The fact he is running sites that want to be anonymized and he feels there is a high chance of "something happening" to them means everyone else should consider looking elsewhere.
> he feels there is a high chance of "something happening"
Where did he state that he feels there is a 'high chance?' If I encrypt my hard drive, does that mean I feel there is a 'high chance' of law enforcement coming after me and that I must be doing something 'bad?'
> The fact he is running sites that want to be anonymized
WHOIS records are only 'supposed' to be used to contact the site admin, etc. That said, when my WHOIS records were public I used to get a ton of junk snail mail. Especially from other domain registrars or 'protection services' wanting me to jump on board with them. The fact that he doesn't want his phone number and address connected to a domain doesn't mean that he wants the domain 'anonymized.' He just doesn't want someone to be able to Google his name and get a phone number and address.
> Don't put up home in the ghetto.
So the fact that a person wants a site to be 'anonymous' means that it's by definition a sleazy site? What about a forum for abused women? Should the site admin be forced to be contacted/harassed by possessive (and potentially violent) men that are trying to find where their girlfriend/wife that ran away is?
> "Where did he state that he feels there is a 'high chance?'"
He didn't but the fact cryptnoob felt the need to mention it suggests he/she is concerned about. I myself don't go around registering multiple accounts "in case something happens" to one of the accounts. Do you?
>"WHOIS records are only 'supposed' to be used to contact the site admin, etc"
Dude, cry me a river. I own a shit ton of domains and so I get that spam all the time. The spirit of the rules around public record of WHOIS data (for com/net/org at least) is that someone can be contacted for technical and administrative reasons about the domain. It's a reasonable rule and so if people fundamentally disagree with it perhaps they should lobby ICANN/etc.
From my own experience running a web hosting business in the past that most people who anonymize their WHOIS details are doing so for suspicious reasons.
> "So the fact that a person wants a site to be 'anonymous' means that it's by definition a sleazy site?"
No, and my apologies for not being clearer on that - perhaps the word "ghetto" wasn't what I meant. What I meant was shared hosting is like being in the ghetto - you are at the mercy of your neighbors on the same server. An account on the same box sharing warez forums is going to affect YOUR site's performance.
> "Should the site admin be forced to be contacted/harassed by possessive (and potentially violent) men that are trying to find where their girlfriend/wife that ran away is?"
As someone whose domestic partner is a leading voice in women's rights online, who receives regular abuse and has had numerous death threats, I can assure you I am very familiar with this subject.
There is a difference between anonymous (read:un-contactable) whois vs using a business address or mailbox where you can receive communication but is not your private residence, etc.
Well, you're the expert. Who am I to argue with anybody who owns a "shit ton" of domains?
As someone whose domestic partner ...has had numerous
death threats
OK, on this, I'd say you're a liar. Anybody actually in that situation, I guarantee, would understand perfectly why anonymity on the net is often considered important to people. You are either a complete dolt, or a liar (or both, I suppose)
I enjoy the convenience DH offers me in keeping my name out of Google. My reasons have nothing to do with whether or not my sites are sleezy. They're not. Privacy for myself and my family is not something I should need to justify to some random git (look it up) on HN.
> OK, on this, I'd say you're a liar. Anybody actually in that situation, I guarantee, would understand perfectly why anonymity on the net is often considered important to people. You are either a complete dolt, or a liar (or both, I suppose)
While I agree that there's a higher chance of it being a made-up story just to try and win an 'internet argument,' than of dotBen actually happening to have a domestic partner in such a situation; there's still a possibility that dotBen and his/her domestic partner are people that are into ultra-openness (i.e. change doesn't happen unless you take risks). Don't be so quick to discount that possibility. Though I agree that rabidly trying to enforce your 'ultra openness' on other people is an aggressive stance to take, and a bit out of nature on HN.
> Dude, cry me a river. I own a shit ton of domains and so I get that spam all the time. The spirit of the rules around public record of WHOIS data (for com/net/org at least) is that someone can be contacted for technical and administrative reasons about the domain. It's a reasonable rule and so if people fundamentally disagree with it perhaps they should lobby ICANN/etc.
> There is a difference between anonymous (read:un-contactable) whois vs using a business address or mailbox where you can receive communication but is not your private residence, etc.
Either you don't fully understand what 'private' WHOIS records are or you're purposely ignoring that information. When a WHOIS is 'private' a person is not 'un-contactable.' The service that makes your WHOIS record 'private' acts as a proxy, forwarding messages on to you while allowing you to remain 'anonymous' if you choose not to reply to the messages. Having public WHOIS information isn't just about having your contact information out in public, it's also about having your name attached to the site. If someone is upset with the content of the site and wants to find your home address, putting a PO Box or a business address as your WHOIS address isn't going to stop them if your real name is attached to the record. With a proxy service, you allow others to contact you while preventing personal information from leaking out unless you choose to respond to the person. It's not like public WHOIS information forces a site admin to respond to issues you have when you contact them.
> From my own experience running a web hosting business in the past that most people who anonymize their WHOIS details are doing so for suspicious reasons.
Suspicious how though? This is turning into a "if you haven't done anything wrong, then you've got nothing to hide" argument.
> I myself don't go around registering multiple accounts "in case something happens" to one of the accounts. Do you?
Did you say the same thing when people got paranoid about Google shutting down entire Google accounts over an issue with one of their products? (i.e. Google thinks that someone's AdSense account is gaming the system so some automated process closes the entire account and now the person no longer has Gmail access, nor Google Analytics access, etc) I remember multiple people talking about keeping each service on a separate account just in case one of them got shut down. That way they wouldn't lose 'everything' for the duration of the time that they were trying to get support from Google (if they ever got support from Google).
Why is this issue with Dreamhost that much different? If someone hijacks your account, and you need your account to contact Dreamhost to tell them that your account was hijacked, it presents a sort of Catch-22, no? Why is a person therefore to be looked at with suspicion for wanting to prevent such a problem?
In any case, why is it that someone must be a devious 'evil-doer' rather than just holding paranoid delusions? Wouldn't it be more likely that the person is just ultra paranoid than someone that was 'up to no good?'
Don't put up home in the ghetto.