16 ms·

As a Namecheap customer, I am glad that they aren't giving up their customers privacy. Facebook claims they have an obligation to do so- but they don't provide

As a Namecheap customer, I am glad that they aren't giving up their customers privacy. Facebook claims they have an obligation to do so- but they don't provide any citation for such an obligation. ICANN has an established process for handling these types of disputes, and Facebook should avail themsleves of that process. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en (It isn't clear if Facebook is seeking a financial judgement or just a court order to delete or transfer the domains to Facebook?)

tptacek 7y ago
You're glad Namecheap is protecting the registrant of "whatsappdownload.site"?
- blackearl 7y ago
  First they came for faceb0ok.com and I did not speak out
- notRobot 7y ago
  They're glad that Facebook isn't being handed information just because they're a big company. Want private registrant info? Get a subpoena. It should be very easy if you have a legit reason.
  - tedivm 7y ago
    That's literally what they're doing?
    - Phil987 7y ago
      Yeah and that's why they're happy.
  - pliu 7y ago
    In cases like the example mentioned, this is clearly a malicious entity. I don't agree that "get a subpoena" is the right response, some judgement should be applied to cases where someone is clearly using your service to do harm.
    - mundo 7y ago
      And in cases that aren't so clear? One of the three cited in the press release was instagrambusinesshelp.com - that doesn't sound remotely malicious to me.
      - lima 7y ago
        Still a likely trademark violation. But yes, not something Namecheap should decide.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      I'm pretty happy with "judgement" being a thing that courts do and not a thing unqualified call center drones do.
    - jacurtis 7y ago
      > some judgement should be applied to cases where someone is clearly using your service to do harm This is Facebook's argument essentially. But who decides that it is "clearly" doing harm? Should Facebook have the power to just tear domains away from their owners at their sole discretion? Should Namecheap be deciding if they break their privacy contract (the entire WHOISGUARD product that they offer) because a domain sounds too close to another company's product? Why should Facebook (or Namecheap) have the power to soley make decisions on this manner? Why do they get to "play god"? These types of Copyright or Trademark issues have a proper and appropriate channel for handling these disputes. Facebook should be using the APPROPRIATE channels (ie the Judicial system) to handle this. The courts could issue a subpoena to Namecheap and Namecheap can take it down or hand over the information or whatever a judge decides should be done. But a sworn judge is the one that should be making these decisions, not a private company. This is where Namecheap is right in its stance and Facebook is wrong. Facebook is big and has lots of money, but that doesn't allow them to circumvent the Justice system. We swear in Judges to handle things like this. The judge can decide if this is "clearly" a violation or not. The judge will also help decide on the gray cases as well. The Judge will look at the facts of each case individually and help to protect Facebook's copyrights and trademarks while also protecting the rights of the citizen that owns the domain in question. He is the impartial authority that is trained and authorized to make these decisions. Namecheap is doing it right, and this makes me very happy to be registering domains through them. I am happy that they don't buckle to the pressure of a big scary corporation. Facebook is once again proving that they are not a good internet citizen. Another reason the world would be better if they disappeared. Facebook isn't above the rest of us, or our governmental processes. The fact that they think they are is reason enough to never trust them with your data.
- amerine 7y ago
  It’s about there already being a process for this, and not being cool with Facebook using lawyers to do it.
  - ensignavenger 7y ago
    Well, part of the appropriate process may involve lawyers- but they do not appear to be following the process properly, and this PR stunt is absurd.
  - ipsum2 7y ago
    > there already being a process for this It's not clear at all what the process is. Can you elaborate?
    - ensignavenger 7y ago
      https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - tempestn 7y ago
    For what it's worth, the problem with that process is that it creates an uneven burden. Any scammer with 10 bucks can create a misleading domain. This happened to us when some scammers created "autostempest.com" to mimic our car search site, autotempest.com. They put fake listings up and scammed many people out of tens of thousands of dollars. Our only legal recourse was a UDRP claim (short of suing namecheap, which would have been even more expensive), but that would have cost about $2000 because you need to go through a registered provider—and these are private companies, which take advantage of this regulatory oligopoly. Now, $2000 would be worth it to shut down a scammer like that, except nothing stops them from simply ignoring the UDRP claim and once their domain is shut down, they can register autotempests.com or something for another 10 bucks. (They actually did end up registering autostempestgroup.com and several others.) On the other hand, if you could simply go to the registrar, show clear evidence of the very obvious infringement, and have them shut down the domain, perhaps it would actually be feasible to put a dent in that kind of scam. I do understand the concern of having a private company like Namecheap be the judge in these matters, but I'm not sure it's as black and white as that. I could see a system working where they do take unilateral action on obvious cases (autostempest, whatsappdownload.com, faceb00k, etc.), but require the formal process for less clear cases.
