Personally I think this is all a croc to make more money for godaddy. I've reported so many spammers and suspect child porn sites registered with DBP to Godaddy.com and they so obviously drag their feet.
Some of the sites that use DBP are bot herders, porn sites WITHOUT age vertification of users or performers.
I've noticed also that a lot of spammers that get kicked off godaddy hosting just re-register with DBP and keep on spamming.
At least with fake domain info, you can get ICANN after the register eventually.
Bob - I found your article while looking for information on online stalking for a friend who is being harassed. She is facing rather the opposite situation, though: he has registered her name as a domain name (actually, several versions of it) and is threatening to use it to post private information about her (he's an ex-boyfriend of hers). Obviously, libel laws would protect her if he posted any malicious lies about her, but is there anything she can do to wrest those domain names away from him? Do his actions constitute cyber-squatting? Thanks for any help or information you can provide! Arthur
#2 Internet Anti-stalker on Apr 22 2007, 06:18 Reply
Dear Arthur Unfortunately, we see situations like this all of the time. The first thing we recommend the person to do is to check the Whois to make sure that the contact data is accurate. If the information is not accurate, then the registrar should require that the customer update the contact information. If the contact information is not updated most registrars will suspend the website; however, very few will actually cancel the name.
If no content is posted on the website the person is going to have a hard time claiming any rights to the website or, claiming harm as a result of the website. However, if the siteholder does post unlawful statements about the person she should contact the hosting provider. If a hosting provider is provided evidence that the site is defamatory or libelous the hosting provider may take the site down. However, if the website seems to be purely a factual dispute between the two parties the hosting provider may require direction from a legal body before they will take action against the site.
Even if there is no content up on the site, if the person has other evidence that the person is harassing her, she should consult with her attorney and possibly proceed through a court. She would want to ask for an order that would transfer any domain names with her name in them (or any variation of her name) to her. Additionally, she would want the order to prohibit the registrant from registering any domain names in the future that had her name in them.
I think privacy for .US domain names is pretty well gone for now. Will it return one day? Maybe. However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for its return.
Hello Bob, Do you know of any progress in this fight?
The reason I ask, is because I am planning on launching a website this month, that I've been working on for the past 3 years. It's going to be part of my master plan to save humanity. (from itself) I believe that one of my websites will be so controversial, that it will put my family in danger. Unfortunately, only a .US domain name, that I already own, will work. I've chosen to list my attorney's address & phone number, along with my email address at a privately listed domain, with an email account hosted here at Godaddy. So, I'm counting on you to protect me as much as you can, & my attorney on the other end. Let me know if you can offer any advice. Thanks, mabUS
I'm for having the option to retain my privacy. I'd like to know how many people who are against private registration have their home phone number registered as 'unlisted'? If you do, isn't that hypocritical?
So nice to see that we can still count on people to think that, "If it wouldn't cause a problem for me, who else could it possibly hurt?" If those people who don't see a need for their personal privacy thought about it for just a minute I am sure that they could think of at least three people who could be hurt by having their personal contact information available to public scrutiny.
Do you know any children whose parents run a family website? Look at those cute pictures. Such beautiful kids. And look, now I know where I can find them. The thought of having my children's information made public scares me enough to rethink the value of making their pictures available on a personal website for family and friends to see.
I am irritated, but not necessarily stunned, that in this age of unending spam there are people who are happy to expose themselves to data-mining. There is no accounting for taste, I guess.
To those who think that spammers should have full access to your information: You COULD write a reply to this telling me that I am stupid and selfish for wishing to use the internet to share photos of my children with family and friends. Please don't. I would rather continue to think of you as a reasonable and thoughtful human being.
I don't use private registrations, but someday I will probably regret it. Any kook out there can access my personal info with one whois query. All it takes is one kook to ruin your life.
People need control over what personal info is advertised to THE ENTIRE WORLD.
What about all the .US domains that are registered by your company by people that have no connection to the United States?
Do you monitor all the .US domains to ensure they are following the Nexus requirements? I am sure you aren't because I have found many registered by GoDaddy that have foriegn names and adresses and no business in the U.S.
Yet you allow those domains and I am sure that alot of them are proxied owned.
That type of conduct is a slap in the face to all Americans and especially the ones who have died for our US.
I can't wait for the DOC to slap every registar for dis-obeying the Nexus policies on that.
So you think every registrar is in violation of the Nexus policies for .US? I'm here to tell you that you can think again.
What we are required to do is to ask two questions:
1. Are you a United States citizen?
2. If you are not a United States citizen, do you have a physical location within the United States?
If the answer to either of these questions is "Yes" then the Nexus requirement is considered to be met. The Nexus requirement questions are asked for proxied and public domain names.
