Internet domain names to lose their privacy protection due to Hollywood pressure

[Deleted]

SOPA by the backdoor somehow influencing the overseer of the Internet naming system, ICANN:

Links:
- http://www.wired.com/2015/07/unassum...ssment-easier/
- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06...n_name_change/
- http://www.networkworld.com/article/...n-privacy.html

An Unassuming Web Proposal Would Make Harassment Easier

THE PRIVACY OF countless website owners is at risk, thanks to a proposal in front of the byzantine international organization at the heart of the Internet: ICANN. If adopted, the new proposal could limit access to proxy and privacy services, which protect domain registrants from having their home addresses exposed to everyone on the Internet.

When you register a domain, you must post information, including an address, phone number and email to a global database called WHOIS. The information is easily available online via a terminal command or an online lookup tool. If a domain registrant doesn’t want the Internet masses to know their address or phone number, they have two options: enter modified information, or use a privacy or proxy registration service that hides the information behind that of a company.
...
The proposal in front of the ICANN working group would limit privacy and proxy domain protection to websites that are not commercial and transactional—which sounds reasonable. However, the working group’s current definition of commercial could include the website of any small business owner who sells goods via an online store, or the website of an activist who takes donations to cover her living expenses.
...
The ICANN working group and the entertainment lobby didn’t set out to aid and abet online harassment, but that is what this proposal would do. For many, including women who run their own businesses, being able to keep their WHOIS private is the difference between being harassed and being safe online. No lobbying group can ignore the weighty consequences of their policy proposals on members of marginalized groups. It’s time that we start taking online harassment seriously, and start thinking about how our governance structures and technical systems can be rewritten to protect people, not to make them more vulnerable.

When even GoDaddy, a DNS company hated almost as much as Comcast online, decides things are looking desperate and starts to vouch for privacy, you know something is up:

- GoDaddy's CEO: https://garage.godaddy.com/godaddy/n...tack/?ci=96261

Here’s the issue. Historically, individuals and businesses who register a domain name can use privacy services that keep their personal information confidential. The private details needed to register a site, including home addresses and phone numbers, are currently held in confidence with the domain provider and only shared with outside parties under narrow circumstances, such as a legal warrant or subpoena. It’s a process that works well to balance privacy protections with law enforcement’s need to root out bad players who would use the Internet for criminal activity.

The new proposal, drafted and lobbied for by lawyers from the film and music industry, is designed to give them special access to a website owner’s confidential information so they can identify people they suspect of copyright and trademark violations without “all the hassle” of privacy protections. Though that’s unacceptable in itself, the proposed rules are far more reaching. Under the new system, domain providers like GoDaddy would be required to turn over a customer’s contact information to anyone who makes targeted claims against a website owner—without a subpoena, search warrant, or due process of any kind. And when I say anyone, I mean anyone. Estranged spouses, business competitors, rogue states and clandestine government agencies will all have unfettered access, without need for a single shred of verifiable evidence of wrongdoing. The doors to your confidential information will be effectively propped wide open.

Make no mistake, our current domain privacy protections matter for the welfare and safety of anyone who does, or ever will own a website. Domain privacy protects the security of shelters that need to keep their physical locations confidential to safeguard abused women and children. It protects the anonymity of political activist and whistle-blowers around the world who speak out online at great personal risk to themselves and their families. It protects bloggers and Internet personalities from stalkers. And it protects home-based Internet businesses who don’t have the means to secure their assets and inventories to the same degree as brick-and-mortar operations—to name just a few.

The good news is that it’s not too late to change ICANN’s course. ICANN has opened a window for public comment on this program, and is seeking input from the public. You can email ICANN directly at comments-ppsai-initial-05may15@icann.org or easier yet, you can sign the online petition to protect domain privacy at savedomainprivacy.org. ICANN has set a deadline of July 7, 2015, so the window to act is small.

As more and more people's lives are increasingly carried out online, as more people transition away from or lose their conventional jobs, as more people come online, the value of key rights and services like this one become more even critical.

[Blueobelisk]

That fucking sucks for me. I have like 5 domain names. I pay $8 a year so some company in Nevada has their info put down and not mine.

Although I have a PO box sits not a big deal, but it's just too easy for anyone to do a WHOIS search so privacy protection is a big deal.

[ItachiZaku]

I used to own some domain names, I more than likely would have been sued by one celeb rep who was under SafeSearching's wing at one point.

[dextersmith]

Yay, empower telemarketers and corporations, destroy the protection of individuals because "all the hassle" and due process isn't due.

[Deleted]

That sucks i guess. What does it mean for the average user?

[Dsonsion]

This is really shitty. The American public should do something to protect their precious freedoms. But I guess their guns rights are much more important than their privacy ones.