back to article Whois? Whowas. So what's next for ICANN and its vast database of domain-name owners?

DNS overseer ICANN has tried to put a brave face on it but even for an organization with a self-importance that often leads it down a path to delusion, being told that your most important contract is effectively unenforceable has to sting. This week, a German court in Bonn informed the organization, which oversees the naming …

  1. Blockchain commentard Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Surprised that Trump hasn't put tariffs on incoming internet traffic, what with it clashing with US internet traffic . Or is that the FCC's new task?

    1. Franco Silver badge

      No doubt in the post, he's been busy this week though with the Roseanne Barr nonsense and then getting upset because Samantha Bee called Ivanka a rude name.

    2. Lee D Silver badge

      "We make the best packets. Nobody else can make packets like us...."

      1. TheVogon Silver badge

        "We make the best packets. Nobody else can make packets like us...."

        At least that's what we hope, but 11% of us couldn't even find our own country on an atlas to check!

        https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1126_021120_TVGeoRoperSurvey.html

        1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

          404

          link not found

    3. TheVogon Silver badge

      "Surprised that Trump hasn't put tariffs on incoming internet traffic, what with it clashing with US internet traffic . Or is that the FCC's new task?"

      The FCC already said that's OK - by removing the net neutrality protections.

  2. ratfox Silver badge
    Pint

    We don't have a popcorn icon

    So the beer will have to do. Anyway, it's Friday.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: We don't have a popcorn icon

      Yes, I absolutely second that : we need a popcorn icon !

  3. Dan 55 Silver badge

    Rejected one year moratorium oddly similar to 12 months they say they need to devise a new model

    I wonder how many times they can be sued in that time.

    So why do they need 12 months to decide how to do what European registrars do now already?

    1. katrinab Silver badge

      Re: Rejected one year moratorium oddly similar to 12 months they say they need to devise a new model

      A whois search on my .uk domains now shows that they are registered by an individual, it doesn't give my name, and the only contact details are for the registrar.

      For my .tv domain, it now says "redacted" against all the personal details.

      1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

        Re: Rejected one year moratorium oddly similar to 12 months they say they need to devise a new model

        A whois search on my .uk domains now shows that they are registered by an individual, it doesn't give my name, and the only contact details are for the registrar.

        Mine say "Data validation: Nominet was able to match the registrant's name and address against a 3rd party data source on 10-Dec-2012". There is nothing about whether I am an individual, corporation or super-intelligent shade of the colour blue.

        1. hellwig Silver badge

          Re: Rejected one year moratorium oddly similar to 12 months they say they need to devise a new model

          ICANN won't even WhoIs my .US domain, so I don't know what you Europeans are complaining about.

      2. AndrueC Silver badge
        Meh

        Re: Rejected one year moratorium oddly similar to 12 months they say they need to devise a new model

        I think something has changed. Nominet has always hidden my name and address for my well over a decade old .me.uk domain. It used to say that I was a private individual who had chosen to hide my details but now it says:

        "Nominet was able to match the registrant's name and address against a 3rd party data source on ..."

        My employer's domains say the same thing so my guess is that Nominet is universally hiding those details rather than only providing an opt-out for non-trading individuals.

        Ah ha.

        "The .UK WHOIS will no longer display the registrant’s name or address, unless they have given permission to do so – all other data shown in the current .UK WHOIS will remain the same."

        1. Captain Scarlet Silver badge
          Pint

          Re: Rejected one year moratorium oddly similar to 12 months they say they need to devise a new model

          hmm ok I had expected our company whois information to still be there, should mean less your domain needs to be renewed now letters from the internet registry company or whatever those arseholes rename themselves to trick unwhitting users to hand over cash.

        2. Peter X

          Re: Rejected one year moratorium oddly similar to 12 months they say they need to devise a new model

          I think something has changed.

          I believe previously they were hiding contact details if the domain was registered to an individual but not if registered to a company or organisation. But I registered a bunch of domains prior to them bringing in that rule, and so they didn't know and seemed to decide randomly if a domain was personal or not... and there was never a clear way to fix it either.