Who are you aware of that owns a .US domain name that does not meet the nexus requirements?
Appreciate your post Tech Sgt. as well as your service to our country,
Just because the click yes in those boxes doesn't mean they are.
I have run across alot of domains and looking at the WHOIS on them shows not one US address or Business listed.
Just because they clicked yes isn't enforced when they enter there address or business information.
Alot of us that monitor the Nexus mailing list have seen many domains that are registered by Iraqi's, Iran, Russian, Algerian, and so on.
I don't a list of domain's currently but I can arrange to get you one of domains that are registered by GoDaddy that don't have any links to the U.S. at all. Just need a email address to send them to.
My Member of Congress, both my Senators, and the President, and a number of state officials I may need to contact from time to time, among other public servants, who work for you and me, and whose names, office addresses, telephone numbers, and web sites are hardly secret, aswekk as alot of people who solicit business from the public and from me, will not, and are apparently afraid to, make working Email addresses we could reach through our normal Email programs available, though many but not all of them do offer these confounded little boxes in very small type, etc. One result is that I can not find any way to send the same letter to my Member of the House, two Senators, and the President, and perhaps relevant people at the staff level, groups involved in an issue, the people who called it to my attention, etc., at the same time, which would, among other things, let all of them know I have also contacted the others, and save me an awful lot of repetitive typing, cutting and pasting, etc. Is ths, or banning, and banning only, private registrtion of .us domains, going to protect their offices, web sites, or Emai, or the United States and its people, from attacks by people who are willing to die in a flaming crash, much less break a few laws, to kill Americans?
I noted that Tony Bradley, the Guide at ntsecurity,guide@about.com, where I found GoDaddy.com, has picked up this issue and supports Bob Parsons, pointing out the irony that it is only the .us domains supposedly restricted to Americans and announcing that you are one which have yet been subjected to this. He appears to believe, as you do, hat bans on provate .com etc. domains will follow.
This rule, as written, does not yet appear to affect or apply to my little free web site, knonwn to my inner circle of conspirators, which shows some address of my ISP's in Florida. I and other friends of mine can not find it using Google, however, although, like my primary Email address, it contains and primarily consists of my full signature. Now suppose my name happened to have been Mohammed Atta—actually, we know a perfectly legitimate and loyal doctor who shares the same name, but nothing else, with the lead 9/11 hihacker—and I had registered under any of several different phonetic spellings of that Arabic name that you can find in the phone book. Do you really think the authorities would have caught him if he had given his real name and address, cover occupation, etc. when setting up that web site, as he apparently did when renting an apartment, getting telephone service, taking flying lessons, etc., or if he had another Web site in Arabic with either a .us or a .org or .com domain name?
Ahhhhh, don't you just love the Patriot Act??? The saddest thing about all of this is that many Americans don't have a problem w/their rights being stripped, so long as they can feel "safe" not realizing that true security comes from the ABILITY to ask questions, or as Andrew Jackson advocated to simply "Question Authority." The other problem, which is actually the larger problem, is that we as a Nation have already given up either knowingly or unknowingly many rights and freedoms, allowing the Government to make the "rules" for us, prime example is the NTIA ruling, THEY didn't feel the "need" to consult with "We the People" for whom they work, they just took matters into their own hands as allowed, unless I misread the document, by the Patriot Act. Now, IF this were to change, IF we as a Nation wake up to what has happened, and what is happening and what will continue to happen unless we put a halt on it, it would be an earth shattering day in America, as, IMO, our leaders won't want to give back what they have scored for themselves, because, again, IMO they no longer work for me, or for you, but only for themselves aquireing what wealth and power they can at our expense... >
Jen GoDaddy customer since 2002 (I believe) and highly recomended to others by me.
I really don't care in particular about anonymity in WHOIS information. If you are really that concerned, register in another TLD, or don't register a domain at all. I've read various explanations as to why anonymity is "required," and I am still unconvinced.
Keep $1,000,000 worth of jewelry in your house? Well that's stupid. If you are concerned about your safety, why on Earth are you telling the world about it?! You have a store. Keep it there, insure it, and take appropriate security precautions.
Victim of crime? I cannot begin to imagine how horrible that would be, and I'm sure paranoia is normal...but you own a business. You are aware that records are available which contain various details of business owners, aren't you? Did I mention they are already public?
However, I am quite concerned about various statements being thrown around about so-called "First Amendment" rights to anonymity. In which constitution might I find said amendment? I don't have a copy of that one.
I suggest you read the First Amendment for yourself. It's quite short, sweet, and to the the point. Oh, and it mentions nothing about anonymity.