- ensignavenger 7y ago
  Yes. I don't want Namecheap stepping in to judge how I use my domains- I want a court of competent jurisdiction to make those determinations. There is an appropriate process for these issues.
  - PeterisP 7y ago
    It seems that the appropriate process for this issue would be suing the registered owner of these domains (Whoisguard), which is what they're doing now - and a court of competent jurisdiction will be ruling on it.
    - ensignavenger 7y ago
      Facebook doesn't say exactly what they are seeking, but that is one possibility. However, this PR piece seems to be accusing Namecheap of doing wrong- and it appears that Namecheap is entirely in the right. If all Facebook was doing was seeking control of the domain name, and they didn't make this accusatory post, I would agree that they were following the proper process.
- allenskd 7y ago
  Yes. I'm fine with Namecheap taking the domain down. Handing information like that just because they ask for it? That's a huge no. Let them proceed through the legal channels to get that information.
  - jethro_tell 7y ago
    Yeah, we have a process for this. I realize that FB thinks laws don't apply to them, but they do, or maybe will at some point?
    - zymhan 7y ago
      A lawsuit is exactly that process.
      - jacurtis 7y ago
        Sort of. But not this lawsuit. Facebook is suing Namecheap because Namecheap is not handing over the information just because Facebook asked them to. Facebook decided that the domain should be taken down and expected Namecheap to just do what Facebook said. Namecheap refused. That is why Facebook is suing them. What Facebook should do is file a trademark dispute against the domain owner. Then a judge will look at the case, decide if Facebook has been wronged, and if so, the judge will ask Namecheap for the domain owner's information, at which point Namecheap would then be expected to (and not wrong for doing so) hand over the information to the judge. The court system will handle the rest. That is why we have these court systems. I know Facebook is confused and thinks they are above the government, but that is why it is good for Namecheap to remind them of that.
        zymhan 7y ago
        They don't know the owner though, because Namecheap won't tell them, presumably without FB obtaining a court order in some way.
        jethro_tell 7y ago
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  Yes. Do you know what content was on there? Scam/malware? Critical reporting on facebook's business processes? A parody site making fun of whatsapp? A redirect to Signal? At least two of the 4 examples I gave are perfectly legal even under trademark and/or copyright law. And 3 are non-malicious
- Fnoord 7y ago
  Yup, more so with GDPR. It is nobodies business who's behind a domain. Authorities can of course figure it out (with subpoena, as it should be) should the need arise.
- lacker 7y ago
  Yes. I want Namecheap to protect my privacy. When they show they're even willing to protect the privacy of a low-reputation actor, it proves to me that they are likely to protect my privacy as well. It's the same reason I'm glad that HTTPS and SSL protect the registrant of whatsappdownload.site.
  - tgeorge 7y ago
    I have the same sentiment, I'm glad it's not automated.
- enlyth 7y ago
  Yes.
- lima 7y ago
  I worked for a European domain registrar a few years ago. An obviously malicious site like "whatsappdownload.site" would be taken offline very quickly, but under no circumstances could we give non-public subscriber information to a third party without a warrant. > You're glad Namecheap is protecting the registrant of "whatsappdownload.site"? In most cases I've seen, registrant data would either be fake, the result of identity theft, or an innocent customer's whose account got hacked.
gruez 7y ago
>ICANN has an established process for handling these types of disputes, and Facebook should avail themsleves of that process. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en Facebook wants information on the registrants. A quick skim of the link you provided suggests that the process only results in the domain being taken down, not information revealed. >Under the policy, most types of trademark-based domain-name disputes must be resolved by agreement, court action, or arbitration before a registrar will cancel, suspend, or transfer a domain name.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  "Agreement, court action and arbitration" - all three of those require knowing the identity or at least directly communicating with the other party to start the process.
  - ensignavenger 7y ago
    Not necessarily- they explicitly mention filing an in-rem action- which does not require knowing the identity of the domain registrant.
    - r-w 7y ago
      Didn’t they file that against Namecheap, not the registrants?
