Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian Domain Name Registrants To Get More Privacy

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the take-what-you-can-get dept.

Privacy 89

An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian Internet Registration Authority, which manages the dot-ca domain, plans to change its WHOIS policy to better protect domain name registrants. Quoting the Canadian Press: '[Law Professor Michael] Geist said the changes have raised the ire of law enforcement and intellectual property lawyers, who have used the Whois search to track down sexual predators and copyright violators.' Despite this, the organization seems committed to following through with the reforms." Geist also gave a talk recently about digital advocacy; the effectiveness of using modern technology to raise concerns and share ideas about issues such as privacy and copyright law.

cancel ×

89 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Think of the children! (1)

mactard (1223412) | more than 6 years ago | (#23536787)

Do the people in Canada have the same mindset as we do in the USA?

Re:Think of the children! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23536881)

How is this a "think of the children" mindset? If anything, it shows that us Canadians have a "think of our right to privacy" mindset, and I fail to see how that is a bad thing.

Re:Think of the children! We do (4, Insightful)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537009)

No, thankfully as a rule we are smarter and realize that our children are at higher risk of meeting a pedophile at the park, on a bus, at the mall, at an after school activity than on line.

Re:Think of the children! We do (1)

Brian Ribbon (986353) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538545)

"our children are at higher risk of meeting a pedophile at the park, on a bus, at the mall, at an after school activity than on line."

That's true, but does it really matter if they do meet a paedophile? Due to the occurrence of paedophilia in the general population, most children are frequently in the presence of paedophiles anyway. A paedophile is just someone who is sexually attracted to young children; the term doesn't refer to an act or to criminality.

Re:Think of the children! We do (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23543491)

What is the percentage of pedophiles? Are the any studies that have been done on this? They say that 10% of the population is homosexual. What percentage of the popuplation is sexually attracted to children. And what percentage of those people would follow through on those attactions? Based on the news you hear (sensationalist, I know), it seems to be quite common. But how common is it really, and is it more worth worrying about your child being hit by a car while crossing the street, because somebody didn't stop at a red light?

Re:Think of the children! We do (1)

menace3society (768451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23545951)

It's hard to give even first-guess estimates, because people who want to have sex with children fall into a variety of categories.

Many child rapists, for example, are not sexually attracted to the children they abuse; rather, they get sexual gratification from being able to abuse and humiliate someone weaker than they are, and children are of easy prey.

On the other hand, you have the people who genuinely fit the category of 'pedophilia'; that is, they are for whatever reason sexual attracted to young children. Like homosexuals at one time, in most cases these people are able to live a normal cover life and have relations with adults, but they are so given to fantasies about being seduced à la Humbert Humbert by young girls or boys; these are most often the targets of Dateline-style stings.

Then there are people who are into it solely because it is illegal and forbidden; they usually end up being the ones interested in mostly-developed adolescents. However, people in the first category typically end up that way because they were themselves abused by a parent or authority figure. No one really knows about people in the third category, but it's possible that like homosexuals their behavior has a genetic component. Lastly, the people in the third category are included only by an artifact of the law; change the law and you change their behavior.

Re:Think of the children! We do (1)

VeNoM0619 (1058216) | more than 6 years ago | (#23558495)

33%.. [nfshost.com] was the link someone gave about a week ago on this same topic. It's funny though how it says "sexual predators" and everyone jumped to pedo... have we been brainwashed by media this bad already?

Re:Think of the children! We are SMART? (1)

aqk (844307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541457)

"Thankfully we are smarter"?

Alas, that has been disproven.
A study several years ago, concluded that fully FIFTY PERCENT of the Canadian population had IQs of less than 100 !

And you still think you are smarter than Americans? HA!


Re:Think of the children! We are SMART? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23543537)

That really depends. If you define the IQ scale to be based on every person on the planet, I think that most people in Canada and the US, would be above 100. Especially considering that most IQ tests are inherently biased to the type of schooling we have received. How do you measure the IQ of someone who has no formal math or language instuction? Certainly lacking those things doesn't make one unintelligent, but lacking those things, most people would score quite low on an IQ test.

Re:Think of the children! We are SMART? (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 6 years ago | (#23543737)

IQ as measured by 'standard IO tests' from which this data was extracted is not a measure of true intelligence but rather intelligence based on parameters related to schooling and social mores of the person or organization creating the tests. Therefore if the tests were generated by Americans it would favor them. This is why they are not given the same weight today as they were in the past.

But then being a smart American you already knew that , right?

Re:Think of the children! We are SMART? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23547147)

Nah. Just a smart assed American.

We excel at that and it pisses off all the totalitarian states peons.

Re:Think of the children! (1)

Samgilljoy (1147203) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539761)

Do the people in Canada have the same mindset as we do in the USA?

Err, since when does the population of the U.S. have a single mindset? Oh, we're all subjected to the same ludicrous rhetoric at the federal level, but there's hardly a shared mindset/culture/ideology/self-representation.

If nothing else, we need to distinguish between the West Coast and the East Coast and between either Coast and the states not blessed by oceans. There are many populous areas of the U.S. where no one agrees with the bull that usually ends up as fodder for people elsewhere in the world to bitch about the U.S. And yet, thanks to our fake democracy, voters from the middle of nowhere who contribute next to nothing to the GDP get 7 times the representation I do in the Senate. Lovely, ain't it?

Re:Think of the children! (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23543573)

Based on the results of the last election, about 49% of the population doesn't agree with the current government. And it will probably be the same problem the next time around. Maybe it's time the US adopted a more sane election and governance system.

Privacy.... (5, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23536791)

It's not just for the police anymore.

A day without privacy is like... well, like a day living in a police state.

As for the reaction to this.... waaaaaa fucking waaaaahhh

While it's still part of the law, you police people will just have to do your jobs the way you were meant to... investigate, get warrants, follow the procedures laid out in the law. Remember, protect and serve? It hasn't changed. You are still charged with those roles in society. If you forget that, or ignore that, you are no better than warlords in mogadishu.

Get over it.

Re:Privacy.... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23537745)

I really like the WHOIS registry. It is the only guaranteed form of accountability there is on the internet. If I think an internet business is shady, I can easily get an associated physical address. I don't think domain owners should be anonymous. Especially since linking domains to names does not exclude the kind of privacy that needs to be protected. If you're concerned about bushitler throwing you in guantanamo for expressing your political views, then you can post them anonymously on somebody else's domain.
Much like it is important that we are able to identify owners of physical property, is it important that we know who is behind internet property. For example, if a person bought out a storefront and installed a giant tesla coil that shocked pedestrians as they walked by, most of us would think it important to be able to find the owner of that property. Likewise, we should be able to identify the proprietors of websites that cause people harm.

Re:Privacy.... (2, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538123)

"Remember, protect and serve? It hasn't changed. "

I thought it was to collect and serve....

At least with most forms of crime enforcement these days they seem to pursue with any vigor...

Well crikey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23536823)

Because I am sure that the number of cases of 'budgetkiddyporn.com' site hosts being apprehended just because the police did not have to wait for an electronic search warrant before looking up the host's name and address in a public database is just staggering.

Won't happen (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23536839)

Not if it runs up against things like this [slashdot.org] .

Free is a four letter word

Spams and scams (5, Interesting)

telchine (719345) | more than 6 years ago | (#23536851)

From my experience, WHOIS details are mostly used by spammers and scammers. I get a steady stream of snail mail from scammers trying to pretend that they are my registrar and want me to renew with them (for a significant sum of course).

I've never had any legitimate mail sent to the snail mail address that I use to register my domains.

I get a torrent of spams to my registered email addresses. Ocassionally I get offers to buy my domains or just people wanting to contact me but that's may 1 or 2 emails a year.

I think having contact details in WHOIS is an archaic system left over from the days were everyone on the Internet was polite to each other (or something). It should be scrapped and only law enforcement agencies with a warrant should be able to access my contact details.

Re:Spams and scams (2, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23536901)

I think having contact details in WHOIS is an archaic system left over from the days were everyone on the Internet was polite to each other (or something). It should be scrapped and only law enforcement agencies with a warrant should be able to access my contact details.
Whois, finger, ~/.plan files - all relics of a courteous age before mass commercialization ruined various net services, just like its ruined practically everything else.

Its been a while since I registered a domain, but I do believe that info for the whois was optional. I've whois'd many a site that didn't have any contact info listed.

In fact, I think they only times I've ever gotten any useful and relevant info at all from whois has been for .edu or .org sites.

Re:Spams and scams (4, Insightful)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537417)

Why thank you!

I have domains -- all of them are .org, and ALL have valid whois information. The downside? I get spam (20 to 50 a day) that I suspect comes through the registry. But, I use my name at hotmail dot com with a forwarder for email (GetLive) and I have set the hotmail up with maximum aggressive spam filtering. I get 5 to 10 requests to "renew" my domains per year via snailmail.

All in all, not bad for 3 domains. Personally, I don't believe that fake information in the whois database should be allowed. I believe that the whois registry is like a phone book, or address list, and, because dns addresses are public, the registrants should be listed.

But maybe that's just me.

Re:Spams and scams (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23539943)

I guess the question to ask is, what valid social purpose is fulfilled by the entire goddamn planet having access to any of our personal information? Furthermore, if you want that database to be accurate, keeping it public is a good way to encourage people that do care about their privacy to submit fake info.

Re:Spams and scams (2, Interesting)

pathological liar (659969) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540705)

Okay, but you can have an unlisted number because (wait for it) ... some people are concerned about privacy. How is hiding/falsifying WHOIS info any different?

Re:Spams and scams (1)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551657)

If you REALLY want an "unlisted number" -- which would be an unlisted computer, then DON'T LIST IT. Use the IP address instead.

Or, use dyndns service if you want an easier to remember sequence.

Or, use a private DNS server. You can even use your own TLDs!

If you use a registrar... you are registering the name.

I use ".org" for externally visible sites. I am POSITIVE that you don't care that my PVR is named "neptune.lan" aka "pvr.lan" or that my storage server is named "ganymede.lan". You can't get at them. Anonymity at its best. For PUBLISHED REGISTERED names, I believe the contact information should be accurate.

So, no, the "unlisted number" analogy doesn't hold.

Re:Spams and scams (1)

g0at (135364) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541605)

I have had a number of domain names for many years, and much to my surprise, I've only rarely been spammed on their contact addresses (so far as I can tell). I have all the whois-published contact addresses contain identifying strings for this purpose (e.g. the admin contact for zygoat.com is "ben-zygoatcomwhois@").

Re:Spams and scams (3, Informative)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537087)

From my experience, WHOIS details are mostly used by spammers and scammers.

And spamfighters, since spammers have to have reachable domains for their "customers" to locate them. Even if they disguise them, they still need to have some kind of web presence that the "customers" will find credible, and that provides a hook to locate them.

Re:Spams and scams (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 6 years ago | (#23542963)

And spamfighters, since spammers have to have reachable domains for their "customers" to locate them. Even if they disguise them, they still need to have some kind of web presence that the "customers" will find credible, and that provides a hook to locate them.

Hasn't spamming already been classified as a crime in a lot of places, hence making the information available to duly authorized authorities with a warrant?

Re:Spams and scams (2, Insightful)

gmack (197796) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537175)

The problem is that I've used whois info to alert mail admins to known problems with their servers.

While I doubt the whole address needs to be in the whois info a contact email/ number would be preferable to blocking everything.

Re:Spams and scams (2, Insightful)

value_added (719364) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537381)

The problem is that I've used whois info to alert mail admins to known problems with their servers.

Possible use, but relying on the choices between, say, Administrative Contact and Technical Contact seems a bit hit-and-miss, given the general nature of that information, and the distinct possibility that the contact may be an arms-length individual like a corporate officer or VP, or a third-party like a lawyer. At any rate, I'd guess the usual abuse, postmaster, hostmaster, etc. addresses would be just as accurate or useful if needing to contact someone by email.

Provable ownership? (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537425)

What happens if a registrar just decides to "forget" about a domain? Or refuse to transfer it? Or something similar...

A whois record, at the very least, is proof that I own the domain. In fact, I believe certain obfuscation services, like GoDaddy's, may actually involve the registrar taking legal ownership of the domain on your behalf.

Re:Provable ownership? (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537751)

The information is still taken by the registrar, but it isn't made public.

Try whois ingreenwich.me.uk for example (that's not my domain; it's the first '.me.uk' result from Google where the registrant's kept their details private.)

Re:Provable ownership? (2, Informative)

billcopc (196330) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539479)

A whois record is proof that the registrar tagged your domain with that particular info. It is not proof of ownership, and they can change the info at whim. There's no bound value.

I'd be fine with Whois offering an email address for domain-related issues, but even better would be to do away with it entirely. Just send your gripes to abuse@ or postmaster@. Whois info has been more often used for bad than good.

Already done this in the UK (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537717)

Registrant:
                  Joe Bloggs

Registrant type:
                  UK Individual

Registrant's address:
                  The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their
                  address omitted from the WHOIS service.

Re:Spams and scams (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23539443)

That's precisely the problem with Whois. The internet should be anonymous. If you want accountability, there's SSL.

I personally hate the fact that my personal information is listed on every domain I own. I've been targeted by all sorts of scammers, online and off, simply because my information was out there for any half-breed to abuse.

Hell there was this moron a while back. I got this almost legit-looking letter stating I was being sued for defamation of character, but when I called the number I got a very plain sounding voicemail message. I ignored it for about a week until I got another near-identical letter, slightly more threatening.

I use slight variations on my address, so I can tell where people got my info. This one was fishy for several reasons:

1.it was plain old mail, not couriered or registered.

2. it used my mailing address from Whois

3. the "plaintiff" lived hardly 15 minutes away from me.

So I did what anyone with half a brain would do: I looked up the "attorney" and his contact info. Sure enough, the info was bogus and the phone number was the idiot's cell phone. Busted!

Another week passes, I get a third letter. Now he's giving me court dates and settlement options. I rolled my eyes for a few minutes, then drove over to his house, called the number and knocked on his door at the same time. Funny thing is I was so scared of this big mean attorney/out-of-work-roofing-contractor that I didn't notice when he opened the door, and just kept on throwing my hand where the door used to be. I can be such a space cadet sometimes!

Sure enough, I didn't get any more legal threats from that particular address. I do wonder what could have happened if it were someone far away... I guess the real question is: How far am I willing to drive out, to beat the shit out of con artists ?

Simple change: (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23536871)

When a copyright predators want whois data, make them provide the equivalent information about themselves and give it to the person whose whois data is being queried.

Took 'em long enough (1)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 6 years ago | (#23536885)

I, for one, cannot wait for this. No, I have been waiting - for several years.

Once again, Canada gets the epic fail when it comes to technology. Great country and all, but can we try to keep on top of this sorta thing?

      --- Mr. DOS

Epic Fail? (2, Insightful)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537057)

How can you say canada gets the epic fail when it comes to technology?

I don't see your logic. We've got some of the best laws (for consumers rights) in the world, we've got freedom of speech and protection from unlawful persecution.

On top of all that, we've got legalized file sharing in the form of a cd levy! [neil.eton.ca] (Yes, you americans have it too, but your laws still allow the RIAA to run rampant...) Well, so long as it is paid, there is no criminal basis for non-profit filesharing lawsuits!

Re:Epic Fail? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537445)

On top of all that, we've got legalized file sharing in the form of a cd levy!
Offtopic, but I'm not sure that's a good thing. It means that your legal system is operating under the assumption that every CD bought will be used to pirate. I like "innocent until proven guilty" better.

Re:Epic Fail? (2, Informative)

Excelcia (906188) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537619)

If the assumption was as you say, then the levy would be the amount of a price of a music CD. As it is, it's a few cents. And it's not on every blank CD - it's on ones marked as for audio. Which means you can just buy stacks of "data" CDs and use them to your hearts content, levyless, to copy audio.

Your argument, that our legal system assumes everyone is "guilty" of piracy, is circular. How can our legal system be assuming you're guilty of violating a law when doing an act the same legal system explicitly permits? It's like saying a tax on gasoline means you're guilty of driving. Dizzying logic, even for an American. :)

Re:Epic Fail? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537725)

And it's not on every blank CD - it's on ones marked as for audio. Which means you can just buy stacks of "data" CDs and use them to your hearts content, levyless, to copy audio.
Wait, what? Doesn't that kind of make the whole thing ineffectual?

How can our legal system be assuming you're guilty of violating a law when doing an act the same legal system explicitly permits?
Fine, then, maybe "guilty" is the wrong word -- though it does not have to imply legal guilt. Could very well imply moral guilt.

How about this: Buying a music CD, no matter where the source comes from, is subsidizing record labels, right? What does it take to be recognized a record label, worthy of levy payments? Sounds like it is, at the very least, supporting a monopoly.

But let me take this to a ludicrous extreme -- would it be alright if murder was legal, so long as everyone was required to spend one year in prison?

Re:Epic Fail? (2, Informative)

Excelcia (906188) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539807)

The extension to murder implies that copying a music CD is inherently wrong - in the legal world, malum in se. Murder, rape, serious assaults - they cause harm, and are generally agreed to be wrong anywhere you go. I don't think that many people would agree that copying a CD causes direct harm to the copyright holder. If there is any harm at all, it can only be indirect - perhaps due to a loss of revenue. If that revenue loss to the copyright holder is made up by the state by a special tax, wherein is there any harm done at all?

There is actually some convincing evidence that suggests there is no link between music copying and a loss of revenue, even in countries where such copying is illegal and there is no tax. Often such copying is done by people who would never have purchased the "retail" CD anyway, even if they couldn't copy. There is evidence to suggest that copying by those people results in the wider dissemination of music to those who can (and do) then purchase it. If this is indeed the case, then the blank media tax is actually giving the music industry more money than they would have had even if there was no copying done at all.

Whether or not this is the case, the fact is that if someone who would never have purchased a CD copies it, there cannot be said to be any harm done to the copyright holder. The copyright holder has lost nothing. This can only ever be malum prohibitum.

In Canada, rather than empowering our government with more and more draconian measures to stop violations of laws with questionable underpinnings, we simply add a small tax to blank media. This is our way of indicating how much we value music makers, and remunerating them for what they provide us. No DMCA, no court system clogged by the RIAA suing disabled people or single mothers, just a quietly effective system that looks to me to be fair to all.

The sad thing, is that law makers in the United States are putting enormous pressure on our government to adopt a more American system. That would be a tragedy, and I hope that we hold out.

I do apologize for the misinformation about data/audio CDs. I seem to remember this distinction being made at some point, though, so that may be a change in more recent levies. I don't generally use blank CDs much for data nowadays anyway - I use DVD, which has no levy [cb-cda.gc.ca] . In fact, I only ever use blank CDs for the occasional audio disc, so the levy works well in my case.

Re:Epic Fail? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540115)

I know all of these arguments about why filesharing isn't necessarily evil; I've made them myself. I'm certainly not arguing that other ways of enforcing copy protection have worked, or are fair.

However, I don't like the idea of institutionalizing it, especially given that none of this money may make it back to the particular artist I was after. It's still very much an assumption being made that may not be true, though not as bad, maybe, as applying the same tax to Internet bills.

Re:Epic Fail? (3, Informative)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537545)

How can you say canada gets the epic fail when it comes to technology?
I have 20/5 Mbit unshaped fiber optic internet to my home for $50/month (Verizon FIOS) and unlimited 1Mbit/256 EVDO mobile internet to my phone for another $20US/month (Sprint SERO).

I buy all my music (and not very much of it) so I don't have to worry about the RIAA. As far as free speech, I think it's sufficient to note that the Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted freedom of speech as subservient to some of the other goals in the Charter of Rights:

The effect of this type of material is to reinforce male-female stereotypes to the detriment of both sexes. It attempts to make degradation, humiliation, victimization and violence in human relationships appear normal and acceptable. A society which holds that egalitarianism, non-violence, consensualism, and mutuality are basic to any human interaction, whether sexual or other, is clearly justified in controlling and prohibiting any medium of depiction, description or advocacy which violates these principles (R. v. Butler, 1992] 1 S.C.R. 452, at p. 494, citing the MacGuigan Report of 1978).
In Keegstra, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld convictions for similarly vague "hate speech", e.g. ""promoting hatred against an identifiable group". More broadly, a report summarizes it thusly:

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government may limit free speech in the name of goals such as ending discrimination, ensuring social harmony, or promoting gender equality. It also has ruled that the benefits of limiting hate speech and promoting equality are sufficient to outweigh the freedom of speech clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the country's bill of rights incorporated in the country's constitution. . . .
The US is not having a good decade (ok, that's an understatement) but at least we are free from the coercive power of a government that insists on furthering multiculturalism agenda by force (not that I oppose multiculturalism or tolerance, but even good ideas ought not to be coerced). Despite my abiding hatred of racism, I am proud to live in a country were it is legal to burn a cross to make your point of view, no matter how odious that POV is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul [wikipedia.org] .

I should make clear that I regard both Canada and the US as at the forefront of modern liberty and well ahead of the rest of the world in that respect. Disagreements between us are disagreements on common values -- they demonstrate that we are closer than further (in a manner of speaking).

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Butler [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Keegstra [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Andrews [wikipedia.org]

Re:Epic Fail? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538669)

Ah yes, free speech in the glorious USA means I can join the KKK, actively proclaim that the holocaust didn't actually happen and engage in racism/sexism, so long as it is done under the guise of 'free speech'...

I'll take my canadian free speech over your american 'free' speech any day...

oh, and hey, congrats on quoting wikipedia. that was a tough reference to find...

Re:Epic Fail? (2, Insightful)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541175)

Ah yes, free speech in the glorious USA means I can join the KKK, actively proclaim that the holocaust didn't actually happen and engage in racism/sexism, so long as it is done under the guise of 'free speech'...
Care to explain how any of those things are not speech (well, the racism/sexism part is ambiguous -- do you mean having/talking about those views or discriminating against someone in hiring/renting/business/etc . . )? It's not a guise, it's a principle.

Of course, every reasonable person would want to stop the KKK, holocaust deniers and is generally against racism and sexism. Those of us that stand up for those rights don't disagree - we just think the cost of allowing the gov't to proscribe some speech is worse than just living with that speech. It comes down to an unwillingness to allow any one point of view, no matter how wonderful or evidently right, to become an orthodoxy imposed by the gov't. After all, if the KKK is such a terrible idea, it will eventually die out (and pretty much has).

There is only one acceptable response to "bad speech" and that is "good speech" correcting it and persuading people that you are right. If you have to restrict speech that is opposed to your values then you must not have much faith in the power of your ideas.

Re:Epic Fail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23543237)

There is only one acceptable response to "bad speech" and that is "good speech" correcting it and persuading people that you are right.
Assuming the good speech hasn't been redacted, or the people responsible for bad speech are available to be convinced otherwise (and not sitting in gitmo bay...)

Re:Epic Fail? (1)

dryeo (100693) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538991)

We have cross burnings here in Canada too. There was one down the road from me the other year. Only thing is they had to do it in a vacant lot out of site of any houses (right on the street though) It is just illegal to burn them in front of eg a black families home as it is spreading hatred and is intimidating.

people who live in glass houses (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541131)

The US is not having a good decade (ok, that's an understatement) but at least we are free from the coercive power of a government that insists on furthering multiculturalism agenda by force
Affirmative action in the United States is intended to promote access to education, employment, or housing among certain designated groups (typically, minorities or women). The stated motivation for affirmative action policies is to redress the effects of past discrimination and to encourage public institutions such as universities, hospitals and police forces to be more representative of the population. It is commonly achieved through targeted recruitment programs, by preferential treatment given to applicants from designated groups, and in some cases through the use of quotas.

Re:people who live in glass houses (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541381)

True enough, although remember that Canada does not have the history of oppressed minorities that the US does. I'm not in favor of affirmative action but I am sympathetic to its fundamental goals (e.g. it's a question of means, not ends). At any rate, affirmative action is not imposed on private corporations by the government -- unlike laws against invidious discrimination.

I never claimed we were perfect, but in the area of free speech I'd take the US scheme over any other in a heartbeat. Anyone not old enough to remember The Pentagon Papers ought to read that chapter of history very carefully.

Re:people who live in glass houses (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#23547941)

True enough, although remember that Canada does not have the history of oppressed minorities that the US does.
Massacred indians, concentration camps for japs, forcing continental nomads in a sendentary life on a small island, etc.

But Canada has made more progress.

Re:Epic Fail? (1)

bigberk (547360) | more than 6 years ago | (#23542017)

You can get 20/5 Mbps for $50/month? OK well now I am very jealous of American broadband. In Ontario, Canada (most densely populated region of the country) I am paying $45/month for Rogers cable internet 7 M/512 K ... it's the upstream that is ridiculously poor on pretty much all residential options I have looked at. And I think it's consistently lame across Canada, because I have family out west that pays a bit less but still has no better upstream than this.

Re:Epic Fail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23548039)

What does freedom of speech have do to with the question about technology in Canada?

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23536895)

The problem I have with this is that lobby groups and think tanks can now astroturf at will, with no fear of being exposed to the general public. In Alberta, for example, what would stop the oil industry from creating an "envorinmentally friendly" website that drew favorable conclusions regarding continued oil sands development? Whois has been used many times to expose fraudulent or biased sources and it is one of the few tools the genral public has to vet the information on the www.

Re:Anonymous Coward (2, Interesting)

Insanity Defense (1232008) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537407)

When I registered my domain name I went to the company I chose as an ISP filled out forms, handed over cash to pay for the next year. At no point did they check my ID. I could have listed myself as Herman Munster 1313 Mockingbird Lane for all they cared. Yes I am a Canadian and registered a .ca domain name. I was honest but I didn't have to be.

So what was stopping them before this?

Re:Anonymous Coward (2, Insightful)

Gorshkov (932507) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537697)

I was honest but I didn't have to be.
Except, of course, for the little detail that all it would take is a single complaint about your invalid information and you'd loose the domain.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

Insanity Defense (1232008) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537831)

Its a non commercial site. It posts only a list of links to free and legal software with summary descriptions. There is little or no motivation for anyone to complain about it. If a company wanted it I would gladly sell for a relatively low amount, much easier than fighting over it.

How often do people make complaints about domain names to CIRA that are not based on trade mark or some form of (perceived) harassment. In the first case as said I would gladly sell and the 2nd I don't do.

dot-ca remains in the dark ages (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23536929)

Speaking as an owner of many .ca, .com and other domain names, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) is by far the most annoying to deal with.

With a normal domain name, you go to a registrar, pay your money, and you get your domain.

Not so with .ca. After buying the domain from a registrar, you are forced to go to CIRA's website, create a second account, and register again. And you're not done yet. They want you to send in a photocopy of your driver's licence. Can you say identity theft?

Even worse, what if you need to correct a minor typographical error? You might think you can log in to your CIRA account and fix it. Nooooo. Can you log in to your account with your registrar and fix it? Nooooo. You need to download and fill out the form, sign it, get it witnessed and send it in with photoID. Most people wouldn't bother - in fact, that is exactly what Tucows (a large .ca registrar) recommends - don't bother fixing it since it is such a hassle. Strangely enough, I attended a CIRA meeting where CIRA was complaining about the large number of errors in their registrant database. THERE ARE SO MANY ERRORS BECAUSE IT IS SO DIFFICULT TO FIX THEM!!!

Not to mention the fact that .ca names are far more expensive than .com. CIRA is swimming in cash from their monopoly fees.

Frankly, CIRA should contract out the whole thing to Godaddy. They would run it far better and cheaper.

Re:dot-ca remains in the dark ages (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537025)

Frankly, CIRA should contract out the whole thing to Godaddy. They would run it far better and cheaper.

Do you really think that these restrictions are there because they can't figure out how to do an online form? Do you think GoDaddy made it so easy because they just want to do what's right for you?

Re:dot-ca remains in the dark ages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23537155)

Do you really think that these restrictions are there because they can't figure out how to do an online form? Do you think GoDaddy made it so easy because they just want to do what's right for you?

Yes, I'm sure CIRA can do an online form. My point is that CIRA has chosen to build an overly complex annoying system.

Fundamentally speaking, why do I need to maintain an account at my registrar AND an account at CIRA to manage a single domain? If CIRA doesn't trust the registrars, then they shouldn't be registrars.

Why can I not go to a single SSL-protected website, login with my username and password, and correct an error? CIRA never even validated the information in the first place. But no, I have to write a letter, get it witnessed and send it in with photoID. That is ridiculous.

And despite the many horror stories I've read about Godaddy, I have never had anything but great service and pricing from them.

I want Canada to have a leading presence on the internet. But the actions of CIRA make it clear that dot-ca is a second-rate, overly regulated and overpriced place to be.

Re:dot-ca remains in the dark ages (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23537583)

But the actions of CIRA make it clear that dot-ca is a second-rate, overly regulated and overpriced place to be.

Wow, I would never expect that in a socialist leaning country.

Re:dot-ca remains in the dark ages (1)

Insanity Defense (1232008) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537773)

But no, I have to write a letter, get it witnessed and send it in with photoID. That is ridiculous.

When did that begin? I have had a .ca domain name since Sept 2005 and never had to do that. At the end of each August I go to ISP and pay a cash renewal fee without ever having to do any of this. The domain is in my name and I do get E-Mails from CIRA periodically which I typically ignore.

Re:dot-ca remains in the dark ages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538331)

But no, I have to write a letter, get it witnessed and send it in with photoID. That is ridiculous.

When did that begin? I have had a .ca domain name since Sept 2005 and never had to do that. At the end of each August I go to ISP and pay a cash renewal fee without ever having to do any of this. The domain is in my name and I do get E-Mails from CIRA periodically which I typically ignore.


Well, I did say that is to make some kinds of changes. If you never needed to make a change you wouldn't have experienced that annoying requirement.

And if you registered a domain in Sept 2005 that is before CIRA started to be very annoying. You might want to read their email messages though, there have been significant changes since 2006.

Re:dot-ca remains in the dark ages (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539983)

CIRA should contract out the whole thing to Godaddy
No thanks. Godaddy makes goatse's backside look small.

Re:dot-ca remains in the dark ages (2, Informative)

JFitzsimmons (764599) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537461)

I don't remember having to do steps 2 & 3 that you listed. I have a .ca domain but I definitely have not submitted any personal identification to CIRA.

Re:dot-ca remains in the dark ages (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23537535)

I don't remember having to do steps 2 & 3 that you listed. I have a .ca domain but I definitely have not submitted any personal identification to CIRA.

When did you register it? CIRA only started to be very annoying in the last 2 years.

If you didn't submit your personal information to CIRA you have probably lost your membership.

Re:dot-ca remains in the dark ages (1)

JFitzsimmons (764599) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538449)

True, I registered the domain more than two years ago. What is the downside of losing CIRA membership?

Re:dot-ca remains in the dark ages (1)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538893)

In my opinion, nothing. You can register a .ca domain without becoming a member of Cira. Membership is only required for voting as far as I know.

The have become retarded lately. Too many "experts" trying to fix things and they have added extra steps for nothing. I'm thinking that it's a government entity for the dumb things they do. Kinda like make work programs to keep people in the maritimes employed.

Re:dot-ca remains in the dark ages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538621)

I don't remember having to do steps 2 & 3 that you listed. I have a .ca domain but I definitely have not submitted any personal identification to CIRA.
What registrar did you use?

A few of them will register you under their name to get around limitations blocking anyone from outside the country from registering. It's what they do with the .jp domain.

Re:dot-ca remains in the dark ages (1)

Gorshkov (932507) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537731)

Speaking as an owner of many .ca, .com and other domain names, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) is by far the most annoying to deal with.
[deletia] ....

Frankly, CIRA should contract out the whole thing to Godaddy. They would run it far better and cheaper.
I call bullshit, on absolutly everything you've said. I've had multpile .ca domains myself, and been responsible for many others over the years, and have never had to go through anything even remotely what you're describing.

Re:dot-ca remains in the dark ages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23537913)

I call bullshit, on absolutly everything you've said. I've had multpile .ca domains myself, and been responsible for many others over the years, and have never had to go through anything even remotely what you're describing.

Well, you should check again with CIRA. Here are their PDF forms, and pay attention to the part where they want government photoID:

This is the form for individuals [www.cira.ca] .

This is the form for Non-Individuals (e.g.: Canadian Corporation) [www.cira.ca] .

So, I'm clearly not bullshitting. Do you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion?

Re:dot-ca remains in the dark ages (2, Informative)

floorpirate (696768) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541897)

CIRA accounts are set up in two sections:

1) The actual account that holds your contact/ownership information (this account is generally referred to as your CIRA ID).

2) The "membership" account, which is to be able to do things outside of normal domain ownership, such as vote on CIRA board elections (details at https://member.cira.ca/en/index.html [member.cira.ca] )

The CIRA ID is assigned when you register your first .ca domain (although you can have many, ask your registrar for details), and is based off the contact information you provided to your registrar. You buy the domain, then get a temporary CIRA ID to go to CIRA's website and confirm your details. They then e-mail you a permanent username and password (alphanumerical fun, and you can't change them). If you change your contact details through your registrar, you have to go to CIRA's site, log in, and confirm the change within the next 7 days, or they don't take effect. All .ca domains under a single CIRA ID share their contact information, no matter what registrars you buy them through (just make sure they link the same CIRA ID to your account before you start buying).

The membership used to be a yes/no option in the CIRA ID details when you logged in at CIRA's website, but they changed it last year. I went through the process to see how difficult it was, as I was working in a .ca registrar's customer service at that time. So you fill out a form, send it in with a photocopy of a driver's license, and they send you a letter by mail with details for going to their site and confirming. That's it. If you want to update the information, you send in another form. A web-based form for updating the information would be lovely, and probably will get put in eventually due to demand.

If you've got many .ca domains and have problems updating your information, talk to your registrar(s). Get all your domains moved into one CIRA ID, either by a change of ownership or a "merge" of CIRA accounts.

Re:dot-ca remains in the dark ages (1)

bigberk (547360) | more than 6 years ago | (#23542045)

In my experience this is not true, I also own .CA domains. I never provided a driver's license to CIRA. Also I did recently update an address in my WHOIS, it was relatively painless. True that you have to log in and confirm through CIRA but otherwise the system has worked fine for me... could be that these bad experiences mentioned are based on older (legacy) registrations, back when there was higher security for different tiers of .CA domains, such as provincial, then national level which required extra checks.

Falsification ought to be criminal (4, Insightful)

Teancum (67324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537037)

For myself, I believe that falsification of information on domain registration (aka the "whois") ought to be criminalized instead of swept under the table as it is right now. There are legitimate reasons for being able to identify specific pieces of equipment and domains ranging from technical (I'm getting a whole bunch of packets from you... would you roll back that software update you just did and fix the bugs) to criminal activity... most of which is mentioned in the parent article.

Or more to the point, if a domain has false information listed, the domain ought to be invalid and can be revoked. I dare any bona fide business to apply for a business license from a government agency giving the kind of information I've seen on most whois databases... especially the dot com types. Business license information is public information and often even published in network accessible databases as well... many even on the web interestingly enough.

Unfortunately, the domain registrars themselves have been allowed to be lax in the kind of information they expect, and is IMHO an example of ICANN and its corruption and mis-management.

For those individuals who are worried about privacy, this isn't to say that you can't communicate and use the internet for private communications. But a domain name was never meant to be private. Insisting upon privacy for what should be public information is a mis-use of the resource.

This is also a situation where a free and just society is required so you can have the freedom to be able to publish your name in a public forum and not fear retribution from those who may want to do harm to you. The real reasons for the desire for privacy is protection from criminal behavior... and it is the criminals who mis-use this information (aka sending spam, threating letters, or abusive prosecution) that should be punished severely. In other words, the desire for privacy stems from a break-down of government in establishing order and consistently prosecuting genuine criminal behavior that most people would consider to be criminal.

Re:Falsification ought to be criminal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23537455)

This is also a situation where a free and just society is required so you can have the freedom to be able to publish your name in a public forum and not fear retribution from those who may want to do harm to you.
You Fucking Topia.

We will NEVER have such a society. Never.

It will always be up to the individual to take precautions to protect themselves.

You make your choice - freedom and risk from individuals who wish to do you harm or no freedom and risk from organizations that will crush you like a bug without even noticing.
Either way, you will never, ever be free from the risk of harm.
Freedom is not free.

Re:Falsification ought to be criminal (3, Interesting)

value_added (719364) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537991)

But a domain name was never meant to be private. Insisting upon privacy for what should be public information is a mis-use of the resource.

And I'm still moaning that email was never meant to be anything but text. ;-)

The purpose of the legislation is to address the continuing increase in personal domain registrations. It's entirely conceivable that one day, everyone will be required or will otherwise want to register in some form. That leaves us in a difficult position where the traditional approach of making everything public must be balanced with the privacy needs of millions of new registrations by ordinary individuals.

Resolving that conflict by admitting no one anticipated this state of affairs, or saying this isn't how things are supposed to work, is hardly satisfactory. And when you mix in the changing interests or requirements of all the parties involved, ranging from the various internet authorities, to law enforcement, ISPs, network administrators, all the way down to Dick and Jane, I can't see how anyone could say let's just leave it alone.

Hell, it wasn't too long ago that ATT would routinely publish whois info for their fixed IP accounts. Makes perfect sense, until you realise it doesn't.

One approach, or workaround, would be to advise (require) everyone to hire a personal lawyer to handle everything; the registration info would be public, but the personal information would remain personal. Another would be what the Canadian government is doing. Personally, I expect all this will work itself out in time, but I worry that we'll find ourselves in a very different world than when we first started.

Re:Falsification ought to be criminal (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 6 years ago | (#23538581)

I dare any bona fide business to apply for a business license from a government agency giving the kind of information I've seen on most whois databases... especially the dot com types. Business license information is public information and often even published in network accessible databases as well... many even on the web interestingly enough.

But what about businesses which don't need licences? I own a .co.uk domain from when I set up as a sole trader (self-employed); I did not want to put e-mail or snail mail addresses in the whois records, but it came down to the risk of losing the domain outweighing my desire for privacy.

But a domain name was never meant to be private.

Do you mean domain ownership? Sure, but domains were only meant to be owned by military and academic organisations, and those organisations were meant to be the only ones with access to the network. When the scope of a project changes drastically you have to consider whether its structure is still appropriate.

Re:Falsification ought to be criminal (1)

billtom (126004) | more than 6 years ago | (#23544515)

There is a purely practical problem that has nothing to do with privacy. I get so much junk mail at the email address listed for my domains that it is literally impossible for me to filter out the legitimate email. I'm talking spam to ham ratios of 10,000+ to 1. No software based filtering will handle that much of a mismatch. And I don't have the money to hire a full time employee to manually filter them.

Now, the snail mail address for my domains doesn't have this problem (because snail mail costs money to send, I guess). But the idea of having public email addresses for domains fails the practicality test.

We're all a little used to sharing the information (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23537123)

Imagine if it were the other way around: that these records were not published, and some government now wanted us all to post all our contact details. Most of us would be pretty horrified.

I think we've all gotten a bit used to the way things are. Does the world and their dog really need the contact information (other than, perhaps an e-mail address) of every domain out there?

Why not get a court order to get whois? (4, Insightful)

urbanriot (924981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23537139)

Why is this such a big deal for law enforcement? They should have to get a court order to view this information, and I don't see that being a big deal if they're actively pursuing an investigation.

Re:Why not get a court order to get whois? (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#23541163)

Why is this such a big deal for law enforcement? They should have to get a court order to view this information, and I don't see that being a big deal if they're actively pursuing an investigation.
It's a big deal because they have to get up and go to court, instead of sitting there and clicking their WHOIS button.

And when they'll get back all the good donuts will be gone!

Re:Why not get a court order to get whois? (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 6 years ago | (#23542957)

It's a big deal because they have to get up and go to court, instead of sitting there and clicking their WHOIS button.

And when they'll get back all the good donuts will be gone!
They should learn to think more positively! On the way back from the courthouse, they can stop off at Dunkin' Donuts and get another batch. Two birds, one stone.

Re:Why not get a court order to get whois? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23651629)

Why not get a court order to get whois???? Because if you happen to own a valuable trademark or copyright which is being infringed on the domain name, and wish to try to handle it by simply contacting the registrant about the issue, it becomes impossible to do so without the contact information! Do you have any idea how much IP infringment goes on routinely online? To require a court order to get contact information for every instance of it is quite onerous, and allows infringing criminals to hide behind a veil of privacy - yay for supporting crime! Sure, privacy is important, but you have to pick your battles and this doesn't seem to be as important for privacy as, say, the government peeking into your house. (And don't even bother with the fact I'm posting anonymously, I don't care to spend my time registering for yet another website.)

Michael Liberal Geist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23538593)

yawn

a little perspective pls (3, Informative)

doppiodave (911019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23539851)

i'm the proud owner of a gaggle of .ca domains, going back to the days when they were administered as a labor of love out of the university of british columbia by one dedicated soul - John Demco. he was rewarded by having abuse heaped on him for being way too particular about whether applicants were stealing trademarks, or were otherwise out to make trouble. unsurprisingly, he was a volunteer working under the de facto authority of Jon Postel. many Canadians, esp those in business, wanted a system more like .com, so anybody could get registered in 2 minutes flat - a great system until we had to endure years of cybersquatting, reverse-cybersquatting and the like. when CIRA took over 8 years ago, they had far more resources to throw at the .ca domain, yet have built a system very much in the spirit of the old one - fair, secure and extremely well administered. the decision to pull .ca data out of whois is just another step along that path. why anybody is surprised or upset by this decision is a mystery to me. law enforcement officials everywhere will always be disappointed if they're not allowed to stick a probe up your ass to see what you've had for lunch. as for privacy on the Internet, it's long gone - in so many ways it's hard to count 'em. if "officials" are pissed about CIRA, it ain't because they're pulling whois out from under them. it's because CIRA operates at arm's length from the government, which is a lot more than you say for ICANN and the Dept of Commerce.

Canada (1)

Peter_The_Linux_Nerd (1292510) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540083)

One! Two! Three! Four! Canada demands more! (money)

rfc1032 (1)

Koutarou (38114) | more than 6 years ago | (#23540571)

Someone needs to float a new rfc updating 1032. Its over 20 years old and dreadfully outdated.

tonic has been doing this forever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23540633)

Fortunately tonic (.to's nic) has not been forced to sign a contract with ICANN yet and has always protected its customers' information. They are an open TLD and will sell domains to anyone as long as they aren't used for spamming. While their prices were originally competitive with Network Solutions's (especially considering Network Solutions incompetence at that time), these days their prices are significantly higher than what you would pay for a .com address.

About Time (1)

sherriw (794536) | more than 6 years ago | (#23543607)

As a Canadian domain owner, I can say it's about time... and I hope the rest of the TDLs go the same direction. I get way too much spam from my Whois email address and I even get phone calls. .ca doesn't support who-is privacy services, and I would have been happy just with that, but this is even better. Thank you CIRA.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?