I will say it again for emphasis: The First Amendment mentions nothing about anonymity.
If you are going to cite portionso f the Constitution to back up your argument, or tell a story, or tell someone else's story, make sure your point actually backs up your argument. And please, stop rewriting the Constition.
Or is that too much to ask these days from political spinsters—I mean—corporate America? And to think, you expect me to trust you with my privacy?
Appreciate the post. It reflects a confident male who is more than able to defend himself and take necessary steps to ensure his household is secure.
But not everyone in the U.S. has this same level of safety. Safety is a personal issue that each individual must gage for themselves. I would have no problem walking in downtown D.C. late late Saturday night, but it would be ignorant of me to think a young lady or some elderly people would feel the same.
We are like computers, each with our own vulnerabilities. But there are not always "patches" for us, save learning Kung Fu or buying a can of mace. Some of us remain safe by not placing ourselves in situations of jeopardy.
Back to the D.C. analogy, some people would prefer to tour D.C. during daylight hours or with others. But no one has the right to tell people they must walk in D.C. at night, alone, thus placing them at risk.
We need choices so safety, privacy, security, whatever you want to call it, is enjoyed by all types of people.
I told Senator Warner (R-VA) something similar to this when I wrote him about this issue. Confidence is high that the the NTIA will have to answer for their actions.
A generic observation: As for Go Daddy, it is a smart business decision to maintain private registration revenues for all TLDs, but that doesn't mean their staff doesn't have personal convictions over this issue. Both can exist, you know.
Of course, as you say, niether privayc nor anonymity are mentioned in the text of the Constitution, First Amendment, or Bill of Rights. Neithe are freedom of association, free enterprise, nor the right to travel freely from place to place and state to state, among other equally cherished, but unenumerated, God-given natural rights clearly implied therein. See the Fourth Amendments's protection of persons private "papers and effects," from search without warrant, and the clear language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserving all rights not enumerated and placed under the control of the federql government by the Constitution to the states or to the people. The Framers wrote in the Federalist Papers that they originally saw no need for a separate, specific Bill of Rights because the federal government had never been granted any right or proper power to violate these, and thatthe ahd feared that enumerating certain rights myght be misconstrued as denyong such other, unenumerated natural rights to the people.
Business entities other than individual sole proprietors doing business in their real names have always been required to make certain information available when doing business with the pulbic in order that they may be held accountable. The Post Office requires truthful real names and physical addresses for any P. O. Box used to do business with the public, and freely sells that information for $1.00 per box number, as per thlaw, regulations, and Box rental cntract. Assumed business or trade names are registered either in the county or state offices. Corporate and LLC data on any entity doing business in a state is available from its Secretary of State or its state of incorporation.
The Supreme Court has, on the other hand, long protected the right of individuals to associate freely and in most cases anonymously for political and similar puroses, striking down, for example, a law which would ahve required the NAACP to make its membership and contributors' lists public or available without a warrant supported by probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed, etc, becuase, as it explained, it recognized that not protecting this informtion might inhibit such free association and financial support or lead to intimidation or retaliation. Political contributions over a certain amount, on the other hand, have been held subject to reporting and public record requirements and can generally be found on line. Foreign agents and lobbyists are also requried to rgister.
There are, of course, ways to evade these and other laws if one is criminally inclined. Al queda, the Mob, drug dealers, child pornographers, money launderers, etc., who are not deterred by the laws against their primary illegal acitvities, will not be dfeterred by, and will find ways to get around, this new NTIA rule as well, which, as reported here, has a huge loophole because all the person or group has to do is switch to .com, etc.
#11.2 Peter S. Chamberlain on Apr 3 2005, 19:08 Reply
Dear Peter,
Private registrations for any top level domain (ie .COM, .NET, etc.) provide no protection to any of the evil dooers you mention. These people seldom use private registrations. Instead they simply provide false information. It accomplishes the same thing for them, and does so at no additional cost. It's usually only law abiding citizens who purchase private registrations.
Actually I am not arguing for anonymity, I am arguing that we should not have our rights to privacy stripped away. With privacy there is accountability, with anonymity there is no accountability.
Bob, I'm as concerned about privacy as the next guy; that's why I list a PO box and a voice mail in my registrations.
I don't know who to laugh at more: you — who, like Neustar — didn't give a hoot about the integrity of the registration process until the NTIA gored you in the wallet; or the NTIA and Dept. of Commerce, who ignored two years of complaints on the .US Policy Council public forum about the joke of an honor system they use to supposedly enforce registration requirements for .US. I wrote you and others at GoDaddy about that on multiple occasions: no response. So excuse me if I don't even feign crocodile tears for you on this issue.
