if someone who had not voted wanted to know if their name had been used, they could pretty easily check into the matter. How often has that happened, to anyone? Almost never, because it would
Re: (Score:2)
Since the process of validating an identity is already something the CA industry is gearing up for, it would be easier to implement this through DANE with stapled EVC PKI certificates. However, as many have pointed out, anonymity itself should not be banned. Misrepresentation of some other person's identity should probably be, but not anonymity.
Re: (Score:2)
one can merely just know another person's name and some easy to know other information to vote in his or her place.
One can try, but in my state at least, your chances of being caught are pretty high.
Re: (Score:2)
This. And I only had to scroll to 5/6th of the way to the bottom of the comments to find the sensible one. Who says ACs don't contribute?