- ensignavenger 7y ago
  If that is all Facebook is seeking in their suit, then I am fine with their lawsuit- and I am glad that Namecheap is holding out for a final, legal court order in a court of competent jurisdiction. Facebooks PR piece trying to paint Namecheap in a bad light is something I am not okay with. Namecheap is right not to give up this information without legal due process.
  - mattkrause 7y ago
    Lawyers, Would the registrar normally be sued here? I would have thought it'd be against a fictitious defendant, with a Doe subpoena used to find out their actual identity.
NamecheapCEO 7y ago
Is it not enough that Facebook and Zuck tread all over their customers privacy on their own platform? Now they want other companies to do it for them with their own customers as well. This is just another attack on privacy and due process in order to strong arm companies that have services like WhoisGuard which is intended to protect millions of customer’s privacy.
- drKarl 7y ago
  I agree with everything you said, just a minor comment... Facebook users are not Facebook customers, they are the product. Facebook customers are all the companies which pay Facebook for advertisement.
  - KarlKemp 7y ago
    This tired cliché is annoying enough when people use it in situation where it arguably has some explanatory power—a complaint about FB’s customer service, say. It adds absolutely nothing to this discussion. Facebook has an interest in retaining users that is indistinguishable here from an interest to retain customers. I struggle to come up with reasons that motivate the incessant regurgitation of memes such as this in online discussions. Sure, I chuckled the first time I saw it because it was novel and somewhat contrarian. But after the hundredth time it feels more like bad ML picking up on the wrong keywords.
  - sumedh 7y ago
    > Facebook customers are all the companies which pay Facebook for advertisement. I dont know about FB but there are companies who will sell the data of their paying customers as well.
- animalnewbie 7y ago
  Are you actually your username I wonder?
Techies4Trump 7y ago
Me too, I'm also a Namecheap customer and have nothing but good thinks to say about them. This makes me like them even more. If only FB were as professional with their customer's data as Namecheap...
- Trias11 7y ago
  "If only FB were as professional with their customer's data as Namecheap..." +100
  - cosmodisk 7y ago
    Facebook customers are companies that pay for advertising. Billions of sheep,who signed up for the chance to see endless streams of cat pictures, are the product.
- puranjay 7y ago
  Same here. Shifted all my domains to Namecheap from GoDaddy. It was a breath of fresh air not being upsold to all the time, and not dealing with ridiculous renewal fees.
  - Techies4Trump 7y ago
    I did the exact same. I used to be a Godaddy customer and had a bunch of domains with them. One day I cancelled some of them, but when I did this it didn't auto-cancel the associated services, as I expected, so they continued to charge me for whois guard, and some other services for domains I no longer owned after they expired. Godaddy are thieves. I'll never use them again.
  - corobo 7y ago
    As much as I like Namecheap, you can't really say they don't upsell. At least not anymore. Every domain purchase comes with the chance to register premium DNS, hosting, all sorts of guff
dpcan 7y ago
I totally agree. Namecheap probably had to tell Facebook, "get a warrant". If they DIDN'T do this, they would then be responsible for policing EVERY site they provide WhoisGuard for, and that would be ridiculous. Facebook is trying to use this as a way to show they are concerned about privacy and security, but they're coming across as bullies that didn't get what they wanted and now they have to use the necessary legal methods to do so.
- zymhan 7y ago
  Facebook cannot "get a warrant", only law enforcement officials can do that.
  - travisjungroth 7y ago
    “File a suit, leading to discovery and a warrant ordered by a judge” doesn’t quite roll off the tongue.
    - SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
      Warrants are for criminal searches. Subpoenas are the process used to compel discoveryin civil cases and for some parts of criminal cases.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - teh_klev 7y ago
    Please don't be obtuse, I think we all know fine what this means.
    - rat9988 7y ago
      I honestly did not. All I knew is they couldn't have a warrant.
    - zymhan 7y ago
      There is a big difference between a subpoena and a warrant. Glossing over that may be fine to you, but it's wrong and misleading.
gist 7y ago
Effective strategy on the part of facebook. Namecheap can either decide to spend untold sums and fight this (and let's see the amount and how that goes) or they can turn over the info and move on. No legitimate customer of namecheap that isn't fishing is going to take this as anything important to them and importantly even if they even know it's happening. I don't get all of this rah rah. My question for you (the OP) is how many domains do you have with namecheap? And how many customers like you do you think make up their business? Nobody is filing a lawsuit to uncover whois privacy info trivially unless the reason makes sense (on the end of the person wanting the info).