If this is about anonymity and national security, who are they kidding? Real bad guys don't give truthful information on their registrations; they don't even have to meet the .US registration requirements, because Neustar and all its reseller/registrars don't enforce the policies. If the credit card clears, you raise your beers.
You might remind Kathy Smith in the NTIA's Chief Counsel's Office that she claims ardent support for a "thriving third party market" in .US domains, so why they're now dunning you guys on this issue is beyond me. Although how they expect to achieve that thriving market when unqualified registrants can hoard thousands of domains for speculation or other purposes, depriving legitimate users of access to the .US domains they seek, is beyond me.
Personally, I think on this issue, you, Neustar, NTIA and the Dept. of Commerce are all full of crap. You get serious about doing the job right, maybe people will come to your support. As it is, it's all about money. Anything else is a pure canard.
Hope you've got the guts to print postings like this one.
I'm happy to post your comment. By attacking me I can tell you that you're whipping the wrong boy. In fact, I'm the only guy, willing to stand up to these people (the NTIA). The other registrars aren't even dealing with the issue. You know why? Because it's easier just to roll over, and they are also afraid of retaliation from the NTIA.
NeuStar is caught in the middle. The NTIA gets NeuStar to do its bidding by threatening to yank it's contract to be the .US registry. So they jump whenever the NTIA wants them to do anything.
I am heartened to see that you seem to understand the privacy vs anonymity issue. Any help you can give us to get this travesty corrected would certainly be appreciated.
The Constitution says nothing about the internet. The internet is a very public place and I see no way to connect it to "being secure in one's person and papers".
The example given of a woman with an online business seems especially illogical. People have a consumer's right to know about who they might be doing business with.
When you're upset about sneak and peek searches, government trojans, Echelon, and all the other unconstitutional invasions of our privacy, I'll be with you. But it seems to me that you're asking for privacy in your public life here, which makes no sense.
I also support using videocameras in public places, photo and laser-radar to catch traffic offenders. We should have no expectation of privacy when we are in public.
Start being aware of the real invasions of privacy and stop being upset about these phony ones.
I always use my real name on the net, and I think people who use pseuds are cowards or have bad intent.
Just my two cents worth. You don't have to agree.
I recommend that you study a bit of constitutional history to understand where it came from and what it means— too many people, for example, believe that the first amendment is about the freedom to distribute porn to children or the freedom to stand on a streetconer, naked, while smearing yourself in chocolate suace and screaming profanity. BTW the first amendment is about the freedom to criticize government, something we seem to have lost a good of in this day and age of "free speech zones" and government covert efforts to "get" people for things they don't like.
Best Regards, Fred Olsen, Heart of Fire Pyrotechnics
I don't understand how the NTIA imposed this rule without a formal proposal in the Federal Register, taking comments, and then adopting a rule, if any.
I have a private registration, because I want a web site to post complaints about neighborhood conditions without having neighbors knocking on my door to take issue with me. This is nothing major, just trash filled lots, zoning violations, and the like.
Of course, US citizens/residents still can hire web developers in foreign countries to register domain names for them and hold the apparent title to them.
I have received a letter from US Senator Saxby Chambliss (R GA) which says he has contacted the NTIA based on my letter to him. Hopefully some good will come out of it. Any other time I've sent him a letter, it's taken months to receive a reply. Either his staff have gotten better at replying or he actually read this one.
In response to Rick, I've decided that I'm opening a mailbox drop with attached telephone answering service if this requirement is not reversed before I have to renew my .us domain. I have a serious concern about my safety regarding the use of my .us domain and can't allow my actual home address to show up in a public database.
Question to Bob Parsons, my domain will remain covered by the proxy service until it comes up for renewal (11/2005 in my case) if this NTIA rule is not reversed correct? And if not, will I receive a notification before my actual information is published in the public whois database?
For all the people who do not understand why a person needs a private registration —- we dont all have something sinister to hide, we arent doing anything illegal —- for me it's about safety. I have a .us domain and I absolutely have to change it for my safety. I have been stalked in person and have had to change my life to get away from that person and have done everything I can to keep all my info private. I have also recently been stalked online —- no, I wasnt in a sleazy sex chat room, I was innocently seeking help with my website on a tech help forum —- so I had to share my web address —- well, when one of the people who helped me thought I should repay them with cybersex and I refused, they turned into a total psychopath and I became very frightened. People really get killed by psycho stalkers. It really happens. There really are sick people out there, people should be able to have a site up for friends and family or personal use without someone who doesnt like your blog post coming after you, because it happens, or someone who likes the picture of the children in the birthday party photo you posted for the family just a little too much and in a sick way —- there is no reason they should be allowed such easy access to personal information to harm you. If you are truly doing something illegal, then govt can get your information from GoDaddy or your webhost — there is no reason on earth this information needs to be public. For the guys who dont get it —- think about your wives, daughters, sisters, mothers —- and then read the papers about all the psychos out there —- and hopefully you will see this fight isnt about protecting criminals or about godaddy raking in bucks for the private registrations —- it's so much seriously deeper than that. It's more than privacy too —- it's risking lives needlessly.
