12 ms·

Cybersecurity: EU to Ban Anonymous Websites

83 points by brtkdotse 5y ago

dkdk8283 5y ago
Yuck! Just when I thought we were doing things better. > According to this directive, the registration of internet domain names will in future require the correct identification of the owner in the Whois database
- ohiovr 5y ago
  At least web masters will get that spam they so dearly want.
zxspectrum1982 5y ago
Is this a joke? Is this from 20 years ago? Publicly displaying the owner of a domain (and technical contact, and billing contact) was done until the GDPR (mandated by the European Union) was approved. According to GDPR, whois displaying ownership, etc was a violation of data protection and privacy. Now the same EU says whois must display ownership. Well, fuck you, first figure out how that plays with your own GDPR.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Proven 5y ago
The idiots are turning the place into Cuba, both in terms of living standard and freedom of speech. But EU sheeple are more than willing to be pushed around. Good for them! Enjoy your security and GDPR cookie pop-ups, pals!
3guk 5y ago
Surely this will be circumvented primarily by people just registering with TLD registries that are not in Europe ?
maxo133 5y ago
Dont worry, registrants will move to offshore locations and that's how it's gonna end.
- gruez 5y ago
  ...then EU gets its own GFW to "protect its internet sovereignty" or whatever.
paperwasp42 5y ago
This sort of legislation is bound to result in two things: 1) Cyber criminals outsmarting the identification and verification mandates, because they're criminals, they're crafty, and they don't give a crap about breaking the laws. 2) Law-abiding citizens who might be whistleblowers, victims of stalking, or have other very genuine reasons for wanting to hide their personal information will be unable to register a website without putting themselves in danger. This sort of legislation, while possibly well-intentioned, helps no one (except for stalkers, people who get a thrill out of doxxing, and corrupt organizations wanting to silence whistleblowers).
- 1cvmask 5y ago
  They are after group 2. They know this will not stop group 1. This image of controlling Internet speech by Ben Garrison always comes to mind: https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/976837-reddit https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/976837-reddit
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Doubt is it well intentioned at all. Governments want to quash unapproved speech. This makes it easier for them to do so.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  3) people in between (i.e. not quite law abiding and not quite cyber criminals, or just people who value anonymity) are driven underground, or start using other anonymised means of putting content online.
- Abishek_Muthian 5y ago
  Years ago I received an email from my registrar Net4India for my .in domain that my Government mandates that information submitted to WHOIS DB must be genuine and failing to comply would get the domain cancelled or something like that. I couldn't find more info about that mandate, Not sure whether the Registrar took upon itself to issue such statements based on Government's order for the registrars to maintain accurate information of the customers(Which isn't same as the info we provide for WHOIS per domain). Anyways, I stopped buying .in domains, Privacy is a fundamental right in India now and so I'm not sure if the mandate can be applied even if its true. Registrars here are offering privacy redaction now.
908B64B197 5y ago
... So people will just get a different domain name not in Europe? What's that supposed to achieve?
Xen0byte 5y ago
While I normally argue in the favour of privacy, in this particular case I'm leaning towards thinking that web content accountability is a step in the right direction.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Why?
  - CheezeIt 5y ago
    Because he wants to punish people.
jikbd 5y ago
Let’s not forget TERREG, which already makes it illegal in practical terms for individuals to have an open forum or blog in Europe > The EU just passed TERREG yesterday without a vote that requires anyone running a website with user generated content (a blog with comments, a forum etc.) and if they have significant EU user base to establish legal presence in the EU and have an officer responsible for deleting content with 1 hr SLA. That's out of reach for most of people. You cannot even block your site for EU traffic, because EU users can use VPN. […] > On 12 September 2018, the European Commission presented a proposal for a regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online, which included: >The one-hour rule: a legally binding one-hour deadline for content to be removed following a removal order from national competent authorities;
- xxpor 5y ago
  Why can't someone outside the EU just respond to the EU presence requirement with "lmao no"
  - mwint 5y ago
    I’m guessing we’re within a couple years of a Great EU Firewall. Then they could protect their citizens from these dangerous American websites. The Internet is being torn apart by governments.
    - _hilro 5y ago
      Quite funny you should say that as I had just written this comment on the other related thread: > I've been leaning more and more away from a global internet and back to regional EU only internet. EU & US & every other region in the world are different. > As it stands, the global internet is dominated by US cultures & laws. > I think the internet as it stands inhibits Europeans forging their own path. So for me personally, my then youthful naivety of supporting connecting the globe and freedom etc. has now shifted over the past 10 years to leaning towards an EU only internet. > The Internet is being torn apart by governments. The internet shouldn't be the international waters of the world and it shouldn't be the United States internet.
Loeffeldude 5y ago
These legislations keep me from publishing some of my private projects because I don't want my full name, address and phone number on the internet
selfhoster11 5y ago
It will be a freezing cold day in hell before I publish my real physical address as a part of my domain's WHOIS. Have those regulators not heard of swatting and doxxing? I'm really happy about choosing a .com over a .eu domain now.
- Silhouette 5y ago
  When you cut through the PR and look at the details the EU actually has quite a bad track record on both technology issues and authoritarian government, so sadly this kind of proposal isn't much of a surprise. But I'm 100% with you on this. I still get phishing emails to an address I set up last century exclusively as a contact point when I managed some domains for a local community group. I haven't been involved with that group for more than a decade. Every year we get deceptive postal mail to our business address, which is the contact address for the registration of our domains at work, trying to get us to sign up for one con or another involving domain renewal "checks", "registration with search engines", and so on. These almost always arrive in the time leading up to the anniversary of registration, even in the years when we don't need to renew because we previously paid for multiple years. Cutting the personal details out of WHOIS was a simple, positive step to improve online privacy even just for everyday users who don't want to be subject to harassment and deception.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  This is useless grandstanding anyway, you can just get a P.O. Box and fill in that information.
supermatt 5y ago
The proposal doesn't state it needs to be kept in whois database. It states that it must be kept "in a dedicated database" and be available to "lawful and duly justified requests for access". Obviously this isn't going to fix anything because those who so wish will just provide false information ICANN already state that a domain name registrant is obliged to "provide accurate information for publication in directories such as WHOIS, and promptly update this to reflect any changes." This proposal is formalizing that in law. Im not sure if i agree with that or not, but lets not pretend this is the end of "whois privacy", as many comments (and the author of this article) seem to be suggesting.
CodesInChaos 5y ago
Germany has required such information for any non trivial website for a long time (Impressumspflicht).