          So I'm glad GDPR is here to fix that. :D

          1. Captain Scarlet Silver badge

            Re: Rejected one year moratorium oddly similar to 12 months they say they need to devise a new model

            Direct with Nominet you should have the ability to specify the type of owner you are, several types of companies including sole trader as well as the personal individual.

            Enom can set this (Although tbh I havent checked personal domains for years, it may have changed)

      3. handleoclast Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Rejected one year moratorium oddly similar to 12 months they say they need to devise a new model

        For my .tv domain, it now says "redacted" against all the personal details.

        Change your name to Katrina Redacted then sue them under the GDPR for publishing your personal details.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Rejected one year moratorium oddly similar to 12 months they say they need to devise a new model

      "So why do they need 12 months to decide how to do what European registrars do now already?"

      It's not that they need time to decide. They need time to realise that they need to decide.

  4. }{amis}{ Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Death Knell?

    I suspect we are witnessing the beginning of ICANN's slow death. Its total inability to react to reality when it has 2 years warning does not bode well for its ability to react to a situation that needs an immediate response.

    I just hope that whatever replaces it is not any worse, though given the current sad state of affairs it's, not a high target to shoot for.

    For those people who like to say America F%$& yea GDPR shouldn't exist, I would point out that the states have ~245M internet users vs the EU's ~433M.

    Long story short if you are doing global business on the internet about 11% of your customers come under GDPR now.

    World internet stats : Internet Usage in the European Union

    Wikipedia : List of countries by number of Internet users

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Death Knell?

      It's worth noting that "2 years" is being very, very generous. The first drafts of GDPR appeared six years ago, and it is almost entirely the same as its predecessor the Data Protection Directive which came into force in *1995*.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Death Knell?

        Yes, the relevant bit of the article being "Having ignored warnings from European data regulators for more than 15 years that Whois was breaking European privacy laws,"

        Whichever way you look at it, whois has been in breach of EU privacy legislation for a lot longer than 2 years. It's only surprising that it's taken this long for some action to occur.

        1. Captain Scarlet Silver badge
          Coffee/keyboard

          Re: Death Knell?

          Probably just because of the possible huge fine associated with it (Its the only reason where I work everyone was in panic mode for the last 6 months).

  5. Tinslave_the_Barelegged Silver badge
    Pint

    Great article

    Lovely journalism, El Reg. Well worth the price of subscription. Would be great if other news outlets showed the complexity of things rather than reducing complex issues to a mere dumbed-down two-sided argument.

    1. goodjudge
      Joke

      Re: Great article

      TL,DR

      1. Tinslave_the_Barelegged Silver badge

        Re: Great article

        > TL,DR

        By the pricking of my thumbs (down) something was read without noticing the joke icon...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Great article

          The joke icon is not a 'get out of jail free' card.

          Your post was not funny.

          1. Dan 55 Silver badge

            Re: Great article

            And mobile users wouldn't see it.

    2. DropBear Silver badge
      Meh

      Re: Great article

      ...just as long as we agree that although it sounds remarkably like "candle", "scandle" is not a scholarly accepted way to spell "scandal". And, oh, even _I_ can see a thin red squiggly line below the word right now...

  6. mark l 2 Silver badge

    I fail to see how much useful info the IP lawyers are getting from the WHOIS data. If you were setting up a dodgy website offering pirated material for download you would be pretty stupid to use your own details in the WHOIS.

    At very least you would use a privacy registrations or just give a fake name and address and use a throw away email (which is still easy to do with many registrars)

    Even if they made the registrar send out a letter to the snail mail address with an activation code before the domain went live, it is not too much extra cost and effort to buy a mailbox or forwarding address to have it sent to keeping your real mailing address private.

    If there is a genuine reason that a law enforcement agency needs to get the details of the owners they can get a warrant from a court to get the registrar to provide the details, just like they would have to do if they wanted the details of who owned a mobile phone number.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Let's say you are starting a legitimate pr0n business (though this works for other types) you are going to set it up correctly as you would have no reason not to, then off you go to get content, you find some distributors who sell you content but what you don't know is that they don't hold the rights. That's where the IP lawyers come in and sue your ass. There's also people that set up their own website and add content without realising your not allowed to. There's probably other examples but the IP lawyers will be very upset they have lost this resource.