Interested in privacy issues but confused. The only .us domains I ever went to, or heard of until now, were governmental sites like www.capitol.state.tx.us, and I had thought all .us domains, like federal .gov domains, were official. Is this rule—the procedures for which do seem to fly in the face of the Federal Register Act and other federal rule-making procedures—ossibly aimed at such confusion with official sites? On the other hand, .ca means a site is Canadian, .uk mens United Kingdom, etc., though some Canadian non-profit sites I have used have .com extensions like American businesses instead of the .org extension.
Can the phony "non-profit" debt counseling & consolidation outfits that are really fronts for profit- making entities get .org domains?
My wif4es and my email addresses, using our own names, through Earthlink (Sprint adress, with what you experts call a dynamic address,shows up as registered to Sprint in Florida rather than to us, which might be useful especially if we open some in assumed names.
The .aol address of an old friend I recently heard from (through Classmates with whom I have only free service) after many years, on the other hand, shows up in a whois and a Googe search as non-existent. I could never have got back in touch if she had not included this valid Email address. We se a pseudonyms in posting to many sites to which we have furnished our real names & addresses as required, as is common & encouraged, because some such sites or posts deal with legitimate, non-pornographic, matters of an intensely personature the disclosure of which would be offensive to a peson of ordinary sensibilities, i.e., a legally cognizable invasion of personal privacy. I am doing some privileged and confidential legal research and writing that deals with potentially identifiable incestuously molested children and related mental health issues, for example.
Would a business domain with any kind of assumed name etc. come under state assumed business or trade name registration (requirement) statutes, or not. I just thought of this at midnight. My wife recently got scammed into giving debit card and bank info to aheavily advertised company she thought was legitimate for a %6.95 shipping charge, and they have made several unauthorized debits causing us substantial damages and forcing her to change her accoun, and it was only through a pirvate site exposing that (Video Professor) scam that we were even able to locate them.
A lawyer, I once attended a State Bar of Texas course on how to hide ownership of real estate legally. An apartment house or company, unfortunately, does not have to disclose even its true ownership entity to its tenants. The public record may show aonlytotally useless information.
Found site looking to open 2 web sites, one public & one not.
#14.2.1 Peter S. Chamberlain on Mar 27 2005, 00:28 Reply
Dear Peter,
Answers to a few of your questions:
1. .us like .ca is for anyone who resides in or otherwise has a physical presence in the United States. It's not for governmental bodies. .GOV is exclusively for that.
2. Anyone can register a .org domain name.
3. There is no .aol top level domain name. Your friend has a screen name on aol. Aol's domain name is aol.com.
4. It is now illegal to provide false information during a domain name registration. Could get you 7 years in the big house.
5. Sorry to hear your wife fell for a scam. Happens all the time. This is one of the things that privacy helps a great deal in preventing.
Take the time to write your Congressperson and Senators.
Several people spoke of getting a Post Office Box. Apparently they overlook the long-standing requirement that a Post Office or private mail box used in connection with any dealings with the public be registered to a good name and pgysical address, which can then be purchased for about a dollar or so the last time I looked.
I have not yet tracked down the U. S. Code and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) citations for the applicable laws, agency rules, and the regulation in issue. Is there anything in it that makes setting up a corporation, hiring somoeone to manage it, and having that person file a domain name registration in the entity's name, illegal? That's a really simple example. Have these people ever tried to track down the real owners of an apartment house or the Watergate complex.
The way the people who write regulations think I agree that, if this sticks, it is only a matter of time until .com and other registrations cannot be private, either, but there will still be loopholes a con artist, child pornographer, terrorist, or politician could drive a wagon through. I couldn't find the officers and directors of my wife's health plan's management compnay doing business in Texas, nor couild the Secretary of Staet or Insurance Commissioner. Despite all the state and federal regulations, The Manhattan Group, mentioned in the n3wpaper as behind on alleged "grass roots" Texas political cmpaign, does not appearever to have registered a real agent for servicer of process, individual or corporate, here either. The only people who are ever going to do any time under this are going to be stalking victims like your employee, unless they somehow get arrested on something else.
