3 ms·

This seems like the worst first take possible for a policy that otherwise seems to have good intentions. Basically this is pedantry around something that compl

This seems like the worst first take possible for a policy that otherwise seems to have good intentions. Basically this is pedantry around something that completely does not matter. Every major registrar already provides mechanisms for hiding this info from the general public should you choose to do so. Seems like lawyering for lawyering's sake. When can we get rid of that?

zamadatix 8y ago
OTOH maybe you shouldn't have to pay extra to keep your privacy?
vertex-four 8y ago
The point of GDPR is to implement privacy by default, not privacy for those who know how to pick the right companies and the right options. ICANN have been trying to get an exemption for this, unsuccessfully, for a while. Hence this lawsuit.
oblio 8y ago
Talk to ICANN. It wanted to cut out registrars trying to comply with the law.
philipodonnell 8y ago
> Every major registrar already provides mechanisms for hiding this info from the general public should you choose to do so. I think you missed a "by charging a fee to not do something they have no reason to otherwise do except to force you to pay a fee" in there. Seems like charging fees for charging fees sake, when can we get rid of that?
roderickm 8y ago
As much as I appreciate the privacy-first aims of the GDPR, I think that at some point it collides head-on with property records. Privacy and property rights are interconnected: after all, what is privacy but the right to do with yourself and your property as you see fit without outside observation/interference? These rights are sometimes at odds with each other: can you really own property if your ownership is not publicly recorded/recognized?
- wsy 8y ago
  Is the balance of your bank account recorded publicly? So it seem there is no need for a public record. And GDPR does not prohibit voluntary owner entries into a central whois directory, it just prohibits transferring personal data without consent.

zamadatix 8y ago

OTOH maybe you shouldn't have to pay extra to keep your privacy?

vertex-four 8y ago

The point of GDPR is to implement privacy by default, not privacy for those who know how to pick the right companies and the right options. ICANN have been trying to get an exemption for this, unsuccessfully, for a while. Hence this lawsuit.

oblio 8y ago

Talk to ICANN. It wanted to cut out registrars trying to comply with the law.

philipodonnell 8y ago

> Every major registrar already provides mechanisms for hiding this info from the general public should you choose to do so. I think you missed a "by charging a fee to not do something they have no reason to otherwise do except to force you to pay a fee" in there. Seems like charging fees for charging fees sake, when can we get rid of that?

roderickm 8y ago

As much as I appreciate the privacy-first aims of the GDPR, I think that at some point it collides head-on with property records. Privacy and property rights are interconnected: after all, what is privacy but the right to do with yourself and your property as you see fit without outside observation/interference? These rights are sometimes at odds with each other: can you really own property if your ownership is not publicly recorded/recognized?

wsy 8y ago
Is the balance of your bank account recorded publicly? So it seem there is no need for a public record. And GDPR does not prohibit voluntary owner entries into a central whois directory, it just prohibits transferring personal data without consent.