Talk:Domain privacy

misc
Well, I added this relevant section:



The links bit was wrong, I realise that. So I'll try again, adding in a relevant link. (http://news.com.com/Private+domains+not+so+private/2100-1038_3-5833663.html)

This privacy is TOKEN privacy. It's not true anonmity.

The only company I have found that offers genuine true anonymity can be found here: http://www.katzglobal.com/hosting/anonymous-domains.html


 * I disagree with the statement. 1. You can use cheques and paypal with several registrars most notably Go Daddy to pay for private registrations. 2. It takes more than just a little pressure for them to release the info, and it's usually only to law enforcement. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 14:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheques reveal user information. Paypal doesn't (I think). But in order to stay registered with ICANN, GoDaddy etc. HAVE to by law collect personal information. Otherwise they're not within their terms of agreement with ICANN. ICANN can also revoke the domain registration of any individual who gives them false information. In other words however you look at it GoDaddy has your personal information on the books unless you want to give false details, in which case you might as well not bother using their 'privacy' service anyway.

If you follow this link http://news.com.com/Private+domains+not+so+private/2100-1038_3-5833663.html you can read about a well-known case in which the information was released without any pressure (according to Alan Cordle). He says that it appears that GoDaddy is also doing the rounds of forums trying to repair the damage.

At the end of that article Kevin Bankston from the Electronic Frontier Foundation basically says that you can't trust any third party to keep your personal information secret.

As for Katzglobal.com, they offer genuine anonymity but what happens if they go bankrupt or are bought out? Will you be able to recover your domain name? Try asking them. :-)

There is no such thing as genuine anonymity when it comes to purchasing a domain name. 'Privacy' from GoDaddy et al (Domains by Proxy for anyone interested is a company set up by GoDaddy) only lasts for as long as they want that privacy to last.

Their small print says that at any time and without giving any reason they can release your 'private' information. Here's the link http://www.domainsbyproxy.com/popup/DomainNameProxyAgreement.htm

The relevant phrase is: 'If it comes to DBP’s attention that You are using DBP’s services for purposes of engaging in, participating in, sponsoring or hiding Your involvement in, illegal or morally objectionable activities, including but not limited to, activities which are designed, intended to or otherwise: (i) appeal purely to the prurient interests of third parties; (ii) defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, or harass third parties;'

In other words, if someone threatens them and says, 'This person embarassed me, reveal all!' - they will.

For more on this and what other options there are in terms of privacy (none, basically) read this long forum post: http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/43557 (sorry this doesn't look too neat, I also have a Wiki registered name and password somewhere but can't be bothered to hunt them out, only came across this article in passing as I'm trying to find out about domain registration and privacy)


 * This is the concern that, for most people, deserves elaboration. Many web hosting companies tell you that the only way to protect your ID from spammers is to continually pay an extra fee to these privacy companies ... the particular service they offer is not available for domains they don't host, etc. etc. If you have never hosted a website before, this leaves you confused. What's the risk? Is this a scam? By reading this Wiki article, you come to the conclusion it's basically a scam for anyone truly concerned about anonymity -- but it doesn't provide studies or evidence answering the more pressing concern -- does it protect the owner's ID from spammers? Can someone please add this? (It's a bit beyond my ken.) Thanks! A.k.a. (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed the bit about the credit cards, by the way. The page doesn't look too neat - there's a box that stretches way across the screen, I have no idea how to fix that.

I've been doing some research. There's a famous author who uses the pseudonym Ruth Rendell. The domain names ruthrendell.com and ruthrendell.net are both registered to a firm of lawyers in London. (Use betterwhois.com). The lawyer who has her name down as the registrant has particular interests in computing. I shall post the details below. In my opinion these are easily and publicly available details that refer to an organisation and to an organisational role and aren't going to cause any problems for any individuals.

I suspect that if the lawyer in her speciality has been happy to register the domain names as she has done on behalf of another individual then it's okay for Jo or Joe Bloggs to do the equivalent.

ruthrendell.com, ruthrendell.net

Ruth Rendell Morag Macdonald 90 Fetter Lane London, EC4A1JP GB     Phone: 020 7415 6000 Fax..: 020 7 415 6111 Email: morag.macdonald@twobirds.com

http://www.twobirds.com/english/people/Morag_Macdonald1.cfm

"Morag is joint head of the Intellectual Property group. Her particular interests are a peculiar and unusual mixture of trade marks with computers and electronics ..."

