Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy The Internet Politics

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?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should Domain-Name Registrations Require A Verifiable Real Name?

Comments Filter:
  • Discourage? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @06:37PM (#53323569)

    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)

      by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @07:47PM (#53323951) Homepage

      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)

        by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @07:56PM (#53324001) Homepage

        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.

      • by bug1 ( 96678 )

        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.

    • by slazzy ( 864185 )
      Seems pretty pointless: - Many blogs already use a sub-domain therefore no registration necessary. - How would one countries law (US?) force say Columbia with the .co to their standards. - There's really no affordable way to verify someone's identity, too easy to fake. What would be better maybe would be a public way to identify the trust of a website sort of what pagerank used to be but maybe going a few steps further.
    • Not just that, but anyone wanting to post fake news will just joe-job a web site, or hijack someone elses. "A verifiable real-names domain registration policy would discourage information fraud" needs to be phrased as a question to make it obvious that Betteridge's Law is in effect.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19, 2016 @06:40PM (#53323587)

    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.

    • by lhowaf ( 3348065 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @08:25PM (#53324113)
      I don't understand why buying a domain name would be considered free speech. There are plenty of anonymous posts on /. but I don't think any of them were made by the domain name owner (sourceforge media, llc). If domain owners are required to respond to lawful requests/demands, the owner must be reachable.
      • by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @09:57PM (#53324407) Journal

        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.

        • "Chilling effect" is the intended outcome here. Don't kid yourself.

        • by lhowaf ( 3348065 )
          If I but a domain and put up a web site on which I post "anonymous" entries, wouldn't that serve the purpose? Somebody could guess I'm the anonymous poster but they'd have no proof.
          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.
        • by Maow ( 620678 )

          (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?

    • by felrom ( 2923513 ) on Sunday November 20, 2016 @09:43AM (#53326311)

      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)

    by darkain ( 749283 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @06:41PM (#53323593) Homepage

    This is all you need to know: https://www.eff.org/issues/ano... [eff.org]

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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:Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)

      by No Longer an AC ( 4611353 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @07:27PM (#53323837) Journal

      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.

      • by Kjella ( 173770 )

        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.

  • by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @06:41PM (#53323601) Journal
    Anonymity can be ridiculed, even dismissed out of hand... talking to you, you fracking cowards!!

    It must still be allowed.

  • 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.

    • by arth1 ( 260657 )

      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

      • by tepples ( 727027 )

        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).

        • by arth1 ( 260657 )

          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.

  • People can legally have multiple names (alias), or you can use the name you came up with on a business license. Does not solve anything.
  • works as well as one that isn't. so, yeah.shakespeare said something like that.
  • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @06:55PM (#53323669) Homepage

    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).

    • by skids ( 119237 )

      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.

  • by chubs ( 2470996 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @06:57PM (#53323681)
    The problem with real-name policies is their speech-chilling effect. Better that 1000 bogus sights hide under anonymity than one legitimate individual feels too intimidated to share his views. And before you get all "Don't you think the government can figure out who you are anyway?", I'm not referring to intimidation and reprisal from three-letter agencies. I'm talking about the guy with views on local building ordinances that may not agree with his next door neighbor but doesn't want that neighbor leaving flaming bags of poo on his doorstep if he voices them.
    • by skids ( 119237 )

      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

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @06:58PM (#53323685)
    In the US, the same people currently complaining about fake news sites also tend to be the ones who fight voter ID programs. I can't see how a "verified person to has web site" would fly with that crowd.
    • by tepples ( 727027 )

      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.

  • by Falos ( 2905315 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @07:05PM (#53323727)
    - Shouldn't.
    - Couldn't anyway.
    - You're still gonna try.

    30 years and we still think we can control the internet.
  • 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.
    • 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

  • You just know this is where we are heading.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @07:11PM (#53323767)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re:No. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Beeftopia ( 1846720 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @07:53PM (#53323983)

      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.

  • 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.

    • 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]).

  • really want some idiot from the internet to drive to your house to settle an argument. DO YOU? Stupid.
  • by Beeftopia ( 1846720 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @07:47PM (#53323953)

    "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]

    • by anegg ( 1390659 )

      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

  • by EmperorOfCanada ( 1332175 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @07:50PM (#53323965)
    If I ran a site about tennis and one of my users Insulted one of the various touchy members of crap country royalty around the world, I could find myself detained as I cross some border. Minimally, I could see some country like that holding me until I handed the keys over to my servers so that they could sift through them to see if they could identify the person who did the insults. Or they could just charge me.

    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.
  • 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

  • That ship has sailed. ICANN realized a long time ago that the registrars make more money with a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to selling domains. Then on top of that the registrars all offer various registration obfuscation services, which makes them even more money. ICANN isn't willing to lift a finger to expose law breakers with domains, why would they do it for anything else?

    The amusing part of this is where people pretend that citizens - or the government - of the US have any meaningful influe
  • by Wuhao ( 471511 ) on Saturday November 19, 2016 @10:15PM (#53324477)

    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.

  • 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.

    • by skids ( 119237 )

      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.

  • By all means, require a verified real name for domain name registration and opening an email while we're at it. Also for a Twitter, Snapchat or Facebook account.
  • I have posted satirical responses in blogs and have them picked and reported in other blogs as factual, and had those blogs read by news agencies who actually in one case reported them over the air (nothing to do with the elections). I have had satirical comments I made be edited into wikipedia articles by others. And edited them back out when I found them. (I have had one edit rejected which was to remove content I was the satirical source for) ... We have in America free speech, the right to make parody o
  • 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.

  • 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

  • "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.

  • I don't see how this solves the concern. Identity and reputation are two different things. Cecil Adams may or may not be a real person, but still one tends to trust him to tell the truth. Trump, on the other hand is clearly a real person, but many more people would question his reputation for spreading only verifiable truth.

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Working...