83 points by brtkdotse 5y ago

Yuck! Just when I thought we were doing things better. > According to this directive, the registration of internet domain names will in future require the correct identification of the owner in the Whois database

ohiovr 5y ago
At least web masters will get that spam they so dearly want.

zxspectrum1982 5y ago

Is this a joke? Is this from 20 years ago? Publicly displaying the owner of a domain (and technical contact, and billing contact) was done until the GDPR (mandated by the European Union) was approved. According to GDPR, whois displaying ownership, etc was a violation of data protection and privacy. Now the same EU says whois must display ownership. Well, fuck you, first figure out how that plays with your own GDPR.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Proven 5y ago

The idiots are turning the place into Cuba, both in terms of living standard and freedom of speech. But EU sheeple are more than willing to be pushed around. Good for them! Enjoy your security and GDPR cookie pop-ups, pals!

3guk 5y ago

Surely this will be circumvented primarily by people just registering with TLD registries that are not in Europe ?

maxo133 5y ago

Dont worry, registrants will move to offshore locations and that's how it's gonna end.

gruez 5y ago
...then EU gets its own GFW to "protect its internet sovereignty" or whatever.

paperwasp42 5y ago

This sort of legislation is bound to result in two things: 1) Cyber criminals outsmarting the identification and verification mandates, because they're criminals, they're crafty, and they don't give a crap about breaking the laws. 2) Law-abiding citizens who might be whistleblowers, victims of stalking, or have other very genuine reasons for wanting to hide their personal information will be unable to register a website without putting themselves in danger. This sort of legislation, while possibly well-intentioned, helps no one (except for stalkers, people who get a thrill out of doxxing, and corrupt organizations wanting to silence whistleblowers).