I had talked to the FBI, several Assistant U. S. Attorneys (federal prosecutors) in Dallas and Washington, D.C., had had listed office and home phones when a federal agent said he couldn't find me. I was appointed to represent a then-incumbent official of the Democratic Party, a name partner in a Dallas law firm, when a Democratic state political appointee filed a sworn affidavit that he was "a transient person without a fixed address" in a suit to take part of the front yard of his palacial home to widen on a main Dallas thorofare.
about one in five of the Registered Sex Offenders under state and federal law cannot be found.
Does anybody at this agency or Homeland Security or Congress actually, seriously believe that someone willing to fly into the World Trade Center or do some other suicide terrorist mission is going to be deterred from a false or deceptive registration of a web site or Email address by the threat of 7 years in a U. S. federal prison in the rather unlikely event that he or she gets caught while still alive? ...
#14.2.1.1.1 Peter S. Chamberlain (Will Be Needing One This Year) on Mar 28 2005, 07:31 Reply
Well, looks like it's time for me to get a P.O. box and a voicemail-only phone number. Is a P.O. box "legal" to use in a domain registration?
Yes it is legal — as long as both provide access to the domain holder. But the whole point here is why should individuals have to go to that hassle and expense when a private registration provides them more privacy at less expense.
Think about it, unless you use an out-of-town mail forwarding service (which is also legal), you would be disclosing the city in which you're located. That may be fine and that may not be fine. Same thing for your phone number. A private registration provides more privacy, it costs less, and is hassle free to set up. As an American citizen you are entitled to that.
I have written letters re: NTIA and the privacy issue to my Nevada representatives Senator John Ensign, Senator Harry Reid, and Congressman Jim Gibbons. I explained the whole outrageous mess to them. Hopefully they will take notice and grow a spine....Just imagine, a politicial with a spine...What a concept! I guess that would be the emergence of a new yet to be discovered species...Think of the possibilities!
This whole thing boils me. I just lost 7 dollars because of this whole mess, and I didn't know about this new ruling until after I registered a new .us domain. I think there should be something in bold on the registration page like this:
NOTE: BEFORE YOU BUY A .US DOMAIN! IF YOU WANT YOUR INFORMATION PRIVATE DON'T BUY A .US DOMAIN!
This would have saved me 7 bucks.
I am not mad at GoDaddy really, though I would love my money back. CHUCKLES I am mainly upset at stupid people that don't even ask our opinions! I don't want to get stalked because my information is public! I have written my senators and congressmen. Hopefully they will do something for a change.
You only care about private registrations because you own a company who sells them. People should be held accountable for the content they put online. It should be a matter of public record.
I don't own a company that sells domains and I certainly care about private registrations. As for being accountable, if someone has a valid reason to get at my contact information, their reason is valid enough for them to obtain a court order.
What an outrage. We are bound by the rules of the contract that say DBP can divulge our personal information to the government with proper cause anyway. This whole organization sounds like a waste of government time and money. Budget cuts to this group would be on the top of my list.
I use a private registration, because my site is for family and friends. While I understand the internet is public, I want to control who gets my personal contact information. If I was a business, maybe I would feel different.
I got a spam advertizing a product on a website that used Godaddy's private registration. I did not like it, but wrote a letter, including a copy of the spam and received an email the same day with confirmation that, following complaints like mine, the privacy service was being removed for this spammer's domain.
This alleviates any doubt I had about the usefulness and ethical value of this service. The NTIA's decision is just a shame.
Dear Congressman Marshall: Dear Senator Isakson: Dear Senator Chambliss
I am the owner of a web site named www.malware.us. The purpose of this site is to provide a private forum for vendors of security software and independent researchers to exchange information about software viruses, worms, spyware and security flaws. A mailing list is provided to these persons and companies, free of charge. I would like to point out that an employee of the Federal Trade Commission (Beverly Thomas) is subscribed to this mailing list. I have worked with her in the past as she worked on behalf of the FTC on spyware issues and look forward to working with her and FTC in the future.
At malware.us there also is a repository of malicious software. This repository is provided so that security software vendors may have free access to malicious files gathered by independent researchers. As a result of my activities on this site, unscrupulous and unethical persons who spread malicious software around the internet see their creations targeted by a wider array of security software, such as Lavasoft's Ad-aware and Magnus Mischel's TrojanHunter program.
This places me in the awkward position of being responsible for causing financial damage to criminals with no morality or ethics. To protect myself from harassment and the possibility of physical attack, I registered this web site with a proxy service to protect my name, address and phone number. The registration information published in the WHOIS database reflects the proxy company's contact details, not my own. This is to protect my privacy and safety from people who no doubt would wish to harass or harm me.