      1. Code Dinosaur
        WTF?

        About fifteen years ago I bought a domain name to do some testing for a project I was working on. As I was a big fan of P G Wodehouse I named it after a club in one of his novels (not the drones, that had already been taken). About three months later I got a letter from lawyers representing his literary estate telling me I infringing his copyright. As I had finished the project I was working on & couldn't be bothered to argue I just reset the name back to the registrars holding page. But I still wonder if they were using a scatter gun approach in the hope of finding somebody who'd invested in marketing under one of "their names" & would therefore pay them a licencing fee.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          As I was a big fan of P G Wodehouse I named it after a club in one of his novels

          FYI, if anyone here over-enthusiastically calls something "Hogwarts", and gets a similar letter, be sure to only pay-up to the correct rights holders (Williams & Searle, "How to be Topp", ch.3 p 23 - might help for your school to have a non-wizard Roman theme, mind) :-)

      2. nematoad Silver badge
        Happy

        Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

        "...but the IP lawyers will be very upset they have lost this resource."

        That's all the justification I need to approve of the GDPR.

    2. Paul Shirley

      WHOIS makes carpet bombing users with threats effectively free. Like spam they don't need accuracy, consent or any shed of proof to turn a profit from the hits. Making them actually approach a registrar for the information destroys the most abusive business plans economics, make them fight for records and the evidence needed should stop most cases before the target knows about it.

      Most IP lawyers aren't freelancing, they're employed in-house by companies. They're job is hunting down violations to keep their employer happy, this will force them to do just their job, not pad the numbers with blanket sweeps.

    3. Cuddles Silver badge

      "I fail to see how much useful info the IP lawyers are getting from the WHOIS data. If you were setting up a dodgy website offering pirated material for download you would be pretty stupid to use your own details in the WHOIS."

      You're missing the important difference between the IP lawyers, and the people who actually own said IP. As long as they can get a name and address and send out a nasty letter, they're getting paid; having a real name and address doesn't get them paid any more, so who cares? WHOIS might not do a damn thing for people legitimately trying to defend their IP, but it provides an endless free source of billable form letters for the lawyers. That's why it's always specifically "IP lawyers" defending it, not "IP owners".

  7. Chronos Silver badge
    Holmes

    A visit from the head of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Hamadoun Toure, to an ICANN meeting in 2007 led to a shouting match between him and an ICANN board member who felt he had been disrespectful.

    Well, was he being disrespectful? Was he sitting in a corner muttering about how the ITU should be doing this and that these people were all a bunch of self-serving amateurs? It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that he went there on a mission with an empire-building agenda. Get two people in a room who want something only one of them can have, you get a shouty bickering session. Even more so when one of them already has it and the other is making up reasons he shouldn't.

    1. the spectacularly refined chap

      Well, was he being disrespectful? Was he sitting in a corner muttering about how the ITU should be doing this and that these people were all a bunch of self-serving amateurs? It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that he went there on a mission with an empire-building agenda.

      Why must that be the case? An agenda, yes but a desire to see a "good" outcome in a closely related area does not equate to empire building and many bodies will positively embrace such external expertise, awarding observer or interested party status specifically to ensure that input is captured.

      A lower level more everyday example: a few months ago I redesigned one of our processes at work because of externally imposed change. I spent perhaps six weeks working out how the new process would work, putting the supporting infrastructure in place and documenting how the new process would work in both a new standard operating procedure and some more informal guidance notes.

      I then handed over those documents to Learning and Development so they could put together a training package. I did see and approve their training materials in advance but I still gatecrashed the first couple of training sessions. Not because I am power mad and want to train my own processes - they're welcome to it and I respect their expertise in delivering training - but I wanted to be sure the process was being taught accurately.

      The girl from L&D was grateful I'd taken the time to attend: for a start, she herself was reassured. When the staff experienced with the old process asked about certain exceptional cases I was there to refer to and explain where in the process they get addressed or why they simply didn't arise in the new process. Hardly surprising, L&D can hardly be expected to be expert in every process and time served staff will know more than them.

