<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Whois data: winning back the Net</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kierenmccarthy.com/2006/06/01/whois-data-winning-back-the-net/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2006/06/01/whois-data-winning-back-the-net/</link>
	<description>News and views on domain names, the Internet and life in general</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:11:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kieren</title>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2006/06/01/whois-data-winning-back-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-4731</link>
		<dc:creator>Kieren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:04:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2006/06/01/whois-data-winning-back-the-net/#comment-4731</guid>
		<description>&gt; The current whois data is known to be inaccurate anyway, so it’s a bit of a moot point.

I don&#039;t agree Michele. I think many people have resorted to giving false details because the Whois details are so public. And the ironic result is that the people that are honest and provide their details are the ones that are penalised.

Many registrars have started offering an anonymising &quot;service&quot;, which they charge quite a lot for where they put in their details and keep the owners details private. There is nothing to stop the police contacting registrars and getting the owner information that way, and there is nothing to stop the authorities shutting down sites if they break the law - so why exactly are we allowing all these details of ordinary people to be made available publicly, widely and for free?

Kieren</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>> The current whois data is known to be inaccurate anyway, so it’s a bit of a moot point.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t agree Michele. I think many people have resorted to giving false details because the Whois details are so public. And the ironic result is that the people that are honest and provide their details are the ones that are penalised.</p>
<p>Many registrars have started offering an anonymising &#8220;service&#8221;, which they charge quite a lot for where they put in their details and keep the owners details private. There is nothing to stop the police contacting registrars and getting the owner information that way, and there is nothing to stop the authorities shutting down sites if they break the law &#8211; so why exactly are we allowing all these details of ordinary people to be made available publicly, widely and for free?</p>
<p>Kieren</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michele</title>
		<link>http://kierenmccarthy.com/2006/06/01/whois-data-winning-back-the-net/comment-page-1/#comment-4730</link>
		<dc:creator>Michele</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:16:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2006/06/01/whois-data-winning-back-the-net/#comment-4730</guid>
		<description>Changing the amount of data published in whois may not be a bad idea, though I would have reservations about taking too much information out, as it makes tracking down abuse and other matters hard work. The current whois data is known to be inaccurate anyway, so it&#039;s a bit of a moot point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Changing the amount of data published in whois may not be a bad idea, though I would have reservations about taking too much information out, as it makes tracking down abuse and other matters hard work. The current whois data is known to be inaccurate anyway, so it&#8217;s a bit of a moot point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

