bank.nz is approved

September 4th, 2007 at 10:37 pm by David Farrar

The InternetNZ Council on Friday approved the creation of bank.nz as the 14th second level domain under the .nz top level domain.

I think this is a good thing.

I imagine all NZ banks will over the next year or so move to the bank.nz domain.  This will clearly identify which financial institutes are registered banks and which are not.

And while not a total solution, it will be useful with phishing scams that one can educate people to ignore any URL which is not a bank.nz address.  Of course people can still be fooled, but it will help.

I wonder which bank will be first to register, once it is created?

Tags:

11 Responses to “bank.nz is approved”

  1. Richard (29 comments) says:

    “We thank MPs, particularly Communications and IT Minister David Cunliffe and members of the Commerce Select Committee for seeing through the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill, which helps fight Spam both in email and other forms,” says InternetNZ Vice-President David Farrar.

    Yeah, well that’s great, David.

    Parliament has passed a new law to fight the avalanche of spam clogging Kiwi inboxes, says Information Technology Minister David Cunliffe.

    Yeah right, David.

    I suppose that means no more spam then.

    It’s been a real hassle for web developers like myself (and my clients) racing to comply with this new law which will achieve FUCK ALL.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. davidp (3,587 comments) says:

    The banks will still keep .co.nz and .com aliases for their sites, and these will be used regularly by at least some people. So I don’t think it will have much impact on phishing. Phishing also effects non-bank organisations too… I’ve seen EBay and the FBI targeted in the past. With the fake FBI site being used to gather banking details.

    I’m not convinced there is much benefit in second level domain name qualifiers in NZ, except for obvious well defined and coherent organisations like the government. .Co is used by a lot of people who aren’t companies, so why bother? There is a proliferation of first and second level domain names and the only reason I can see for them is to increase the revenue of domain name registrars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Thrash Cardiom (298 comments) says:

    It will no impact on phishing or other fraud, this being one of the arguments used to justify the need for the domain. As I pointed out in my submission, banks can do more to stop phishing by educating their users so they know that no bank will ever ask for any details or send a link via e-mail.

    David’s argument could apply to numerous organisations, rugby clubs for instance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. David Farrar (1,901 comments) says:

    Nice off topic post Richard. And if you didn’t selectively quote, you would know I have said many times the law by itself will not stop spam, but that it is one of many necessary steps in the battle. We can’t freeload off other countries and expect them to go after spammers but not do so ourselves.

    Thrash – The banks think it will, and they are in the frontline of this area. And I’d have no problem with rugby..nz being created if it met the criteria.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. dave_c__ (49 comments) says:

    Putting paper over the enormous cracks in security and privacy.
    Until organisations like banks implement decent security protocols, things like domain names and anti spam laws will contimnue to be toatlly ineffectual.
    Maybe these initiatives make the proponents feel ‘good’ and think they are achieving major benefits to individuals and voters, but they are deluded and mistaken.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Norman LaRocque (12 comments) says:

    Staying off topic… there is a legitimate point about the cost/benefit of the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act. Seems to have many parallels to the dog microchipping debate and its supposed impact on dog attacks. But your point about international cooredination makes sense too David.

    Nonethless, as the sun rose on Day 1 of UEMA, I was greeted by the usual ‘diet’ of emails providing financial advice on some soon to break technology stock, cheap versions of Adobe Creative, some poetry that has ‘1970s acid trip’ written all over it, low cost Viagra and not one but two college degrees (no doubt for adult students given the Viagra cross selling!) Plus ca change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Richard (29 comments) says:

    Apologies for the tone of my earlier post, David. But I stand by what I said.

    Selective quoting was unintentional. The InternetNZ press release came up in a Google search on “Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill” and I didn’t bother reading past the second paragraph. But now that I have… “InternetNZ executive director Keith Davidson says spam is a serious cost to both business and consumers.” But so is the UEMA! And… “New Zealand is one of the last OECD countries to have an anti-spam law.” Which suggests that the 160 or so non-OECD countries have yet to follow suit. And Wikipedia tells us that the U.S.’s CAN-SPAM Act “has been all but ignored by spammers”. So no matter how properly NZ plays its part “as a global citizen in the fight against spam” it’ll just keep on coming. Meanwhile, NZ businesses face ever-increasing compliance costs and struggle to stay afloat under the ever-growing dead weight of useless and unnecessary legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Thrash Cardiom (298 comments) says:

    DPF: <i>The banks think it will, and they are in the frontline of this area. And I’d have no problem with rugby..nz being created if it met the criteria.</i>

    Do they really think it will or is that just a convenient justification? Personally I don’t see how it will reduce fraud as in my experience the vast majority of people wouldn’t know a domain name if they tripped over one and cannot deciper a URL.

    I considering an application for hookers.nz (and I’m not talking rugby) Will you support me?

    [DPF: Well I supported .xxx as a top level domain. ]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Matt (227 comments) says:

    Perhaps what is needed is a browser plug in which provides a visual cue for the user that they are on a bank’s website? Should be simple given the new second level domain name.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Brian (Shadowfoot) (80 comments) says:

    hmmm, anyone for triple redundancy?
    http://www.asbbank.bank.nz

    I think it’s a good idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Thrash Cardiom (298 comments) says:

    Morning David

    I’ve just been looking at some banking stuff and thought about the bank.nz domain. Are you aware of any bank using it at all? I’m not aware of any and Google returns this:

    Your search – bank site:bank.nz – did not match any documents

    Are you aware of it being used at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote