If it’s about contacting people, they could make the abuse@ or webmaster@ address mandatory, then you can separate it from your normal email accounts, because the majority will be spam anyway.
And often it's not a violation, it's an alleged, unspecified, un-counterable data point hidden in Google's cloud with no way for the user to determine what it might have been.
I moved everything to AWS DNS and am super happy about it. Domains are mission critical, I'll pay double without blinking to know that my stuff isn't gonna be held ransom over some contrived baloney
Like accidentally changing the name on a kindle to “baba”?
https://www.reddit.com/r/amazon/comments/5gvgdl/using_a_amaz...
Though, bulk editing would be nice, I'm about to move. :-( If anyone here works for google domains, it would be REALLY nice to be able to update all contact info on all domains at once.
Not really. Appengine for example didn't have an admin API until recently(and it's still quite limited).
What about domain owners like mysql who have no email attached to their domains? I only have two personal domains, but I have never had a need for an accounts to be associated with the domains nor do I think I would ever check it.
Perhaps have those two account DNS lookups always go through the registrar who then forwards to your account email? Even that doesn't seem very fool proof, though.
.com are $12/year
.net are $11/year
.io are $39/year$39/year AWS Route53 and $47.68/year on Porkbun.
Where? I never paid a dime
Since control panels, reputation, policies and other services like DNS are also things that can be bundled together, it's going to be difficult to say whether or how much you're paying for just the privacy component.
Always felt like mild extortion.
That aside, I'm still glad to pay a little more for the overall better service. If they were charging anything like the old Network Solutions prices, that'd be a different matter.
Once a domain is registered all they need to do really is process auto-renew payments, notify me if my card was declined for any reason, and make sure it's kept registered at the registry.
Unfortunately in any case though I've stopped at the gate, they don't appear to have an API
But an issue with whois privacy is that if you ever don't have it for a period (like you forget to renew/autorenew), then it's now saved in a number of DNS/whois history services.
As an aside, .us addresses cannot be registered anywhere with privacy controls enabled.
Ah, yes, its documented:
https://www.namecheap.com/security/whoisguard.aspx
>When you register an eligible new domain name or transfer an existing eligible domain into Namecheap, you'll receive the first year of WhoisGuard privacy protection absolutely FREE.
Free protection, no upsells, $19/yr for 1 yr of .com $13/yr for 5 years. TOTP 2FA as well. Never had a problem for the 15 years I've been with them.
They run their own TLD's .design, .ink and .wiki [1] so these guys really know their stuff. Support is not 24/7, but usual office hours, but those who pick up your phone/email REALLY know what they are talking. Plus really cheap domains, they mentioned somewhere that they are aiming for $1 mark-up for all TLD's.
https://wiki.gandi.net/en/contacts/privatewhois#this_service...
Other services do.
When I change whois privacy to enabled and press save it just says "Unable to update the contact."
This happens both with my .com and my .net domain.
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2017/d2017...
Given that precedent matters a lot in UDRP cases, I’m not sure that njal.la is a realistic option.
I get some calls/e-mails so quickly I wonder if they have some kind of live stream setup for registrations on some TLDs.
I have little sympathy for ICANN with this. Malevolent persons can always go to registrars which do not publish personal information and even accept anonymous registration. The current policy harms only lawful citizens.
Those email lists only tend to get longer, never shorter, I still see spam sent to addresses I haven't used in years (and backlink spam requests for websites that haven't been alive since the 90's!).
As a side effect, I know when my address is sold to anyone and by which site, I am already sharpening my papers, after 25. of May, every website that will give away my address is going to get serious papercut.
