I understand the need for privacy, (I have an unrelated personal blog, for which I use a privacy service) but with p.o. boxes, privacy services, and other alternatives, there should always be a REAL PERSON at the end of the line who can be held accountable for the unlawful they do.

Yes, my customers could protect themselves by comparing the whois information (though casual internet users won’t), but I have no way to protect myself/my customers/my brand from the scammers.

If anyone is aware of any action I COULD take I would be grateful, but so far all attempts have been fruitless and frustrating.

Cheers,
Will

Any clue? Thanks…

Harris

But please enlighten me. How is the proxy stopping close-minded, presumptuous and perhaps prejudiced individuals from jumping to conclusions regarding the data they see in the WHOIS? What presumptions and/or prejudice could possible be made from the WHOIS info? It’s far more likely for close-minded, presumptuous and perhaps prejudiced individuals to jump to conclusions without it, don’t you think? Or has the true meaning of this debate completely eluded you?

I work on a few major web directories and my research, which is extensive, has shown me that most who use anonymous whois services, have something to hide. The percentage of those who don’t have anything to hide is minuscule in comparison to those who do.

Now Gloria that comment cost you your credibility. You have violated reason to support your “anonymus WHOIS is evil” position. I don’t care how old you are, your personal experience is not “extensive” in web terms. You have no factual basis for your assumption that those behind proxied WHOIS “have something to hide”, and by putting that forth you have shown your closed mind.

In truth the best use of a WHOIS proxy is to hide the fact that the data behind it is not accurate. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with hiding…nothing is being hidden behind the proxy. The proxy is simply stopping close-minded, presumptuous and perhaps prejudiced individuals from jumping to conclusions regarding the data they see in WHOIS.

Personally, if I can not verify the site’s owner via the whois, which often gives me more info for researching their credibility, I will not use their services or buy their products. I’d go elsewhere. There’s just too much competition to not find a site offering something I might want that will supply legit whois info.

I work on a few major web directories and my research, which is extensive, has shown me that most who use anonymous whois services, have something to hide. The percentage of those who don’t have anything to hide is minuscule in comparison to those who do. There are other ways to find who owns a site but the average Internet user will not go that far to research a site’s owner, nor should they have to.

I also predict that the major web directories will be using whois info to verify ownership, which is already happening on a small scale in specific categories but will become a bigger focus in the future. Those choosing to use an anonymous whois services or simply do not provide full whois info, will not get listed. I look forward to the day that happens. It will save me an enormous amount of time dealing with directory spammers/abusers and make the directories more useful to the average users.

I suggest it shows I am less of a risk than others, since I pay attention to risk management.

Really? That seems a bit convoluted since the only person you are protecting is yourself. I’m constantly amazed at how creative minds twist something around in order to fit it into their own agenda.

Thanks for the reply. I hope you are still watching.

I said customers are safe except from the consequences of dealing with the vendor. I contrastd that to being exposed to the entire public via WhoIs. I also suggested that dealing with unknown vendors is always a risk.

I will continue to warn users about web sites that do not provide verifiable contact details. That is educating the public.

That’d be great. But will you still lump together anonymous vendors and vendors who don’t enter accurate/complete whois data, as you did above? I happily put my name and phone number on my sites, but not in my whois. That doesn’t make me untrustworthy at all. I suggest it shows I am less of a risk than others, since I pay attention to risk management.

Very few consumers seem to understand their own responsibility for selecting reliable vendors, especially when they shop for price. The best work we can do is educate web masters and consumers.

And how do you purpose to educate consumers on how to choose a reliable vender? How can they know a venders reliability, especially when said vender has chosen to be anonyms? And what does an apparently legitimate web site owner look like? The word “apparently” is a clue, no?

You can take your same analogy of the turnpike and attach it to webmasters supplying accurate whois information and having to “deal” with what that entails instead of asking their potential customs to “deal” with their anonymity and buy or use their services on a “trust me, I’m legit” concept. Give me a break! That’s beyond my ability to comprehend. I will continue to warn users about web sites that do not provide verifiable contact details. That is educating the public.

BTW, John, I am a webmaster and web site owner and very aware of the so-called dangers of having my whois info public. I’m also aware of how to circumvent those dangers without hiding who I am behind an anonyms whois service. Any web site owner should get “educated” on how to protect themselves and not expect their customs to just “trust” that they are for real while asking them to provide their personal information, including their credit card information.