1cvmask 5y ago
They are after group 2. They know this will not stop group 1. This image of controlling Internet speech by Ben Garrison always comes to mind: https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/976837-reddit https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/976837-reddit
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Doubt is it well intentioned at all. Governments want to quash unapproved speech. This makes it easier for them to do so.
selfhoster11 5y ago
3) people in between (i.e. not quite law abiding and not quite cyber criminals, or just people who value anonymity) are driven underground, or start using other anonymised means of putting content online.
Abishek_Muthian 5y ago
Years ago I received an email from my registrar Net4India for my .in domain that my Government mandates that information submitted to WHOIS DB must be genuine and failing to comply would get the domain cancelled or something like that. I couldn't find more info about that mandate, Not sure whether the Registrar took upon itself to issue such statements based on Government's order for the registrars to maintain accurate information of the customers(Which isn't same as the info we provide for WHOIS per domain). Anyways, I stopped buying .in domains, Privacy is a fundamental right in India now and so I'm not sure if the mandate can be applied even if its true. Registrars here are offering privacy redaction now.

908B64B197 5y ago

... So people will just get a different domain name not in Europe? What's that supposed to achieve?

Xen0byte 5y ago

While I normally argue in the favour of privacy, in this particular case I'm leaning towards thinking that web content accountability is a step in the right direction.

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Why?
- CheezeIt 5y ago
  Because he wants to punish people.

jikbd 5y ago

Let’s not forget TERREG, which already makes it illegal in practical terms for individuals to have an open forum or blog in Europe > The EU just passed TERREG yesterday without a vote that requires anyone running a website with user generated content (a blog with comments, a forum etc.) and if they have significant EU user base to establish legal presence in the EU and have an officer responsible for deleting content with 1 hr SLA. That's out of reach for most of people. You cannot even block your site for EU traffic, because EU users can use VPN. […] > On 12 September 2018, the European Commission presented a proposal for a regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online, which included: >The one-hour rule: a legally binding one-hour deadline for content to be removed following a removal order from national competent authorities;

xxpor 5y ago
Why can't someone outside the EU just respond to the EU presence requirement with "lmao no"
- mwint 5y ago
  I’m guessing we’re within a couple years of a Great EU Firewall. Then they could protect their citizens from these dangerous American websites. The Internet is being torn apart by governments.
  - _hilro 5y ago
    Quite funny you should say that as I had just written this comment on the other related thread: > I've been leaning more and more away from a global internet and back to regional EU only internet. EU & US & every other region in the world are different. > As it stands, the global internet is dominated by US cultures & laws. > I think the internet as it stands inhibits Europeans forging their own path. So for me personally, my then youthful naivety of supporting connecting the globe and freedom etc. has now shifted over the past 10 years to leaning towards an EU only internet. > The Internet is being torn apart by governments. The internet shouldn't be the international waters of the world and it shouldn't be the United States internet.

Loeffeldude 5y ago

These legislations keep me from publishing some of my private projects because I don't want my full name, address and phone number on the internet

selfhoster11 5y ago

It will be a freezing cold day in hell before I publish my real physical address as a part of my domain's WHOIS. Have those regulators not heard of swatting and doxxing? I'm really happy about choosing a .com over a .eu domain now.

Silhouette 5y ago
When you cut through the PR and look at the details the EU actually has quite a bad track record on both technology issues and authoritarian government, so sadly this kind of proposal isn't much of a surprise. But I'm 100% with you on this. I still get phishing emails to an address I set up last century exclusively as a contact point when I managed some domains for a local community group. I haven't been involved with that group for more than a decade. Every year we get deceptive postal mail to our business address, which is the contact address for the registration of our domains at work, trying to get us to sign up for one con or another involving domain renewal "checks", "registration with search engines", and so on. These almost always arrive in the time leading up to the anniversary of registration, even in the years when we don't need to renew because we previously paid for multiple years. Cutting the personal details out of WHOIS was a simple, positive step to improve online privacy even just for everyday users who don't want to be subject to harassment and deception.
tinus_hn 5y ago
This is useless grandstanding anyway, you can just get a P.O. Box and fill in that information.

supermatt 5y ago

The proposal doesn't state it needs to be kept in whois database. It states that it must be kept "in a dedicated database" and be available to "lawful and duly justified requests for access". Obviously this isn't going to fix anything because those who so wish will just provide false information ICANN already state that a domain name registrant is obliged to "provide accurate information for publication in directories such as WHOIS, and promptly update this to reflect any changes." This proposal is formalizing that in law. Im not sure if i agree with that or not, but lets not pretend this is the end of "whois privacy", as many comments (and the author of this article) seem to be suggesting.

CodesInChaos 5y ago

Germany has required such information for any non trivial website for a long time (Impressumspflicht).