      So two different teams cooperated, not as some kind of power grab or to exert dominance over one another. Our interests were one and the same, if the change had gone tits up we'd both come out of it looking like muppets.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        @spectacularly refined chap

        I understand your argument and enjoyed your example but where ICANN & ITU are concerned Chronos is probably nearer the mark. Not everyone is as refined as yourself.

        1. Chronos Silver badge

          Thank you. Power grabbing at the Internet has been an ITU wet dream for years now.

          That's the trouble with being a bitter, misanthropic old git: You're rarely disappointed, even when you want to be.

  8. Joe Montana

    Personal vs business

    Nominet at least makes a distinction between personal and business registrations, with the latter detailing information about the business.

    Having full contact information about a business is extremely useful and desirable, you want to be able to contact a business and a legitimate business wants to be contacted and for its companies to know it truly exists and isnt a scam etc.

    Also in the case of a genuine business, all of the information is already going to be available publicly anyway.

    Doesn't the GDPR require companies to declare what they collect and what they do with it? If they're up front that your details will be collected and published on the internet then whats the problem? You have the choice not to use the service, or to use an anonymising service etc. The GDPR is supposed to give users control over how their data is handled, it shouldn't prevent someone from publishing their own data if that's what they choose to do.

    1. ThatOne Silver badge

      Re: Personal vs business

      > it shouldn't prevent someone from publishing their own data if that's what they choose to do.

      It doesn't actually. I fail to understand your point.

      GDPR does not say "you can not publish your own personal information even if you want to", that would be stupid and pointless.

    2. katrinab Silver badge

      Re: Personal vs business

      You can't make disclosure of the information a condition of providing the service. It is not genuine consent if you do that.

    3. DropBear Silver badge

      Re: Personal vs business

      "Also in the case of a genuine business, all of the information is already going to be available publicly anyway."

      You'll be surprised how many websites with a (more or less) genuine business behind them look perfectly legitimate right up until you attempt to find ANY kind of contact information - really advanced players make even discerning what the company name is impossible. You're simply faced with a brand, presumably fronting for Space Lizards, because you'll never find out anything more - for instance care to guess who "gismeteo.com" are...?

      1. AnonFairBinary

        Re: Personal vs business

        terms of server refers to Mapmakers Group Limited. Google that, and you get a Moscow address and phone number... and linked in has a director for the company, there for 26 years... I don´t claim high confidence in the information, but what there was was dead easy to find.

      2. Alumoi

        Re: Personal vs business

        for instance care to guess who "gismeteo.com" are...?

        This site is owned and operated by MapMakers Group Ltd. (further referred to as “MapMakers”).

        Do I get a prize?

        It was really hard work, clicking on the Agreement link at the bottom of the page.

        And another copy & paste into Ducky gave me: MapMakers Group Ltd. is the leader in development of meteorological software for processing and delivery of meteorological information in Russia

        1. DropBear Silver badge

          Re: Personal vs business

          Okay, that was probably not the ideal example, just the latest one I noticed going out of its way to stay silent on any specifics (incidentally, its whois is useless). I suppose I missed the mentioning of MapMakers in the ToS, although having to Google it for anything more (and the web-only contact form) is quite telling in itself - these are not people who want to be found. I've seen other sites in the past though where not even the ToS mentioned any names beyond whatever the brand (site) itself was called, and that was the end of it. Not a single one of them had a helpful whois record in any sense...

          1. SImon Hobson Silver badge

            Re: Personal vs business

            I've seen other sites in the past though where not even the ToS mentioned any names beyond whatever the brand (site) itself was called

            At a previous employer, they wanted to setup a web shop under a different brand name to the ones we were already using. Being in IT I got to see a draft of the website before it went live, and had to go to manglement and point out that "err, this website isn't legal" - and then had to point to the specific legislation (Company Names Act of some year or other IIRC) where it specified what information must be present on any communications. Grudgingly they put the company details buried somewhere on the T&C page where they wouldn't be found.

            1. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: Personal vs business

              "Grudgingly they put the company details buried somewhere on the T&C page where they wouldn't be found."

              Which wouldn't fly in the UK. There's a requirement that the information be readily accessible.

