New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
I don't care about theories, I just want to fight against censorship. You seems someone who likes to turn illegal having freedom of speech. Which those kind of people. I avoid discussing with them, there is not way to get a health conversation.
Destroy your windows, doors. I believe your car and your bank account is opened for everyone who wants to see or check how much money you have in your account, don't you? Take a deep breath.
Good luck.
No, reason might be different. For example country just want to be sure that domain registered to country resident (France for example).
Actually, this is not domains registration problem - more and more services require customer to be absolutely open and transparent. Just two days before in Moscow underground FacePay enabled. You don't need pay by card, smartphone etc. for ticket. You just need show your face and ticket would be issued automatically and transparently. Very comfortable, right?
But how good protection will use to save your data in database - we don't know...
You forgot
Living in a glass house and sleeping moving around in the nude.
I don’t breathe. No bank account. Sold my car (yay wfh). What is money? I deal in commodities. Potatoes, anyone?
Very confortable? Showing face and being issued automatically...
In my opinion not... Imagine it in wrong hands.
You are right, it's a very dangerous way!
Do those people need to register a domain anonymously before they could do the reporting? No, they don't.
Do Americans have freedom of expression? It seems yes. Then why does Edward Snowden have to run away? Or do you think he should be in jail?
If you think the current law makes reporting based on facts and truth hard, fix the real problem.
As expected, the biggest supporters of this idea are copyright holders such as the MPAA and BREIN. They'll welcome Chinese-style surveillance if it's for the sake of profit.
It is an undeniable fact. All leaders love surveillance and control, no matter what ideology they worship. There is no country where human rights are perfectly respected. The positive thing is that our society is starting to pay more and more attention to privacy.
For example, in my country, people should register an ID number on the website to post on the Internet. The court held that this law was unconstitutional on the grounds that it infringed upon freedom of expression.
It's simple, as some people say, if privacy isn't really important. Just exclude the freedom of privacy from the law and stop blaming China and North Korea's surveillance program. No one has done that, so (even if the reality is negative)I am against this law.
Perhaps some people will be happy to provide passports to registrars. It's their freedom and I don't care much. But I want people who aren't to be respected. I remember the example of Epik. If registrar collect a minimum amount of information when registering a domain, you can reduce damage even if data is leaked.
Don't domain registration details have to be hidden from WHOIS for European registrars in order to comply with GDPR? Or is this referring to not even the domain registrar having your details?
Chinese-style surveillance is our future. We could ask local government to limit usage of surveillance but we all should understand that even that they issue some law to comply people request this absolutely does no mean that your face and other biometric data will not used against you. Snowden show this very well. This is the future, we cannot stop human progress...
I wish people could understand the difference between anonymity, privacy and freedom of speech and stop acting like it's the same damn thing.
In this case, I think all three are infringed.
It's not human progress it's human degradation especially those people who want to live in the Auschwitz style world.
Then you do not understand the difference.
Three holes. Three infringements.
We don't know exactly. Any progress has pluses and minuses.
Orwell wrote "1984" after the Second World War and many people believed that it was a satire on the USSR and its satellites, but nowadays we see that a lot has been implemented in "democratic" countries such as the USA, Great Britain, France, etc.
Of course, we are not yet in the global Auschwitz, and I doubt that we will get into such an inhumane situation. But you are right. People lose their human rights every day; the right to work (many people will be replaced by automation, robots), the right to freedom of speech (censorship from Facebook, Google - not even state, but private companies and people), the right to access truthful information (censorship from the media and bloggers), the right to freedom of movement, and even the right to one's own body.
Actually no, we never had an unconditional and unlimited right to privacy (nor to anonymity, for that matter).
It seems you are confusing your personal feelings and views vs rights. You also seem to not really understand the term 'right' or the basis of rights (hint: most of your rights are based on whatever the politsters please).
I think about this that blind activism will not serve us well and I think that it will serve us better to analyze the real threat/danger as well as thinking about smart and realistic ways to deal with it - should their plans ever become reality/law.