There's also (very bad) precedent in the UDRP for using out of date or inaccurate WHOIS information as evidence of Registration/Use in bad faith. There's even been cases where a UDRP panelist has argued using WHOIS privacy services was prima facie evidence of bad faith, which beggars belief.
http://www.udrpsearch.com/naf/1684372
"This Panel member is persuaded there is bad faith registration and use because of several factors. The first factor is using a privacy service in a commercial context raises a rebuttable presumption of bad faith. Respondent has done nothing to rebut that presumption. Respondent does not need to conceal its identity from the marketplace to be a domain name reseller. Respondent offers no explanation as to why Respondent concealed its identity (and conceals it to this very day). Only people with an intent to deceive conceal their identity, which is the very definition of bad faith. Since Respondent did this at the time of registration and through the present day, there was bad faith registration and use of the domain name."
Thankfully other panel members dissented, but the UDRP has a long history of questionable reasoning and decision making, and bizarre WHOIS issues are not unheard of.
all this seems fine according to eu law so I am not sure why dns registration is any diferent
(Source [German]: https://www.e-recht24.de/artikel/datenschutz/209.html )
http://www.bmjv.de/DE/Verbraucherportal/DigitalesTelekommuni...
I'm reading from the English translation here, but it suggests that "businesslike" also includes something that is ongoing / sustained. So if your personal blog is posted every Tuesday, it could be said that is "businesslike" (geschäftsmäßig). They also specify that profit is not a requirement.
Geschäftsmäßig doesn't require Gewinnerzielungsabsicht (intent to make a profit), but does actually require an intent to make business, in whatever form, but not necessarily on the site itself. For example, a business owner having a very simple website just stating what his business does will require an imprint on that site, because obviously the intent of the website is to inform about his business. If, on the other hand, you have a blog with no ads about your kittens then you don't need an imprint.
Just because something is an unbestimmter Rechtsbegriff (non-exhaustively defined law term) doesn't mean you can just go ahead and act as if it means anything you like.
But to confirm, the particular quote from the BMJV that I was going by on that page is this one, does it match with your understanding? (My German comprehension isn't great.)
"Die Anbieterkennzeichnungspflicht muss praktisch von jedem, der ein Online-Angebot bereithält, erfüllt werden. Etwas anderes gilt nur bei Angeboten, die ausschließlich privaten oder familiären Zwecken dienen und die keine Auswirkung auf den Markt haben. Im Zweifel sollten Sie davon ausgehen, dass die Anbieterkennzeichnungspflicht besteht."
The first sentence seemed to say that "in practice everyone offering something online must comply", and I took "privaten" in the second sentence to imply private as in "password protected / not publicly accessible". But as someone learning German I've probably interpreted those too narrowly, and I'd love to be corrected on the nuance!
which exclusively cater to private/family needs/affairs and [thus] have no impact on the markets.
> I took "privaten" in the second sentence to imply private as in "password protected / not publicly accessible".
No, privaten Zwecken here refers to personal affairs.
And as a reminder, the German rule only applies to commercial sites — a site with no ads and no way to pay such as quasseldroid.info does not need an Imprint.
I wouldn't be too sure. There is, unfortunately, a lot of room for interpretation with this law. Rather cautious adviser urge you to have one as long as your website isn't private in the sense that can't be accessed by the public (i.e. a website for family members that can only be accessed with a password).
This law (IANAL) is just horrible.
The law just requires a way to contact a person within of a few days, and a way to be able to get the person behind a site to be able to sue them.
The alternative is sites that you can't do anything against if they act illegally against you, e.g. through libel and slander.
If I want to send an Abmahnung to a website owner, because they publicly defame me — as has happened before — then I need something stronger than an email address. Or I need to invoke the right to be forgotten, but I don't want to do so, I prefer having a way to eliminate the source.
I was always wondering if they overturn this at some point. I don't know of any other country requiring it and I doubt that it helps taking down illicit content. If anything, it helps consultants for offshore companies.
I'd be fine with depositing my personal date somewhere so that people with legitimate concerns can contact me but it should require some effort so that the function can't be abused.
How can they claim "data protection" in one case and make it mandatory to put your name and phone number their in another?
It makes me very uncomfortable to host a website, when I know I will get spam, unwanted telefone calls, maybe even unwanted visits at my home, etc.. And it deters me from posting something even a bit controversial on my own domain - this is probably an intended side-effect of the "impressum" policy.