      3. G0OVY

        Re: Personal vs business

        Why do you need to guess? :

        "MapMakers Group" Ltd

        Per. Novovagankovsky, 5 building 1

        123242 Moscow

        RUSSIAN FEDERATION

        phone: +7 495 989 57 63

        fax:

        e-mail: admin (at) gismeteo (dot) ru

      4. ardj

        Re: Personal vs business

        @DropBear: "websites with a (more or less) genuine business behind them look perfectly legitimate right up until you attempt to find ANY kind of contact information "

        er, yes. Like my bank, or trying to find who to call at Dell, especially in France (I don't even have a Dell, was for a client)

  9. kain preacher Silver badge

    I know people say it's because ICAAN is an American company but it takes a special kind hubris to go to court and say we want to enforce an illegal contract(requiring you to break the law). Oh yes we know it's an illegal contract but we want an exemption .

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      " it takes a special kind hubris to go to court and say we want to enforce an illegal contract"

      If you know some of the people involved (who set things up this way and are still pulling strings in the background), then this level of hubris and self-delusion should come as no surprise whatsoever.

  10. tentimes

    Namecheap offering FREE whoisguard

    Is this the reason why Namecheap is offering me free anonymity? I thought there had to be some reason I was getting something "free" - seems they just don't want to be caught by the GDPR!

    1. Code Dinosaur

      Re: Namecheap offering FREE whoisguard

      I've just moved registrars (to get away from 123) & my new one gave me free "privacy" on two of my domains for a month, then started begging me to sign up for it at £12 a year per year, telling me of all the terrible things that could happen if my details were out in the open, like they've been for the last 10 years.

      Strangely after last Friday they stopped trying to sell it to me.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Namecheap offering FREE whoisguard

        "telling me of all the terrible things that could happen if my details were out in the open, like they've been for the last 10 years."

        My .net domain, which I've owned for about 15 years now, has my name and address displayed and my email contact address (naively, at the time, my ISP one) but I've had little to no spam. Naturally, all that data is now hidden to whois queries. The obvious spam relating to the domain registration details are the occasional, but still quite rare, domain "renewal" notices hiding SEO subscription "invoices"

        1. Doctor_Wibble
          Paris Hilton

          Re: Namecheap offering FREE whoisguard

          Similar experience here, several domains over the years, still have a few, spam quantity is similarly miniscule, even when daring to turn off all the filtering just to get an idea of the scale of it.

          Weird theory time, it's possible spammers were using the whois data to remove addresses that went to people who might be in a position to, or bother to, make an actual spam report/complaint to someone. Or at least that's all I can come up with right now to explain why I get less spam to those addresses than any other mailbox.

          Thinking about it, I do remember years ago getting actual letters from competing registries with a sneaky sign-it-over small print bit as well as some really scary dramatic ones from people flogging SEO services. But a handful, at most.

          1. J. Cook Silver badge

            Re: Namecheap offering FREE whoisguard

            "Similar experience here, several domains over the years, still have a few, spam quantity is similarly miniscule, even when daring to turn off all the filtering just to get an idea of the scale of it."

            I never really got a mountain of spam out of it, but what made me scramble my WHOIS info was the postal mail spam from a few brave (and foolish) companies that harvested the WHOIS data in order to try and sell me domain services I neither needed or wanted.

            Granted, one of my email addresses is old enough to vote, so that's the best reason I can come up with for the volume I get.

    2. ds6 Bronze badge

      Re: Namecheap offering FREE whoisguard

      Other registrars like eg. Namesilo have been offering free Whois protection for decades. The only difference now is people are being forced to do it, and for free.

      I do wonder if companies will try to continue harvesting data from non-EU customers, even if they implement GDPR-compliant technologies... I mean, showing Whois information for US customers while hiding that for EU customers.

    3. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Namecheap offering FREE whoisguard

      Yes, it's the reason. You can't charge extra for personal anonymity when it's the legal default.

      Godaddy have made their whois anonymisation free and refunded all fees for those who paid.

      On a similar DPA note, privacy legislation in most countries made being unlisted in the phone book a no-fee item many years ago (telcos would charge extra for you to NOT be in the white pages). Generally, when comparing phone books from a couple of years before and after the transition in each country you'll find they slimmed down considerably.

