7 ms·

It's pretty absurd to require users to continually pay you money with threat of revealing all of their personal information publicly if they ever choose to stop

by ve55 8y ago

It's pretty absurd to require users to continually pay you money with threat of revealing all of their personal information publicly if they ever choose to stop paying you. I can't imagine many industries getting away with that except for registrars due to how the whois system has worked historically, but it's basically just extortion, keep paying us or you're doxxed. Whois privacy should be the default everywhere for no additional charge, so I guess this is a change in the right direction.

corobo 8y ago
I realise it's not even in the same ball park really but the US health service works in that way from an outsider's perspective "Keep paying us or die"
- frockington 8y ago
  That is how services work. You pay money, you receive a service. If all tax payers in other countries stopped paying money, people would "die"
  - corobo 8y ago
    Indeed, that was my point. The parent couldn't imagine many industries getting away with it, my counter example was insurance - In my comment's example health insurance but it fits most insurance-based services
- 0xfeba 8y ago
  You don't die. At least, not from severe trauma. You die eventually from preventable causes due to lack of preventative care. You do get crushing medical debt, though. Which my advice would be to declare bankruptcy and/or not pay it.
nomercy400 8y ago
If only there were laws in place to protect your privacy. Oh wait.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  For all the whinging about GDPR on here, I'm actually really liking its effects as a random netizen. And I'm not even an EU citizen!
NamecheapCEO 8y ago
Completely agree but publishing accurate Whois information is an ICANN requirement for all registrars and not some gimmick set up by registrars to profit from their customers. If we failed to do this we would lose our accredidation. Whoisguard was set up to replace customer info but when we do that we are also exposed to all the legal issues that come with the territory which costs quite a bit to defend. We spend millions of dollars per year safeguarding user information and not simply turning off whoisguard without a proper legal order.
- csomar 8y ago
  So ICANN require the information to be public? I thought they just wanted that you provide accurate info to the registrar.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    https://whois.icann.org/en/primer https://whois.icann.org/en/primer
  - NamecheapCEO 8y ago
    Yes, it also needs to be made available via public whois.
    - mysterydip 8y ago
      Is there a process to get that modified/amended? It seems like a carryover from the days when the internet was a friendlier place and not full of abuse.
    - csomar 8y ago
      So how is whoisguard legal?
      - lightedman 8y ago
        I doubt it is, and this might as well be extortion, or maybe in some cases, actively aiding and abetting a crime.
scosman 8y ago
To be fair, ICANN required WHOIS info and registrars could be sued or lose registrar status if they didn't provide it. ICANN only recently said they wouldn't sue non-compliant registrars.
oliwarner 8y ago
They do provide a contact proxy service as part of this though. So that people who need to contact you can, just without learning who you are. Like a PO box. And again, you don't have to buy a domain. Or you can go through the same steps I've can to (eg) mask the sale of land and property with an intermediary company. People's recent outbursts at the WHOIS system strike me as odd. It's been this way for two decades. It's really very similar to other public records.
- Glyptodon 8y ago
  And for two decades it's been a system for the lawyered class at the expense of grandpa Joe who just wants his own model train website and doesn't understand all the phonecalls and spam that came with it.
  - strictnein 8y ago
    The cost of privacy protection at most registrars is ~$5 a year. Grandpa Joe's understanding of it all is completely separate from any "class" considerations.
  - oliwarner 8y ago
    I don't necessarily disagree but I don't think it's ever been that elitist. Almost anybody can form a legally recognised company and/or have a representative (yes lawyer, accountant, "professionals") stand in for them on public records. There just seems to be this recent backlash against public records. In the UK, you buy a house and your name goes on the public record (along with the sale price). This seems very similar and useful for similar reasons. No disagreement that it can also give you an involuntary spamgasm but that's just a symptom of another problem. Cold calling and spamming people still pays the bills.
lloyddobbler 8y ago
When you put it that way, I nod in agreement. But at the same time, I reflect upon the days of the phone book, which most people on this board likely never knew. Your phone number and address would be listed by the phone company as part of your phone number subscription - an unlisted number would cost you more. While times of change, and the searchability of the digital world does raise some other concerns, I still wonder how big a deal it is for ICANN to require this. Is it really revealing "all of your personal information" if you reveal the PO box, spam-trap "domains@" email address, and phone number of the domain owner? If the registrar were revealing other info, I'd say "it's pretty absurd." But by default allowing people the info to contact you, as the owner of a domain name? That doesn't seem like extortion. Heck, if you own any real estate in the U.S., your contact info is listed in the tax assessor's database for all to find, same as in the WHOIS database. Regardless, definitely an interesting topic to chew on.
- freehunter 8y ago
  Not everyone has a PO Box, they cost actual real money. Not everyone has a public/business phone number, those cost actual real money. Requiring another phone number and a PO Box means domains go from costing $10/year to $250/year. You can allow people to contact an owner without giving out their information. Craigslist does it.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - lloyddobbler 8y ago
    Not everyone has a domain name, they cost actual real money. The question comes down to: is owning a domain like owning a computer (a commodity)? Or is owning a domain more akin to owning a phone (landline), or real estate, or a business? If the former, privacy should generally be assumed by default. If the latter, I think it's worth questioning whether it should be. To your point, the price doesn't escalate to $250/yr. It escalates to $10/year plus ~$2-5/yr for privacy protection. That's what we've been talking about this whole time - SHOULD you have to pay a premium for an "unlisted number"? Luckily for those concerned with privacy, companies like Namecheap, Google, Namesilo, and a few others are now offering this by default, making that discussion irrelevant.