(* well, German law, but there is likely something similar in other countries)
EDIT: To elaborate, the EU e-commerce directive from 2000 requires all member states to have laws that require commercial sites to have at least name of the entity, physical mailing address, business registration IDs if applicable, e-mail and VAT ID published. Since it's only a directive, the details vary from country to country. E.g. France requires also listing a phone number and an actual person responsible for site content.
Why do you leave a lie at the top of your comment with an asterisk to clarify it's a lie at the bottom? It's NOT a European law. If other countries have similar laws, it's still not a European law. Please remove the lie.
To bombard someone with the word "lie" crosses into incivility (rather aggressively, as I read it), and also breaks the site guidelines by not giving the benefit of the doubt. Could you please not treat others like this here? Instead, assume good faith, as the guidelines ask.
By the way, even the correction below is a untruth, because only a few other EU countries have similar laws.
Nah there is not. Don't lie.
[ tries to visit ckastner.com ]
[ the website is down ]
[ looks up Whois record for ckastner.com ]
[ picks up phone, dials number ]
"Hello, yes, Christian Kastner? Your website is down. Just thought you should know."
This is a perfect example for one of a positive effects of the GDPR afforded to natural persons.
I haven't been associated with that domain for 15 years or so. Why is someone still maintaining my personal data, some of it now wrong/obsolete, in a public database?
Edit: Just to be clear, I don't see a problem with the parent having posted this information here, as the parent just reposted this from another public source. The problem here is clearly the other source.
• tries to visit ckastner.com
• the website is down
• retrieve the information from an archived snapshot instead https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/resurrect-pages-isu...
• Christian Kastner was already notified by email from his automated monitoring that the website is down
Not everyone with a website is a web developer, or paid a knowledgeable and modern web developer to make the website.
Of course nobody _else_ should be forced on sharing details just for this kind of occasional utility, I'm not claiming that.
Honestly, I think you should take social engineering more seriously if you think the benefits outweigh the costs.
Like someone removing their front door because it might encourage someone to drop by for some stimulating conversation.
For example, the author of the "Amazon Backdoor" post a while back suspected that the attacker got their address from a whois of one of their domains.
I think rather the comments in support of an open Whois are looking at the past with overwhelming nostalgia instead of objective reality.
To your own point, the Web is a very different place now. But Whois is still the same, reflecting a reality that no longer exists. It's time for a change.
We would have preferred someone called us immediately, in case we didn't see the ticket immediately. But we didn't have a security hotline publicly listed.
Putting a phone number in a big public directory of phone numbers for when e-mail doesn't work isn't a bad idea, regardless of what anyone (including the EU) says. We've had phone books forever. This is just a phone book for domains.
"My website is so critical that I want random people to be able to call me about it" is an oxymoron I don't think anybody has ever said.
Member States shall ensure that the service provider shall render easily, directly and permanently accessible to the recipients of the service and competent authorities, at least the following information: (a) the name of the service provider, (b) the geographic address at which the service provider is established, (c) the details of the service provider, including his electronic mail address, which allow him to be contacted rapidly and communicated with in a direct and effective manner.
A "service provider" is basically anyone with a commercial web site. See (17) and (18) in [1] for the detailed definition.
[1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:...
In many countries, one's address is in fact not a matter of public record. For example, in China.
It does you zero favors.
Can you clarify what jurisdiction you mean? In the United States, this isn't true - there are certain (admittedly common) things that generate public records with your address, such as buying a house or (in some areas) registering to vote. (In other areas, voter registration databases are technically not public, but volunteers on any political campaign have access.)
However, if you're not registered to vote and you're renting an apartment, there isn't any real reason why your address would be a public record.
There is no white pages for cellphones but I still get junk calls anyway.
I always felt uncomfortable having to submit my personal data, specifically: my address and phone number, and for it to be published like that (regarding domains where Whois protection services are not allowed). I can understand the motivation for this with regards to corporations and organizations, but what benefit is there with regards to natural persons?