Plus and most importantly I think that we should be based on a realistic view on the state of things. Example: if the NSA or your own government want to get at you or your data, they will succeed.
In particular your lala land perspective has a critical weakness. Privacy and anonymity or your presumed rights to them are not absolute but relative. Similarly the EU's power to enforce what they consider their rights is not absolute but relative.
Also note that whenever people are given a choice between comfort/ease of use vs. privacy, anonymity, security, etc., the vast majority invariably picks comfort/ease of use - and THAT is something the politsters can rely on. So, at the end of the day you'll have to educate - and change - hundreds of millions of people to stop undertakings like the one you complain about here.
For once, I totally agree with jsg.
For most people, probably over 99%, having to disclose who you are when registering a domain is not a problem. Most people do not register domains, and for those who do, disclosing their identity will not pose a problem. Hence, the vast majority will not see this as a problem.
And to be honest, neither do I. If I register a domain, I do not see a problem with disclosing who I am. The "right" to use a domain is not absolute, nobody has ever promised that you should be able to register a domain without any kind of responsibility.
The "freedom of speech" argument does not really apply here. Freedom of speech means you should be able to speak, it does not mean that you shouldn't have to take responsibility for what you say.
You still looking for other side, and not for the real side.
The world will become with less privacy, and more censorship controlled by technology.
unavoidable unless a country largely rejects technology or has countermeasures against technology where it can cause or create enormous dangers.
This is reality, accept it. Censorship is convenient for governments and corrupt and even criminals. Besides, do you know who's behind this? It could only be the goons, from the MPAA among other organizations.
What they want is only one thing: money / profit and profit, they don't care about your privacy or if you said is right or wrong, or even true or false. They just want to control everything they don't like.
Example: I don't like Peter Sunder projects, take them down! because it was associated (although it may no longer be), sounds ridiculous but that's what will happen if this goes ahead. It's just that you don't have any doubts.
Since when does the MPAA care about people? what they want is the money, and BREIN is the same thing. They are no government, they want to be one, as this proposal is so ridiculous coming from whoever it came.
If you think what I say is ridiculous, take this not only as an example, but how these same organizations also make their own. And they are usually never punished for it.
Let this serve as an example
https://torrentfreak.com/ceo-of-major-anti-piracy-company-arrested-in-russia-for-high-treason-210929/
Pardon me but that looks awfully like highly activistic snowflake argument throwing.
Just a few examples:
Funny that the woke "social" high-tech corporations are the ones plainly sh_tting on all the rights of their users. The amount of people censored and de-anonymized by e.g. the EU is lamentable but still way lower than the facebook, twitter, etc. victims.
Tell me a technology for which this is not true. So the solution is to avoid/suppress all technology?
The reality -or- your reality perception?
You mix up quite different phenomena.
And again, you mix up quite different phenomena, stir them, and serve a nonsensical conclusion. Of bloody course the CEO (or any other person) of a cyber-security company can also commit treason or other crimes, or do you think those people are holy?
And just FYI, cyber-security and intelligence services (alien or not) are more than loosely and rarely related.
Trust me, I'm certainly neither against privacy nor against anonymity; in fact, both come up in my work frequently. But your activist, highly emotional, and snow-flaky acting risks to cause more harm than good for the cause you think you're fighting for.
And btw, what reasonable, actionable, and sensible action or reaction do you suggest to the looming end-of-world danger envisioned by the EU?
@sandoz
Thank you for finally bringing out the true agenda- it is all about Profiteering by MPAA ! The OMS rants were just a smokescreen
That is the truth, they don't care about you or your business even if they harm it or not. Money in their pockets is what they want.
This is a first reason why Hosting Providers should be resilient to these organizations and ONLY comply with local law.
So you think MPAA is behind the ban on anonymous domain registrations?
And the logic is that MPAA wants to stop torrent sites, or what?
Please explain it to someone who doesn't speak conspiracy.
Anonymity and privacy are not the same thing, neither is freedom of speech.
However, they are related.
True privacy and true freedom of speech cannot come without anonymity.