Domain ownership, and privacy vs. anonymity
This article is very limited/superficial/onesided/incomplete. If the true owner is indeed hidden, then how could the true owner of the domain ever prove their ownership, if the domain were stolen or there was any kind of dispute?-69.87.203.105 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What the above person said makes sense. The articles statement "Others, however, treat privacy more seriously, and host domain names offshore" in its context is showing, in my eyes, a bias in favor of certain companies and against Domains by Proxy. Therefore, I placed the  template in the article. -200.171.32.44 (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article is massively biased in favor of a narrow range of dubious "privacy" interests and makes zero mention of the fact that many of these "privacy protection" services exist almost exclusively for the purpose of sheltering cybersquatters from liability or accountability to legitimate brand owners who are seeking to enforce their trademark rights. Moreover, the concerns about spamming, etc. are overblown and the benefits from this kind of domain protection service are overstated. For those legitimately concerned about privacy in WHOIS data, a long list of alternatives exist (such as using a PO box or storefront mailbox address for the "snail mail" address, a single-purpose Hotmail or similar email account for the contact, a legal entity such as an LLC for the name of the owner, and so on). These services do a huge disservice to the Web community by making it incredibly easy for financial speculators to make abusive domain name registrations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.72.212 (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a Domains by Proxy customer as an individual (not a company), and my reasons for using the service have nothing to do with avoiding spam or wanting anonymity - it is simply that I don't want my home address/home phone number to be trivially retrievable by any stalker/nutcase/weirdo who sees my public website/blog/e-mail address. Privacy is surely different to anonymity - anonymity means hiding your identity, whereas privacy means being able to hide specific details in specific contexts.


 * One's home address is not normally public information, and IMHO it shouldn't have to become public information just because you use your own domain name. But this doesn't require me to be anonymous - if I started hosting spam or malware, or squatting a trademarked domain, I am quite happy that DBP would give my details to the police or lawyers, since I'm not trying to avoid them, I'm trying to avoid random nutters out there. It seems to me that the whole domain registration system was designed for companies and not private individuals, and the domain privacy services basically address that to some extent - although I would have concerns if, as someone stated above, they give out the information too easily to non-authorised parties.


 * So anyway, in response some of the criticisms above, I would say there is a valid "use case" for these kind of services, and the fact that some people may try to abuse them for domain squatting or whatever does not diminish that.


 * Also, I don't see how as a registrant, avoiding spam even comes into it, since DBP forward any domain-related e-mails to me anyway (presumably after a hefty dose of spam filtering, which I could probably do myself just as effectively with gmail).


 * I did look into getting a PO box, but in the UK that costs at least £62.85 per year (more if you want them to forward the mail to your real address), whereas DBP currently costs about £6 per year per domain. That basically ruled out a PO box for me, although admittedly it would make more sense if I had a lot of domains. But anyway in principle, I think keeping your home address private should not cost anything - it should be automatic. When you drive a car for example, you obviously don't have anonymity, but you have a reasonable expectation of privacy - your private details are only given to authorised third parties such as police, insurance companies, other drivers etc, on a "need-to-know" basis. - Lokatone (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Legal issues
Added a section about some of the legal issues. There's a new US federal case in which it was held that the privacy service is the legal owner of the domain; the customer of the privacy service is just licensed to use it. That's what the ICANN registrar agreement says, too; the name in the "Registrant" slot is the owner of the domain. There's much discussion of this in the trademark community, as privacy services can now be targeted for contributory trademark infringement. It's not yet clear how this will unwind. I put the basics in the article. --John Nagle (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple Privacy Solution
I asked my registrar (domainsatcost.ca) how much information had to made public for .COM domains. They responded, in writing (e-mail), that the only requirement was that the owner of the domain be reachable, so it would be satisfactory to provide a valid, but anonymous e-mail address but fake information for everything else.

If true, this means that domain privacy is simple: just get yourself an anonymous e-mail address.

This information, provided by my registrar, is contradicted by this sentence from the article "Currently the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) broadly requires that the mailing address, phone number and e-mail address of those owning/managing a domain name to be made publicly available through the "WHOIS" directories."

Does anyone know which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwavel (talk • contribs) 17:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

List of TLDs which can be registered privately
Does sb have a list of TLDs which can be registered using a whois protection service? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.197.83.54 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

However, with the offer of private registration from many registrars, some of the risk has been mitigated. — which registrars? --Gryllida (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=F4D808F5-530F-4F5B-BECF-F87EA05CBF15
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 05:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Domain privacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605230455/http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2003/04/11/proxy_fight_domains_by_proxy_update.html to http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2003/04/11/proxy_fight_domains_by_proxy_update.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)