I recently become aware of a decision made by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) that prohibits private domain name registrations for .US web domain names. This decision was made by the NTIA unilaterally and without public hearings of any kind. I believe that the NTIA’s decision violates my right to privacy as an American and goes against the legislation enacted by Congress in recent years to enhance the privacy of individuals. It also places me in physical danger.
I ask that you, as my representative in the US government, contact the NTIA and have them explain why they made this decision and why they feel they have the right to deny me, as a law abiding citizen, my right to privacy and safety. I also ask that you direct the NTIA to reverse its decision and once again allow private registrations for .US domain names.
This should concern all of us, especially female website owners. I have been stalked in the past and it definitely is not a 'pleasant' position to be in. I have a man's voice on my answering machine and live in a secured apartment building and currently feel relatively safe. The Internet has a global presence and not everyone pays attention to time zones, I would be extremely upset if someone I didn't know called me at 2:00 or 3:00 am, and started ranting and raving about something or another. When you live in a larger urban center, a female needs to take certain precautions just for survival. If private registrations are prohibited (I believe the .US is just the beginning), then I may as well get a T-shirt printed with my 'private' information and walk around wearing it. I live in Canada but I see that the US legislative body is not much different than my own. George Orwell's 1984?
There is too much anonymity now resulting in unbelievable scams that can't be stopped. Anything the government or anyone else can do to hold people and their domains responsible and accountable for their actions is an improvement. Shame on godaddy!!!!!
My husband and I put off acquiring a personal use domain name for quite some time, because of the lack of privacy involved. One of the main purposes was for us to obtain permanent e-mail addresses, however neither of us felt comfortable using an email address (on message boards for example), where any interested party could easily find our address and telephone number if they so chose.
I was thrilled when GoDaddy.com offered private registrations. The $8 fee that someone mentioned they felt was excessive, is rather inexpensive piece of mind in my book.
On a side note, we almost went with a .us extension. I'm very glad now that we didn't. It's unfortunate that they didn't at least allow existing private registrations to be grandfathered in.
Out of curiosity Bob (if you're able and willing to answer this), what percentage of .us registrations through GoDaddy are private?
I'm happy to answer your question. GoDaddy has registered more .US registrations than any other registrar. At present that would be slightly more than 300,000. About 23,000 were registered with privacy.
>>Shame on godaddy!!! C'mon Judy, don't be so quick to condemn us.
Often what seems like the obvious answer to something turns out to be completely incorrect. That is certainly is the case when it comes to privacy, and particularly as it relates to domain names.
Those who perpetrate the scams you refer to, don't pay the money to purchase a private registration. Instead they simply provide false information so it can't be tracked. The people who buy private registrations are for the most part law abiding people. They pay for the privacy because they don't want to lie, and they want their privacy protected. Law enforcement is well aware of all of this. To be honest, law enforcement would much rather see someone they have an issue with have a private registration than not. How come? Because that way they know that there's a good chance that the information (name, address etc.) is accurate and thus they have a chance of catching the crook. However quite often this is not the case. Crooks are too smart to purchase private registrations.
I own a .us domain with a private registration. I have been continually plagued with spam emails from other domains that I registered publically, and have since tried to stop the flow. I am deeply concerned with identity theft, and use a pseudonym online. The actions of the government would make this all a thing of the past, and subject me to further risk of identity theft.
I am usually in support of security measures that benefit the public, but this is one act that is a waste of government time and money, and a waste of my own money as well.
Bruce Schneier is a hero of mine. I don't represent him, but I do subscribe to most of his views. I am sure he would agree that meaningless security measures that add no security value, especially those that may infringe on privacy rights are a bad thing for America.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/
#24 A Concerned American on Mar 4 2005, 15:16 Reply
I may be the only person who dislikes having personal information private. I just signed with a new web host, because my first choice turned out to be a secret organization. No phones, no email, no customer service. But I had their address and succeeded in finally contacting them. I hope to receive a refund (I was with them a total of 3 days before I discovered their secret). If I had not known where they were via whois data, I would have been forced to try to get my CC company to stop payment...might not have been possible.
I started over. One of the first things I did was to look at whois...if I found that the owner was less than open about who and where and how to contact, I didn't go any further.
I understand that most (all?) web hosts are .COMs, but one of your points was that forcing .US owners to disclose their identity is just a first step to making everybody do the same thing. I personally WANT to know who everybody is. It gives me MORE protection, not less.
BTW, I (sofar) love GoDAddy.com. Great service and attitude.
As a current Go Daddy employee and a woman, the issue of revoking privacy on .US domains hits with full force. Having previously been the victim of a stalker, the importance of privacy and it's relevance to personal safety cannot be stressed enough.