      I just wish that they wouldn't extend the same anonymity to companies. A body corporate is not a natural person.

  11. Drew 11

    Any reform of ICANN should start with domain owners (who fund most of it via the ICANN domain tax) actually getting voting power.

    1. ds6 Bronze badge

      I hope you don't mean the individuals and conpanies owning the specific domains and not the registrars—I expect plenty of squatters with millions of domains in their pockets to toss whatever vote in that will make them the most money, and I would assume those with more domains would get more voting power, knowing ICANN.

  12. David McCarthy

    Yes, Whois has been flawed and ICANN are idiots, but we've already been prevented from helping a new client because Whois info isn't available.

    He's just about to take on one part of a specialist modelling business (trains, not people). The business itself (or at least the operationsal part if not the interlectual property), has changed hands a couple of times in 25 years. The company currenly with the manufacturing and distribution rights (which is about to lose them) has also changed hands several times in the last 15 years.

    Anyone familiar with the railway modelling industry will know that these changes often happen when the owner dies or is too ill to carry on.

    There is an old website with a holding page directing people to the current distributors. It needs to point elsewhere from August. No one knows who registered the domain.

    Without Whois, I can't help them discover its owner (who may be dead anyway).

    So, however flawed the Whois system is, it can be put to good, legitimate use.

    And we've no idea what to advise our client.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "And we've no idea what to advise our client."

      I'd start by advising the client to contact the registry with a request to contact the registrant by forwarding on the request to make contact.

      1. Gene Cash Silver badge

        > a request to contact the registrant by forwarding on the request to make contact.

        So then you're suggesting they use an Ouija board to contact the dead owner...?

    2. Grikath Silver badge

      You mean there's still people accepting redirects from ancient web pages? In this day and age?

    3. Franco Silver badge

      @David McCarthy. If you can't get anything at all from whois (my domain name, although my details are redacted by nominet, does still provide the tag of the registrant and the authoritative name servers) then you can try using nslookup or equivalent to find the SOA records and get the authoritative DNS servers from that which should point you to the registrant. Whether they will be any help or not is another matter....

      https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38021/how-do-i-find-the-authoritative-name-server-for-a-domain-name

  13. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "because that contract is illegal, not matter what American lawyers parsing every word of the text argue otherwise."

    They may be right in that it's not illegal. They're just using the wrong word to distract attention from the finding that it's not enforceable.

  14. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "The CEO and board have been able to see first hand how they were given terrible advice time and again from their own staff."

    Is it the staff giving bad advice of their own or simply telling the CEO and board what they wanted to hear?

  15. Alan Brown Silver badge

    "For those that have heard of it, the organization has become a shorthand for dysfunction and unaccountable power. It is the internet's FIFA scandal."

    Unlike FIFA, ICANN has been unspeakably corrupt since its inception. The very first thing the newly created board did was to undermine who could get voted onto the board whilst extending the durations of those placed in as "initial caretakers" into effectively eternal roles. FIFA at least took a couple of decades to end up in that state.

    The fact that they put a seriously dodgy(*) IP lawyer in as chairman of ICANN just made things worse - of course it was going to act like this when the chair has an even less tenuous grasp of reality than Donald Trump

    (*) Anyone who looks into it will note that the person in question had already been sanctioned for his misdemeanours at a national level and that his ability to deny his own statements/actions was already legendary before he gained a foothold at national level.

  16. DanielR

    ICANN has been facilitating cyber criminals the entire time. There is no regulations on registrars whatsoever even though you pay the extortion fee to them and which isn't even quoted anymore so likely hiked. And criminals can buy up bulk domains with fake details. In the past it was using yahoo addresses. Now they can cover themselves up with private registration.

    These criminals in the EU are a farce too. There is private registration. And they themselves collaborate with the US to commit mass hacking and spying and even hack each other although the US spies on the EU the most.

    I still call for ICANN to be disbanded. We wouldn't have malware phishing sites if it wasn't for them.

  17. Ray Foulkes

    All that being the case:

    I suppose https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/ is not compatible with the GDPR - oh, I forgot, governments are free to ignore it whilst simultaneously persecuting the plebs...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019