Hi Brumar89; Re: "This may come as a surprise to you, Bilow, but many people don't use their real names on the internet. Because of the ..ahem.. kooks out there."
Even if this were true, I proved that the source for the article was (a) connected to Midland Texas (President Bush's home town), and (b) secretly connected to the source of the picture. Now domain names aren't free. Someone paid for not one, but TWO domain names, and used them to put that article up. What I proved was that it was the same person. Hey, if they were just another regular Joe, then why did they use two domain names?
Now as for your commentary that "no one uses their real names on the internet", on Silicon Investor you are correct, but that article was not published on Silicon Investor. The fact is that filing for a Silicon Investor membership without listing your true name and address is cause for having your account cancelled, and may be actionable in court.
The owners of the domain names where that article were published filed fraudulent information with the RAA, and this is against the law. Applying for a domain name with fake information is a fraud. Would someone who reads me please complain to the authorities about the fraudulent domain name registration for "jessicaswell.com" and "kultrusmog.com"?
Your domain name registration is a contract. It's generally illegal in the United States to put false information into a contract. Here's more evidence that it is not acceptable to lie on a domain registration:
...
Contractual Provisions and Policies Relating to Whois
The need for “trademark owners and domain name registrants and others”[4] to have access to Whois was first addressed in the U.S. Government’s White Paper, which laid out the ground rules for private sector management of the DNS. The White Paper stated:
We [the U.S. Government] anticipate that the policies established by the new corporation [ICANN] would provide that [the] following information would be included in all registry databases and available to anyone with access to the Internet.
ICANN, upon its formation and as part of its initiative to expand the number of domain name registrars,[6] crafted the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA),[7] a contract between itself and domain name registrars that addresses the obligations ICANN accredited registrars have with respect to domain names registered in the global top-level domain (gTLD) space. This includes the familiar suffixes of .com, .net, and .org, as well as the recently introduced .info, .biz, .name, .pro, .museum, .coop, and .aero. Among the RAA obligations are compliance with the UDRP[8] and the provision of Whois data.[9] Both are in accordance with the precepts of the White Paper.
...
Problems with Whois: Accuracy and Accessibility
Unfortunately, despite the RAA requirement that registrants provide “accurate and reliable contact details,” trademark owners have for many years been encountering instances of inaccurate or missing data often from fictitious entities listing false addresses, as well as information that is simply out of date. These are just a few examples of bad data that trademark owners have recently come across:
...
Presumably there is a means for addressing these flagrant violations of the RAA. Paragraph 3.7.8 of the RAA stipulates:
Registrar shall, upon notification by any person of an inaccuracy in the contact information associated with a Registered Name sponsored by Registrar, take reasonable steps to investigate that claimed inaccuracy. In the event Registrar learns of inaccurate contact information associated with a Registered Name it sponsors, it shall take reasonable steps to correct that inaccuracy.
Registrars also have the authority to cancel domain name registrations that are based on false contact data or whose registered owners do not make a timely response to an inquiry about allegedly false data. Paragraph 3.7.7.2 of the RAA stipulates:
A Registered Name Holder's willful provision of inaccurate or unreliable information, its willful failure promptly to update information provided to Registrar, or its failure to respond for over fifteen calendar days to inquiries by Registrar concerning the accuracy of contact details associated with the Registered Name Holder's registration shall constitute a material breach of the Registered Name Holder-registrar contract and be a basis for cancellation of the Registered Name registration.
...
inta.org
Nor are fake names in domain registrations a widespread crime. Here's the "whois" information on "Smirking Chimp", which is a left wing website that I regularly read:
Domain Name: SMIRKINGCHIMP.COM
Administrative Contact:
TIEDRICH.COM (Q8698-OR) jeff@tiedrich.com
37 West 20th Street
NEW YORK, NY 10011
US
212 206 6730 fax: 123 123 1234
Technical Contact:
Tiedrich, Jeff (JT26) jeff@TIEDRICH.COM
tiedrich.com
37 W 20TH ST STE 910
NEW YORK, NY 10011-3715
US
(212) 206-6730 fax: (212) 206-6738
Jeff Tiedrich is a graphic designer who lives in New York City. Here's a search showing the same address as above:
google.com
Now if you know of any other domain names that are filed under false pretenses, why don't you turn them in? They'll be shut down just like the Bush administration propaganda domains you alerted me to will be shut down by some astute reader of this post.
Re: "You actually think the Bush administration has 'hacks' running fake blogs pretending to be from places like Midland Tx just to post articles from 1946?"
They're desperate as hell, that much is clear. Look, we're supposedly in a battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, but the Bush propaganda is all directed at (the far more easy to sell) American people. And the attempt has failed in Iraq far worse than it has failed in the US. US troops, after all, aren't regularly assassinated by US citizens.
Re: "I thought it was fascinating to see that in a major media piece in 1946 you could read that are so reminiscent of what one can read today."
Most people are stupid as posts. They're technique of thinking involves "like". As in, the US occupation of Iraq is "like" the occupation of Germany in 1945. Or, the US peacekeeping action in Iraq is "like" the US peacekeeping action in Vietnam. That is the full extent of most people's ability to weigh evidence.
So the Administration's propaganda takes account of this, and gives similarities between Iraq and a past situation where the public knows that the result turned out okay. But to do this, they have to ignore (a) all those millions of articles that were published in 1946 that said that the occupation of Germany was going wonderfully, and (b) all the millions of differences between the situation then and the situation now.
The simple fact is that there were undoubtedly thousands of articles published in 1946 saying that the occupation was running well, but what you're doing is focusing on a single article. The truth is that there were no US troops lost to combat in Germany six months after the war ended. It was a peaceful occupation. The Iraqi occupation is not peaceful, and no amount of articles from 1946 is going to make it any different.
-- Carl
P.S. Anyone reading this post who doesn't like the Bush administration propaganda, complain to the authorities about the domain names jessicaswell.com and kultursmog.com, and let's blow them off the web. Here's the link:
...
Domain Complaint
IMPORTANT Enter the domain name only. Correct Example: domainname.com
Incorrect Example: www.domainname.com
...
(o) WHOIS Info: This domain has inaccurate WHOIS information
...
secure.registerapi.com
Also see:
icann.org
And thanks to Brumar89 for helping us get these liars off the web. |