I was fortunate enough to make it through my experience without serious personal detriment. Thousands of people each year are not as fortunate. The idea of revealing personal information, once provided under the precept of strictest confidence, saddens, sickens and enrages me. The fact that this is being implemented by our own government, without contestation, is even more disturbing.
Please take a moment of your time and invest in the opportunity to shape what may very well be the precedence by which our future right to domain (and other) privacy is based. If we do not take action now, I fear the ramifications may be far more damaging than we imagined.
Thank you for taking time to read and for taking action. I personally appreciate it, I know thousands of others do too.
This unilateral decision must have been made by a second cousin to the genius who proposed a "Do Not Email" List a while back to stop spam (you know...similar to the "Do Not Call" telephone number list...except his idea was a public listing of all email addresses you are prohibited from emailing to...Brilliant!)
When will these people realize that making new law and new regulations does absolutely nothing to stop illegal or unwanted activites by lawbreakers? By definition, lawbreakers are lawbreakers! What's so difficult to understand here?
Any individual with an active website can appreciate the value of a private domain name registration, even more so if they've ever had a public domain registration! The quantities of solicitations by phone, fax and email is enormous and never ending. I just don't see what governmental need is jeopardized by private registration of domain names; the info is, and always has been, readily available to the government, law enforcement and the courts at any time.
I'm not only going to write a few letters, I'm going to call a few numbers, too!
The squeaky wheel DOES get the grease, and I want to protect my rights to privacy, at least what's left of it.
Thanks for letting me know about this.
#27 ...Here it comes again... on Mar 3 2005, 08:05 Reply
Does any of this really matter, most of my domains like I am sure most comerical and priviate users are .com and .net names, we do have a few public listed .US and .ORG
"At the end of the night", I have never searched for a domain that was not in the whois, (with some name) including big names owned by major corp users. Since you make it clear that you (regisitars) does not let any illegal site owners hide behind the private domain and if they do anything wrong they will be exposed and lose it anyway, I just wonder why people don't just set up a little domain ownership thing themselves....with out of town address etc...if they are concerned about someone tracking them through whois....to list all your personal or business info for the world to see is a mistake in my opinion anywhere at anytime I think that lots of people in the early days of domain ownership wanted to be found thru the whois to sell domains etc
My point is, at anytime you can go into your personal info with GoDaddy or anyone and change your address, name etc....can't you??
You certainly can go into your account and change your address anytime you want. However, under the new FOISA law, providing false information in the whois is now considered a felony with 7 years added to the sentence (if convicted) if you're found guilty.
The whole point of my article is that you shouldn't have to be put in a situation where you even consider providing false or other info to protect your privacy. You should be able to have a private registration, where you can be honest, not at risk of violating the law and going to the big house as a result, and still have your privacy protected.
I suggest you send an email to your elected representatives so we can stop this challenge to our right to privacy here and now.
I'm afraid all you can do (assuming you have a US nexus and own a .US domain name registered with privacy) is to wait and see what happens.
If privacy is indeed removed from .US registrations (and you own a private .US regisration) come Jan 26, 2006 you will have to decide whether to keep the domain name and make your personal info public, just like anyone else.
You could write to the NTIA, but in this particular case, I'm afaid your time would be better spent doing a cross word puzzle and checking in with this Blog periodically.
I would like to know when the privacy will stop working for .us domains, I purchased 1 about a month ago, and just purchased 2 more last week and if the privacy is going to be canceled I will be canceling them and at least want the price for the privacy back on those domains.
I will also be emailing my congressman/senators as soon as I find those email addresses etc...
Privacy already purchased on .US domain names will remain in place until Jan 26, 2005. At this time, the NTIA has directed that the privacy be removed and replaced with your personal contact information.
This news is not good. I have received mail and phone calls from companies that use the whois to get the information to sell domains and hosting to me in the past. I know this for a fact because I use only 1 phone number in all the whois registrations (seperate just for that, nothing else) and have received voice mail recordings in my e-mail to buy domain and hosting from another company. Is that legal? I don't think so. Hard to prove they got it there too. Anyway, I honestly would not want my personal information shown. (especially for the reason above) I would get a p.o box just for that if I had to but I shouldn't have to. Some people would just juice up their whois information. When I registered, under the terms for whois it said "this information available to you "as is" and does not guarantee its accuracy." and boy they better keep that in there because I can promise you, it will become more inaccurate then it already is if that becomes a concern. (which it will for many eventually)
Some of the sites that use DBP are bot herders, porn sites WITHOUT age vertification of users or performers.
I've noticed also that a lot of spammers that get kicked off godaddy hosting just re-register with DBP and keep on spamming.
At least with fake domain info, you can get ICANN after the register eventually.