Let me explain:
1. While it is illegal to be fired for your opinions, it happens. The extreme right also suffered for that, many racists and fascists have been fired and deplatformed;
2. While online abuse and even RL abuse are illegal, they happen to people holding unpopular views, such as vaccine supporters/opponents, religious activists, many-many categories of people;
3. As long as it is possible to read your private correspondence legally or illegally, with or without judicial supervision, it is very important to have a separate RL and online persona with as little intersection as possible.
Yes, freedom of speech is not absolute, but it should be, Darwin must be left to work, antivaxxers should be left to preach, inject themselves with bleach, etc, religious ppl should let god heal them and sell talismans to the followers, racists should be allowed to explain why they are better than the rest and as such deserve privileges to even the scale against the untermensch, so on and so forth. Low IQ people should be left to die and the others should be able to observe in plain sight what happens in their cults and understand the dangers better.
Then you do not agree with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declare that speech should be free, however it adds that it must come with "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions".
They list things such as "respect of the rights or reputation of others" and "the protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals" as things that should be able to infringe on the freedom of speech.
Basically they are saying that you can say whatever you want but you have to take responsibility for it, and it's only purpose should not be to do harm. TLDR; dont be a jerk.
The problem I have with must "freedom of speech" and "privacy" advocates, is that the only reason they want privacy is that they do not want to have to take responsibility for their actions or opinions. That is not the idea behind freedom of speech, and I hate that people try to make it so.
Of course not..
Because it happens in China, doesn't mean that it can't come to Europe
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/business/evergrande-media-china.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/14/linkedin-china-shut-down/
They only care about profit that organizations, do you think they care about creators? They use that excuse to earn money, then use the same argue to defend against anything related with them
OK, but that in no way whatsoever answers my question.
Should I repeat the question, or do I have to rephrase it for you to understand it?
Does Evergrande have operations in Europe? Are they in the media business like MPAA? Why do you post a link to a paywalled article that requires you to register just to read? Are you expecting folks to register and give their details to NY Times? How is that supporting privacy and your vocal and ill informed position on the matter ?
Or,
Do you earn a commission from NY Times for bringing them registrations and traffic?
In that case, you have double standards.
NYT-Screenshot
Same for Washington post you should disclose that you earn affiliate- commission
Washington-Post-Paywall-Screenshot
Do you believe LinkedIn will shut down their European operations? I checked with someone who is very high up the Microsoft food chain, and they have no such plans. There are other reasons, specific to China. In Europe I believe their competition is/was Xing. LinkedIn was breached several times and the data was available on "dark Web" several times, old data reappeared recently as flagged by Firefox and haveibeenpwned. If you or had you mentioned that aspect, I would have agreed.
Otherwise you are a bumbling fool who has no depth or breadth of information on the topic they so passionately care about.
This directive is similar to the .dk domain rules and the Danish domain law.
If you are Danish, you have to verify your identity with a government-issued id (NEMID/MitID) that is used for 2-factor authentication.
But you will still have anonymity in whois lookups if you are registered with non-disclosure of name and address by the government.
It is normal that EU directives are voted down and changed a couple of times before the committee makes it a law. And this will most likely happen if the directive doesn't give people that have non-disclosure of name and address anonymity.
There is already a whistleblower directive that protects whistleblowers and EU companies with more than 250 employees have to get compliant with this directive before December 2021.
The article you refer to is a storm in a teacup. :-)
https://www.dk-hostmaster.dk/en/anonymity
https://international.kk.dk/artikel/non-disclosure-name-and-address
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32019L1937
I don't believe in nothing, they can shutdown at any time, they can reduce / block whatever they want, it works when it is approved by Goverment, they don't care about your freedom of speech, even if you are right. I told you that before.
What happens in China, can happens here or in Turkey, doesn't necessarly means that needs to happen in EU, take a Turkey with as example, Russia.. Israel etc
More news about the "mafia anti-piracy industry"
https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-criticizes-icann-for-hindering-its-anti-piracy-efforts-211021/
Hypocrisy is really strong in this one.