Talk:Domain privacy

message: Well, I added this relevant section:
<However, this is not true anonymity. Your personal information is collected by these registrars and they only accept payment by credit cards. The registrars take little persuasion to release so-called 'private' information to the world as the links below demonstrate.>
The links bit was wrong, I realise that. So I'll try again, adding in a relevant link.  (http://news.com.com/Private+domains+not+so+private/2100-1038_3-5833663.html)
This privacy is TOKEN privacy. It's not true anonmity. 
The only company I have found that offers genuine true anonymity can be found here:  http://www.katzglobal.com/hosting/anonymous-domains.html
:I disagree with the statement. 1. You can use cheques and paypal with several registrars most notably Go Daddy to pay for private registrations. 2. It takes more than just a little pressure for them to release the info, and it's usually only to law enforcement. -- Spinboy 14:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the concern that, for most people, deserves elaboration. Many web hosting companies tell you that the only way to protect your ID from spammers is to continually pay an extra fee to these privacy companies ... the particular service they offer is not available for domains they don't host, etc. etc. If you have never hosted a website before, this leaves you confused. What's the risk? Is this a scam? By reading this Wiki article, you come to the conclusion it's basically a scam for anyone truly concerned about anonymity -- but it doesn't provide studies or evidence answering the more pressing concern -- does it protect the owner's ID from spammers? Can someone please add this? (It's a bit beyond my ken.) Thanks! A.k.a. (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  misc 

message: Added a section about some of the legal issues.  There's a new US federal case in which it was held that the privacy service is the legal owner of the domain; the customer of the privacy service is just licensed to use it.  That's what the ICANN registrar agreement says, too; the name in the "Registrant" slot is the owner of the domain.  There's much discussion of this in the trademark
community, as privacy services can now be targeted for contributory trademark infringement. It's not yet clear how this will unwind. I put the basics in the article.  --John Nagle (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal issues 

message: I asked my registrar (domainsatcost.ca) how much information had to made public for .COM domains.  They responded, in writing (e-mail), that the only requirement was that the owner of the domain be reachable, so it would be satisfactory to provide a valid, but anonymous e-mail address but fake information for everything else.
If true, this means that domain privacy is simple: just get yourself an anonymous e-mail address.
This information, provided by my registrar, is contradicted by this sentence from the article "Currently the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) broadly requires that the mailing address, phone number and e-mail address of those owning/managing a domain name to be made publicly available through the "WHOIS" directories."
Does anyone know which is correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwavel (talk • contribs) 17:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Privacy Solution 

message: Does sb have a list of TLDs which can be registered using a whois protection service?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.197.83.54 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of TLDs which can be registered privately 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=F4D808F5-530F-4F5B-BECF-F87EA05CBF15
*:Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page