WHOIS Privacy Considered "Material Falsification" - WickedFire - Affiliate Marketing Forum

bullet-ride · 01-23-2010, 12:34 PM

Quote:

A recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has determined that using WHOIS privacy on domains may be considered “material falsification” under federal law. The defendants in US v. Kilbride (9th Cir., 2009) were convicted under the CAN-SPAM Act in a case that involved criminal charges of intentional email spamming. Enacted by the US Congress in 2003, the CAN-SPAM Act prohibits false or misleading transmission information, deceptive headers, and requires email solicitations to give an easy opt-out method and be labeled as an advertisement, including the senders physical post address.

SOURCE: -Sedo.com

Koschei · 01-23-2010, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Although the ruling does not make use of WHOIS privacy illegal, it does serve as a clear message from the court that coupling the use of privacy services with intentional spamming will likely result in a violation of the CAN-SPAM act. This is an important decision that members of the domain community should refer to prior to utilizing a privacy shield.

Not all is lost for private WHOIS. This is just a problem in the context on CAN-SPAM violations.

force-11 · 01-23-2010, 10:01 PM

Only applies to CAN-SPAM cases, and even the Sedo post seems to be really misleading as to what it really means

The-Nightwalker · 01-24-2010, 03:12 AM

Spam shouldn't be against the law, obviously if you're spamming virus's and phishing links but for advertising it shouldn't be a problem, no one is getting hurt, if they dont want to go to the site in the link they can just delete it... Or they can just report it as spam to their mail provider..

Meh o.o

high risk · 01-24-2010, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The-Nightwalker

Spam shouldn't be against the law, obviously if you're spamming virus's and phishing links but for advertising it shouldn't be a problem, no one is getting hurt, if they dont want to go to the site in the link they can just delete it... Or they can just report it as spam to their mail provider..

Meh o.o

I'm all for a little spam, but this is disingenuous. Spam does cost the providers who are receiving your mail, in bandwidth, server time, and more.

Sharksfan · 01-24-2010, 03:59 AM

Bah - how is "whois" privacy different then the practice of celebrities setting up trusts to hide the property they own from stalkers/papperazi/etc?

Nothing - it's just that the proles have caught up with the wealthy.

^^' webmaster · 02-05-2010, 12:27 PM

This is all fucking bullshit! I use privacy on all my domains and I am not spammer nor criminal! I do it for my own safety and to reduce spam. They just want to be big brother for us all.

crackp0t · 04-07-2010, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by high risk

I'm all for a little spam, but this is disingenuous. Spam does cost the providers who are receiving your mail, in bandwidth, server time, and more.

It also costs the sender to send email. Servers, bandwidth, domain, etc aren't free. Postal junk mail costs everyone as well. It costs money to for the sender to send it and it costs the tax payers money to have it delivered.

cheshire · 04-16-2010, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crackp0t

It also costs the sender to send email. Servers, bandwidth, domain, etc aren't free. Postal junk mail costs everyone as well. It costs money to for the sender to send it and it costs the tax payers money to have it delivered.

Actually no it doesn't. It costs me nothing to go check my mailbox at the curb. You do realize the USPS turns a profit right? Doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. It only costs the sender money to send it. However when you send me spam mail it costs me bandwidth to download that mail, disk space to store it, and processor time to sort it. Then more bandwidth and processor time for the user to download and view it off my server. All that money wasted for V1AGR4!!

What if someone flooded your physical mailbox with 10,000 pieces of junk mail every minute and whether you wanted it or not you had to pay $0.01 for every piece delivered to you? You'd be pretty pissed and scream for the government to ban unsolicited commercial mail.

kindsvater · 04-27-2010, 08:34 PM

Um, no. The Kilbride court did NOT hold that private registration is illegal.

The scumbag, spamming, pornography defendants - sentenced under numerous statutes, claimed that the statute preventing their FAKE registration of domain information in the context of sending spam was unconstitutionally vague because it could encompass those using private registration of accurate information.

The court rejected that argument.

Private registration for the purpose of concealing a spammer's true identity may be problematic - but the issue only arises if there is false information in the emails to begin with, and the email arise out of a subset of CAN-SPAM involving the sending of pornographic emails.

And - the defendants were trying to make it impossible to determine where they were.

Normally, that is not an issue as the person receiving your email knows you who are. No need to check domain registration information.

crackp0t · 04-29-2010, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheshire

Actually no it doesn't. It costs me nothing to go check my mailbox at the curb. You do realize the USPS turns a profit right? Doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. It only costs the sender money to send it. However when you send me spam mail it costs me bandwidth to download that mail, disk space to store it, and processor time to sort it. Then more bandwidth and processor time for the user to download and view it off my server. All that money wasted for V1AGR4!!

What if someone flooded your physical mailbox with 10,000 pieces of junk mail every minute and whether you wanted it or not you had to pay $0.01 for every piece delivered to you? You'd be pretty pissed and scream for the government to ban unsolicited commercial mail.

If you honestly believe the USPS costs the tax payers $0 you're either a really bad troll or a moron.

