Today, an issue exists that should concern people of all political flavors who use their own websites to express their political views. It’s actually something that could affect the privacy of millions of website owners worldwide, regardless of their level of political involvement. So it may be worthwhile to take note.
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, is the private, non-profit entity that the U.S. Department of Commerce put in charge of managing a great deal of the internet’s infrastructure. One aspect of which ICANN’s involved is in creating policies that relate to the worldwide web’s Domain Name System (DNS). ICANN sets the rules for the “Whois” utility, which is a publicly-accessible online database of website domain names and their owners.
Many commercial and non-commercial website owners do not want their personal information made public, so they pay a fee to remain anonymous. When a site owner chooses to pay the fee, visitors to a Whois database would not find the owner’s own name, address, phone number, or other personal information in a search under that owner’s website domain name. Rather, people would see information about the site owner’s proxy service in the search result. The privacy of the site owner is thus preserved.
In cases of copyright infringement and other third party complaints, and also in instances where law enforcement is involved, the current way certain parties can get around a website owner’s anonymity is to obtain a court order or subpoena, since proxy services likely would not comply with an accuser’s demand for the site owner’s information without the appropriate legal authority.
Yet some major players aren’t so interested in privacy rights and due process. Among these are organizations involved in the film, music, and software industries–the MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, ESA, and SIIA–as well as heavy hitters Disney and Time Warner, who together formed the Coalition for Online Accountability in order to take on the bootleggers and others who might try to make money off their copyrights and trademarks without permission.
Due to pressure from this alliance, ICANN released a proposal last month to change the policy so that proxy services could no longer use their information to “stand in” for the website owners’ personal information on the Whois database if the owners use their websites for commercial purposes.
As recently as 2013, ICANN proposed scrapping Whois altogether for the sake of keeping ownership details on website domain names private except in “permissible” cases where certain interests may be allowed to view such data. So it would seem this new proposal is a complete turnaround from their previous proposal two years ago.
Appropriately, the present proposal has created an uproar among a great deal of ordinary shmoes who wish to accrue some capital on the web, be it by selling their wares or just by putting up ads or donation buttons on their sites. Consider how familiar we’ve become with the subject of online stalking, harassment, and identity theft. The world of online political punditry is especially volatile. Sometimes even owners of websites with the most innocuous of themes get threats from disturbed whackjobs. Too much crazy for comfort out there for a lot of folks.
ICANN noted in its proposal that there was no definitive consensus among the ICANN Working Group members on which direction they intend to go. From the text:
Although the WG agreed that the mere fact that a domain name is registered by a commercial entity or by anyone conducting commercial activity should not preclude the use of P/P [privacy/proxy] services, there was disagreement over whether domain names that are actively used for commercial transactions (e.g. the sale or exchange of goods or services) should be prohibited from using P/P services. While most WG members did not believe such a prohibition is necessary or practical, some members believed that registrants of such domain names should not be able to use or continue using P/P services.
For those that argued that it is necessary and practical to limit access to P/P services so as to exclude commercial entities, the following text was proposed to clarify and define their position: “domains used for online financial transactions for commercial purpose should be ineligible for privacy and proxy registrations.”
You may be wondering who the members of this Working Group are. The Working Group consists of a broad range of representatives from public, private, commercial, and non-commercial entities involved in technology, education, government, entertainment, and many other areas.
Attached near the end of the proposal, on page 94, is a statement by an attorney in the Working Group representing several parties who take the stance that those who use their own web domains for commercial enterprises should not be afforded the privacy they currently have. These parties use the reasoning that “Internet consumers should be able to determine with whom they are doing business via information in the domain name registration (Whois) record, consistent with global law and policy,” just as they would be able to determine with whom they’re doing business in any brick-and-mortar store.
Though sites like Amazon, Wal-Mart, and others can afford their own legal teams to handle this sort of thing, some of the peons just want to exercise their right to free speech yet maybe make a few bucks while doing it by putting up ads that take visitors to other people’s stores–and be able to do so without being concerned about stalkers and identity thieves.
