SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the privacy-fading-away-like-a-sunset dept.
ICANN is currently considering [pdf] new rules that will affect Privacy & Proxy services. Opponents claim this to be yet another effort by big business to bypass due process, as ICANN is being lobbied to make private registrations unlawful for "commercial" use. As it has been argued effectively in the courts that any website with advertisements is commercial in nature, opponents say this can strip private registrations from any personal website or blog that funds itself by ads. Proponents of new rule complain that P/P services are too often slow to respond, to respond at all, and determining the proper entity for legal action is too difficult. Proponents ask that personally identifiable information be disclosed upon written demand to ICANN, without a court order required, with only ICANN ostensibly determining if the written demand is correct, lawful for all parties, and suitable grounds for bypassing due process in the domain holder's country.
Namecheap.com, the EFF, and Fight For The Future currently have a campaign going to call and write into ICANN before the deadline for public comments, on July 7, 2015. Of course, you can call them directly (busy signal all day) at their LA offices - +1-310-301-5800 to make a comment, or email them directly at comments-ppsai-initial-05may15@icann.org and policy-staff@icann.org
ICANN is currently only seeking comment, and is unable to come to a consensus on this issue yet. Assuming ICANN does eliminate P/P for everyone, we are left with the Distortion part of Avoid-Distort-Block-Break.
How would Soylentils respond to the lack of private registrations?
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Interesting) by curunir_wolf on Friday June 26 2015, @05:31PM
also there's no enforcement mechanism that makes sense (e.g. I register foo.com as a purely informational website with anonymous info, then later start doing e-commerce on foo.com. When/how/by whom do I become required to provide good info?)
They want support for this proposal, and that is why they are using the phrase "which are used for online financial transactions" as a place to start, and put the system in place. Camel's nose in the tent, as it were. More people will be okay with it. Once the system is in place, it will expand to cover everyone (except, of course, governments, politicians, and large corporations).
Right now, I can pay my ISP an extra $10 - 20 to anonymize my information on Whois. I still have to provide it to my ISP - that has already been made a legal requirement. But with the crackpot stuff I sometimes tend to put on the Intarwebs, I don't want to become a victim of doxing or swatting by some butt-hurt "hactivist". So it's worth it. But when they expand this system, or decide that fee needs to be $1000 or more, well, it just won't be available to me any more.
So, in the long run, this is an effort to end anonymous speech, to scrub unpopular opinions from the Web, and coerce small players into leaving the website business or, worse, further centralizing distribution of content. There are currently only six media companies in the US that control 90% of all media. There are plenty of elitists that would love to see all of the content on the Internet controlled by those six companies. It would make it so much easier to drown out any dissenting voices, wouldn't it?
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1) by strato on Saturday June 27 2015, @02:33PM
If you use the "anonymous" feature for your registration, make sure you understand the legal status of your hostname.
When I looked at this a few years ago, the ISP wanted to transfer ownership of the hostname to themselves i.e. I wouldn't actually be the registered owner. That was unacceptable to me.