by ve55 8y ago

corobo 8y ago

I realise it's not even in the same ball park really but the US health service works in that way from an outsider's perspective "Keep paying us or die"

frockington 8y ago
That is how services work. You pay money, you receive a service. If all tax payers in other countries stopped paying money, people would "die"
- corobo 8y ago
  Indeed, that was my point. The parent couldn't imagine many industries getting away with it, my counter example was insurance - In my comment's example health insurance but it fits most insurance-based services
0xfeba 8y ago
You don't die. At least, not from severe trauma. You die eventually from preventable causes due to lack of preventative care. You do get crushing medical debt, though. Which my advice would be to declare bankruptcy and/or not pay it.

nomercy400 8y ago

If only there were laws in place to protect your privacy. Oh wait.

CydeWeys 8y ago
For all the whinging about GDPR on here, I'm actually really liking its effects as a random netizen. And I'm not even an EU citizen!

NamecheapCEO 8y ago

Completely agree but publishing accurate Whois information is an ICANN requirement for all registrars and not some gimmick set up by registrars to profit from their customers. If we failed to do this we would lose our accredidation. Whoisguard was set up to replace customer info but when we do that we are also exposed to all the legal issues that come with the territory which costs quite a bit to defend. We spend millions of dollars per year safeguarding user information and not simply turning off whoisguard without a proper legal order.

csomar 8y ago
So ICANN require the information to be public? I thought they just wanted that you provide accurate info to the registrar.
- ethbro 8y ago
  https://whois.icann.org/en/primer https://whois.icann.org/en/primer
- NamecheapCEO 8y ago
  Yes, it also needs to be made available via public whois.
  - mysterydip 8y ago
    Is there a process to get that modified/amended? It seems like a carryover from the days when the internet was a friendlier place and not full of abuse.
  - csomar 8y ago
    So how is whoisguard legal?
    - lightedman 8y ago
      I doubt it is, and this might as well be extortion, or maybe in some cases, actively aiding and abetting a crime.

scosman 8y ago

To be fair, ICANN required WHOIS info and registrars could be sued or lose registrar status if they didn't provide it. ICANN only recently said they wouldn't sue non-compliant registrars.

oliwarner 8y ago

They do provide a contact proxy service as part of this though. So that people who need to contact you can, just without learning who you are. Like a PO box. And again, you don't have to buy a domain. Or you can go through the same steps I've can to (eg) mask the sale of land and property with an intermediary company. People's recent outbursts at the WHOIS system strike me as odd. It's been this way for two decades. It's really very similar to other public records.

Glyptodon 8y ago
And for two decades it's been a system for the lawyered class at the expense of grandpa Joe who just wants his own model train website and doesn't understand all the phonecalls and spam that came with it.
- strictnein 8y ago
  The cost of privacy protection at most registrars is ~$5 a year. Grandpa Joe's understanding of it all is completely separate from any "class" considerations.
- oliwarner 8y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree but I don't think it's ever been that elitist. Almost anybody can form a legally recognised company and/or have a representative (yes lawyer, accountant, "professionals") stand in for them on public records. There just seems to be this recent backlash against public records. In the UK, you buy a house and your name goes on the public record (along with the sale price). This seems very similar and useful for similar reasons. No disagreement that it can also give you an involuntary spamgasm but that's just a symptom of another problem. Cold calling and spamming people still pays the bills.

lloyddobbler 8y ago

When you put it that way, I nod in agreement. But at the same time, I reflect upon the days of the phone book, which most people on this board likely never knew. Your phone number and address would be listed by the phone company as part of your phone number subscription - an unlisted number would cost you more. While times of change, and the searchability of the digital world does raise some other concerns, I still wonder how big a deal it is for ICANN to require this. Is it really revealing "all of your personal information" if you reveal the PO box, spam-trap "domains@" email address, and phone number of the domain owner? If the registrar were revealing other info, I'd say "it's pretty absurd." But by default allowing people the info to contact you, as the owner of a domain name? That doesn't seem like extortion. Heck, if you own any real estate in the U.S., your contact info is listed in the tax assessor's database for all to find, same as in the WHOIS database. Regardless, definitely an interesting topic to chew on.

freehunter 8y ago
Not everyone has a PO Box, they cost actual real money. Not everyone has a public/business phone number, those cost actual real money. Requiring another phone number and a PO Box means domains go from costing $10/year to $250/year. You can allow people to contact an owner without giving out their information. Craigslist does it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lloyddobbler 8y ago
  Not everyone has a domain name, they cost actual real money. The question comes down to: is owning a domain like owning a computer (a commodity)? Or is owning a domain more akin to owning a phone (landline), or real estate, or a business? If the former, privacy should generally be assumed by default. If the latter, I think it's worth questioning whether it should be. To your point, the price doesn't escalate to $250/yr. It escalates to $10/year plus ~$2-5/yr for privacy protection. That's what we've been talking about this whole time - SHOULD you have to pay a premium for an "unlisted number"? Luckily for those concerned with privacy, companies like Namecheap, Google, Namesilo, and a few others are now offering this by default, making that discussion irrelevant.