Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Sunday July 12 2015, @05:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the icann-do-anything dept.

Privacy advocates, public interest groups and even some celebrities are raising alarms about a proposal that could limit the ability of some website owners to disguise themselves.

The issue has caught fire over the past few months as an obscure organization that manages the Internet's domain name system was inundated with comments about a proposal that could bar commercial websites from using proxies to register their web addresses.

Advocates argue anonymity is a key feature of free speech online, and removing that protection from people who create a website for commercial purposes could open vulnerable populations up to abuse.

El Reg reports:

As it stands on the last day of the comment period – 7 July – there are over 11,000 responses and the issue may break the previous record when ICANN proposed giving the green light to internet extension '.xxx' which would be used exclusively for adult content websites (in that case there were 12,757 comments).

Get while the gettin's good, Anonymous Cowards!

[Editor's Note: The "obscure organization" being ICANN...]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by TheMessageNotTheMessenger on Sunday July 12 2015, @09:13PM

    by TheMessageNotTheMessenger (5664) on Sunday July 12 2015, @09:13PM (#208245)

    In an age of spam, doxxing and swatting, anonymity online is more important than ever, some people will go too far if they don't agree with your opinions. E.g. Gamergate. Opinions on video games leading to death and bomb threats. It makes no sense but it does happen.

    Make it so that whois queries still don't reveal the owner. But if a warrant comes in, the owner must be revealed to law enforcement, because a judge has determined a site to actually facilitate illegal activity. This, I hope, is enough to prevent doxxing, swatting, etc. But still gives law enforcement a way to go after actual illegal activity.

    --
    Hello! :D
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2015, @01:53AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 13 2015, @01:53AM (#208302)

    I would think that Gamergate would be an argument against anonymity because it allows people to hide while doxing and issuing death threats.

    Maybe that's me.

    • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday July 13 2015, @04:12AM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday July 13 2015, @04:12AM (#208337)

      Abuse of personal anonymity isn't an argument against anonymity unless you're in favor of collective punishment and think the ends justify the means.

      It's not just you, but I wish it was.

    • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday July 18 2015, @03:06PM

      by cafebabe (894) on Saturday July 18 2015, @03:06PM (#210792) Journal

      Anonymity and pseudo-anonymity helps and hinders anti-social behavior. It shouldn't be outlawed due to abuse because it is also used as a defense mechanism. Admittedly, some people promote their identity as a brand. However, doing that requires a brand (and identity) which is beyond reproach.

      --
      1702845791×2