As the Electronic Frontier Foundation points out, there is a precedent for doing such a thing and considering it a commercial venture. Other individuals may have their own simple little websites tucked away in obscure corners of the web, selling their old Dukes of Hazzard General Lee model collections or what have you. How important is it that somebody knows who they are, where they live, or what their phone numbers are? Legal avenues already exist to find out the identities of those who are up to no good. Don’t punish all of the website owners. Jeepers criminy.
This is the same manner of control that is taking place in other aspects of society today–like with guns, for instance. Because of the acts of the unscrupulous few, the vast majority with scruples has to suffer. The ridiculous view that taking action this way will make everything right is just so wrong. Stop it. Just stop.
By the way, if you were curious who the parties represented in that attorney’s statement were that aren’t keen on allowing private web enterprises to remain private, they were:
- Domain Tools, a website involved in brand monitoring, cybersecurity, DNS research, and Whois lookup.
- LegitScript, an online pharmaceutical verification and monitoring service endorsed by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy on behalf of government pharma regulators. LegitScript provided the “white paper” that the attorney cited to support the group’s argument.
- MarkMonitor Inc., a software developer that specializes in protecting corporate brands from such things as internet fraud, piracy, and counterfeiting. The attorney works directly for MarkMonitor.
- Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP, a law firm representing a wide array of business interests.
And last, but not least…
- Facebook, Inc.
Yes, that Facebook.
While we expect transparency in government (and rarely get it to the extent that is promised), no such transparency should be demanded of private citizens who wish to express themselves, whether they do it for free or not. Way back when, people who handed the organ grinder’s monkey a nickel didn’t demand it to give up the name of the human it worked for, so why should a commercial website owner now have to give up their name, phone number, and place of residence to the rest of world?
Of course, you can imagine the chilling effect this would have on conservatives who have a few words to say about the current state of things. The Left can be ruthless and even dangerous in their personal attacks on people with whom they disagree. And the close ties that ICANN has with our government is a little disconcerting.
But as mentioned, this is a matter that affects people on both political sides. Not everyone on the Right behaves like good boys and girls, either. In fact, it was the not-so-conservative-based websites Slate and Ars Technica where I found more on this story after I was alerted to it.
In addition, one of the comments sent to ICANN that I came across read: “I know several minority people and marginalized people who would have their safety put at risk were this information to become public. We know that lately online harassment and abuse has gotten worse, especially for women, non-heterosexual non-cis-gendered, and people of color. It is absolutely imperative that privacy remains intact for all of us, but especially them.”
Chuckle if you will, but when you have people on the left and the right agreeing that this is a problem, then…this is a problem. Also keep in mind that while this proposed bright idea may only apply to commercial websites, it might just be a matter of time before Big Interweb decides that non-commercial site owners shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind proxy services, either.
Not long after ICANN put out the proposal, ICANN’s President and CEO Fadi Chehadé–who less than a year ago had his contract extended to 2017–announced that he would be leaving ICANN in March of 2016, right before ICANN takes over the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Up to this point, the IANA has been run by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce. The timing is interesting. It would almost appear as if Chehadé knows it wouldn’t be best for him to stick around once these changes start happening.
It could have nothing to do with anything. I’m merely making a mention of it.
ICANN is taking opinions from the public on this proposal until July 7th. If you’re so inclined to air your grievances about it, the email address where you can send your two cents is “comments-ppsai-initial-05may15@icann.org.”
Also, a couple of websites have sprung up in response to ICANN’s proposal–SaveDomainPrivacy.org and RespectOurPrivacy.com. The first site has a petition to sign in protest of this proposal. The second website asks for your phone number as a means of contact if you want to get involved. If you want to have your say, you probably don’t want to wait too long to act.
(h/t: The Other Shoe)
