indeed it is http://ktetch.co.uk/2014/09/co... . I wrote that by approaching the matter the same way I did the claim of Comcast screwing with Bittorrent in 07. I found they were doing it in 07 (which led to TorrentFreak, who I work for, publishing about it, then the AP and EFF checking my results, and then the FCC starting the whole Net Neutrality thing). Not the case here, and there's no substantiation, and a lot of internal contradiction in the telling, as well as spouting absolute crap (the 6-strikes thing)

And yeah, who eneds privacy because it makes some 'investigator's job hard. I'm pretty sure we can knock crime on the head if we throw privacy out of the window and abolish pesky things like 'search warrants'.
In fact, let's do just what you say in meatspace - lets lock down cities, and then send squads of cops door-to-door in every town. We'll clean up the 'crime' that's there, and there won't have to do any petty investigating. orangina's all around!

The issue is not fake domain info. The issue is legally acceptable information in the UK (pseudonym not used for the purpose of deception - all your 'reasons' involve deception), and then some 'verification' which doesn't mean 'trying to contact (because hot damn! when they did that, it worked) but means matching entry on their database, with entry on another database they've paid for (and if you're not in their paid database, then it's government ID NOW or else.

Nominet had my home address for 2 years. no problems. any legal requirement to contact me beyond what was on the contact page (which had email and phone) could be dealt with via the standard legal way (such as a simple norwich pharmacal order) or via the authorities asking nicely.

it's just like the license plate, Can you show me where I can look up your name and home address online, for free, with just your license plate? You can't? Oh. Why's that? Because anyone with a significant reason to know would have reason to involve an authority that could find out, eh? Amazing.

TL;dr - you're lazy, and you want to make things for everyone else worse, because it makes your job a little easier. How nice of you to decide that being able to relax at your job is more important than my desire not to be SWATed, because I discussed my run-in with convicted hacker Jeremy Hammond and annoyed his supporters by shattering their illusions (I've actually done that, and yes his supporters have actively pizza-bombed people who spoke against him last year)

I was first told that stuff by their 'front line' staff (who turned out to have only worked for Nominet since March, all her pervious work was working in clothing stores, or as a hairdresser, except for a brief period as a software salesperson (her public linkedin profile is at the bottom of the 3rd link)

That quote is by their 'second level' support, who took over the issue at the direction of the acting customer service head, following my complaint.

It was reiterated by the acting head of customer services in emails this week.

If it had been one person, sure, I can see it. It was 3, a newbie, a long term senior support, and the executive in charge of support.
That puts it very much in the 'deliberate' category. More goalpost moving than in a Dolly Sisters v Dimwell Shove.

read the last link, Anyway, Nominet is demanding ID to 'validate' names, even though under UK law, pseudonyms not designed to deceive are legal for use, else they sieze the domains. They do this despite accepting the pseudnym and the legal right to use one in the UK, and the identity of the person in the case (me)
Basically, if you have a UK domain, and they can't 'verify' you in the big brother databases, you got to send them ID now.

I did say usually

The main problem is the constant 'goal shifting'. First it was because there was a widget link to Amazon for my book
I disabled it Then it was "I had google adverts". I disabled them. Then I had 'lots of links to trading sites" and "email subscription module" And then I filed a complaint for being absurd, and so the next morning they published my home address. UK Gov calls a business anything that makes a profit. It also accepts that hobbies can bring in some money, but when it becomes profitable, then it's not a business and is a hobby. Nominet calls a site commercial based on the "I'll know it when I see it" standard, with an extremist mindset.To quote the 'senior Nominet Customer advisor' who was chosen to deal with this case,

I would like to agree with a point you raised 'pretty much ANY website is a 'trading website''. This is the case and it's rare that a .uk domain name is able to opt-out of having their address details displayed.

It's the same as indecency. What's acceptable to one, may be offensive to another. Should we go to the extremist view, 'skin showing is indecent' to appease the extremists, or should things reflect societal norms? Like 'all skin is indecent', anything involving anything commercial, even at one remove, makes this site commercial' is an extremist view. Does linking to your twitter profile, or a facebook page make you 'commercial'? Just read a good book, and wanted to share that on your site, with a link to where you can buy it means you're a business? Nominet says so. is that normal in the current state of society?

So very very true sir. Those who call for an end to privacy, usually have something to gain from it. A functioning society requires elements of privacy, or it will become dysfunctional.

Except that any personal site HAS to have their 'correct info' there, and any hint of 'commercialism' (such as linking to 'trading sites') and that private info - your home address - is now going to be published. I bet no-one can see absolutely ANYTHING wrong with that at all.... like pizza-bombing or SWATing (SO19-ing?) someone. Because that never EVER happens.

"MPAA evidence" because it's all made up and fact/reality light

It's nothing new. I wrote about this a year ago, when the same issues came up http://falkvinge.net/2012/06/29/your-email-privacy-is-under-increasing-threat/

They've been saying it for years. Here's a video of them saying it from 2009

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dMuGnFdQ0s

What makes me think that? well, I'd guess the attitueds to other crimes in the county, like sexual assaults. Merely threatening with a gun isn't much of a crime by comparison, especially if it's by a white guy (potential posse member!) on a non-white guy (show your papers!), well, unless you're someone investigating or running against Joe. Then you can be a white guy and threatened and no-one will do anything either.