I also hope you realize it costs the sender of bulk email a pretty penny as well.

nvanprooyen · 04-29-2010, 11:04 AM

Yay! More whois spam. Idiots.

turbolapp · 04-29-2010, 03:57 PM

Honestly if there's going to be legislation I would have rather them concentrate on the snail mail. The pure waste of money and resources is mind boggling (assuming everyone else gets as much junk mail and mailers as I do on a daily basis)

fatmoocow · 05-12-2010, 03:35 PM

lol offshore reg, eat dicks

Netphase · 05-12-2010, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheshire

Actually no it doesn't. It costs me nothing to go check my mailbox at the curb.

Only if you value your time at $0/hr.

DinoVedo · 06-06-2010, 01:42 AM

who cares what the WHOIS information shows? mines all fake anyways..

transient · 06-09-2010, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by high risk

I'm all for a little spam, but this is disingenuous. Spam does cost the providers who are receiving your mail, in bandwidth, server time, and more.

this is a very important point. though it's up to the providers to have security precautions, no? many providers subscribe to blacklist watches, etc, so it's getting more difficult to send spam unless you worm it first.

digyfire · 06-14-2010, 11:46 AM

i knew fake whois was crime, but now private whois?

Hyphen · 06-22-2010, 04:46 PM

This will only cause a rise in fake WHOIS information, no problem is solved here.

jimboflush · 07-03-2010, 12:00 PM

Thats what I will do if they disable WHOIS privacy.

01-24-2010, 03:12 AM	#4 (permalink)
The-Nightwalker Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 26 iTrader: 0 / 0%	Spam shouldn't be against the law, obviously if you're spamming virus's and phishing links but for advertising it shouldn't be a problem, no one is getting hurt, if they dont want to go to the site in the link they can just delete it... Or they can just report it as spam to their mail provider.. Meh o.o Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

01-24-2010, 03:59 AM	#6 (permalink)
Sharksfan Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: WI Posts: 1,033 iTrader: 11 / 100%	Bah - how is "whois" privacy different then the practice of celebrities setting up trusts to hide the property they own from stalkers/papperazi/etc? Nothing - it's just that the proles have caught up with the wealthy. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

02-05-2010, 12:27 PM	#7 (permalink)
^^' webmaster Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 231 iTrader: 0 / 0%	This is all fucking bullshit! I use privacy on all my domains and I am not spammer nor criminal! I do it for my own safety and to reduce spam. They just want to be big brother for us all. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter __________________ ↑ Best Hosting Provider & Domain Registrar Ever

04-27-2010, 08:34 PM	#10 (permalink)
kindsvater Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 13 iTrader: 0 / 0%	Um, no. The Kilbride court did NOT hold that private registration is illegal. The scumbag, spamming, pornography defendants - sentenced under numerous statutes, claimed that the statute preventing their FAKE registration of domain information in the context of sending spam was unconstitutionally vague because it could encompass those using private registration of accurate information. The court rejected that argument. Private registration for the purpose of concealing a spammer's true identity may be problematic - but the issue only arises if there is false information in the emails to begin with, and the email arise out of a subset of CAN-SPAM involving the sending of pornographic emails. And - the defendants were trying to make it impossible to determine where they were. Normally, that is not an issue as the person receiving your email knows you who are. No need to check domain registration information. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

04-29-2010, 03:57 PM	#13 (permalink)
turbolapp Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Houston, TexASS Posts: 8,146 iTrader: 7 / 100%	Honestly if there's going to be legislation I would have rather them concentrate on the snail mail. The pure waste of money and resources is mind boggling (assuming everyone else gets as much junk mail and mailers as I do on a daily basis) Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

05-12-2010, 03:35 PM	#14 (permalink)
fatmoocow Señor Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: US Posts: 449 iTrader: 3 / 100%	lol offshore reg, eat dicks Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

06-06-2010, 01:42 AM	#16 (permalink)
DinoVedo Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: East Lansing, MI Posts: 136 iTrader: 0 / 0%	who cares what the WHOIS information shows? mines all fake anyways.. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

06-14-2010, 11:46 AM	#18 (permalink)
digyfire Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 14 iTrader: 1 / 100%	i knew fake whois was crime, but now private whois? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

06-22-2010, 04:46 PM	#19 (permalink)
Hyphen Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 413 iTrader: 3 / 100%	This will only cause a rise in fake WHOIS information, no problem is solved here. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

07-03-2010, 12:00 PM	#20 (permalink)
jimboflush Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 46 iTrader: 0 / 0%	Thats what I will do if they disable WHOIS privacy. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is adding whois privacy to a previously public whois domain pointless?	ImagesAndWords	Hosting & Domains	5	04-30-2009 03:37 AM
My privacy whois is going away...	turbolapp	Hosting & Domains	10	01-30-2009 08:23 AM
Whois Privacy... do you use it?	trigatch4	Shooting The Shit	51	03-31-2008 03:51 PM
Privacy groups take aim at Web ads	m0rtal	Industry News	0	10-31-2007 01:33 PM