blocking trackers is sufficient, but poisoning them is better
Eyeo gmbh, the owner of ad “block” plus ads, is not to be trusted- or relied upon to block ads any further than you can throw wladimir palant
” and non-intrusive ad standards”
eyeo is built upon lies and half truths
In January 2006 Wladimir Palant wrote Adblock Plus. Less than a year later Adblock Plus was the most downloaded [via press kit]
Eyeo implies Wlad created the first adblock extension: FALSE. It wasn’t even the second or third incarnation.
Somehow third party privacy raping is not considered ‘intrusive’. Can you think of anything more intrusive?
eyeo does NOT promote first party ads.
to ensure successful verification
- ICANN [policy] will advise you of imminent [registrar] call- or email
- ICANN [policy] will advise you of [registrar] calling number[s]- or sender’s email address
(for the slow: you’ll know which numbers and CNAM, and email address to allow, rejecting all others)
Do remember to
- participate in public icann discussions
- participate in icann calls for comment:
- with FOUR individual comments one might think ICANN didn’t want anyone to know about pending changes
- do email your registrar to ask why they intentionally chose not to involve you in this hegemonic shift
- those “great” americans at General Electric said: proxy and privacy services should be allowed only in “rare
- General Electric “requested mandatory suspension of domain names for the willful provision of false or inaccurate Whois information.”
- General Electric’s particular brand of fascism linked in comment review was unavailable for direct review, web server reporting 404 for: forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-22apr13/pdfIW9ksOdAtH.pdf
- fortunately I found a copy: forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-22apr13/msg00018.html ,
- “Please contact” Sean Merrill, Ph 203 373 3328, fax 203 373-2181, “with any questions”
- or Kathryn Barrett Park who penned the comments: email@example.com , Ph 203-373-2655 , fax 203-373-2181
- who notes the policy will “only serve to drive more Registered Name Holders to proxy and privacy services” therefore people must not be allowed to maintain privacy but be subjected to intense registrar scrutiny prior to domain activation
- Kathryn wants the penalty be strengthened to mandatory domain suspension [hoping for immediate cancellation for those who mock her eremmm those who mock General Electric’s progressivism or other folly]
- icann ocr renders her name as Kathryn Pork
DEMAND whois contacts to be able to use SIP URI instead of PSTN accessible values, DEMAND non-suspension if email communicant cannot VERIFY they are a person via industry accepted Challenge Response system
Paying to receive spam/spin/calls is more imbecilic than sms texting or f*booking.
Free market enthusiasts and aspiring small business owners:
- ICANN has unwittingly created a new market for whois data management:
- processing whois email
- processing whois calls
- processing whois snail mail
in a way whois privacy scam-services have implied but never fulfilled let alone explicitly offered.
ICANN ought demand accredited registrars publish APIs for whois management as it’s to the public benefit (see first purple highlight above image)
- presenting unique whois contact information for every inquirer
- allowing whois privacy management firms to change underlying information based on firm’s privacy strategies
- undesirable feckless caller volume
- undesirable email volume
- challenge response solved too quickly
- DCC style patters across client base
- publishing hashes licensed to other firms
Hopefully someone else will create such a service in the now accelerated arms race to personal privacy
Thank you, ICANN and the Registrar Whois Validation Working Group, for creating a new- and profitable use for 900 numbers and other toll calling!
With toll numbers people will likely “report” themselves ‘guilty’ of inaccuracy to generate revenue — delightful godaddy comeuppance: icann.org/en/resources/compliance/complaints/whois/inaccuracy-form
900-sagacious + 976-himself