- ensignavenger 7y ago
  I have several, but not as many as I have had registered either for myself or customers in the past. I will probably have more in the future. I am fine with Facebook filing a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to get this information. However, they don't state what they are seeking in their post. Further, they attack Namecheap as if Namecheap were doing something wrong. I don't expect Namecheap to spend a fortune fighting this- but I would like to see due process followed. If a proper court of competent jurisdiction rules that Namecheap has to reveal the identity of the domain owners, and their are no bounds for appeal, and Namecheap does, that is an acceptable legal outcome. The problem is Facebook trying to paint Namecheap as being in the wrong here, when it appears that they are doing the right thing.
brodouevencode 7y ago
Lawsuits don't always mean monetary damages are sought. It could be an injunction (do this thing or stop doing that thing) or forced turnover of data.
woofie11 7y ago
I kind of agree. This is the sort of thing which should be handled through a $500 lawsuit, not a $50 million law suit: * Namecheap should say: "That's not our problem. It's up to the courts. Get a warrant." * Facebook should say "okay." * Namecheap should notify the domain holder, and let them fight it if they want. * If they don't fight it, Facebook should have a short filing explaining the problem and asking for a release of information. If it's reasonable, the judge should sign it, and Namecheap should give up the information. If it's unreasonable, the judge should not sign it. It's how courts should work, and it's how due process should work.
- edoceo 7y ago
  Upvote for reasonable, pragmatic process. Maybe typo on step four to "if choose to fight".
- lathiat 7y ago
  same. this is exactly the kind of process I want in our courts whether the requestor is private or governmental. sadly at least in Australia we keep passing stupid new laws that erode the judicial oversight giving various authorities (and many more than just the "police") ability to do all sorts of things with no warrant or judge oversight and I don't like it.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Do you think that would make Namecheap change their ways at all? Won't it mean Facebook have to keep taking Namecheap to court; and other domain registrars?
  - jeremyjh 7y ago
    By change their ways, do you mean Namecheap should violate their customer's privacy without any due process?
  - skywhopper 7y ago
    What ways are you seeking to change?
badrabbit 7y ago
Lookup cybersquatting laws in the US, fb can just take over the domains.
- r-w 7y ago
  This doesn’t scale to companies that, unlike Facebook, can’t afford the ongoing associated costs.
zelly 7y ago
Same here. This is a huge endorsement of Namecheap as far as I'm concerned.
gravypod 7y ago
Same here. Namecheap customer with a few domains. Glad they aren't just rolling over. Even if they just asked FB to get a subpoena I'd be happy.
dmwallin 7y ago
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#raa https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-20... 3.7.7.3 Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name. A Registered Name Holder licensing use of a Registered Name according to this provision shall accept liability for harm caused by wrongful use of the Registered Name, unless it discloses the current contact information provided by the licensee and the identity of the licensee within seven (7) days to a party providing the Registered Name Holder reasonable evidence of actionable harm.
- pavon 7y ago
  I don't think that applies here. What this is saying is if Bob registers joe.com from Namecheap, and then licenses joe.com to Joe to use, then Bob is required to provide his own contact information to Namecheap, and Joe must provide contact information to Bob. Then if Bob is informed of wrongful use of the joe.com, he must hand over Joe's contact information, or be liable for the harm done. It says nothing about Namecheap's obligations.
  - pavon 7y ago
    One applicable section is the requirements for registers that provide privacy proxies, and that has no specific requirements for when a registrar must hand over contact information. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#privacy-proxy.2 https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-20...
  - nulbyte 7y ago
    But maybe it does apply. Isn't the registrant listed as WhoisGuard? So, shouldn't WhoisGuard be responsible for providing the contact information? Hence Facebook sued Namecheap. I think Namecheap is doing right, and I think Facebook is technically doing right, but they are talking up the action as Namecheap is evil and Facebook is good, which is nonsense. Honestly, what corporation puts up public notice they are suing someone? Anyone worth their salt waits until the outcome to talk about a court case.
annoyingnoob 7y ago
In my experience, namecheap takes care of issues when you report them but the do not prevent on-going issues. They let you play a game of whack-mole, where scammers can buy domains faster than those domains can be taken down.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  You're not their customer. You're actually trying to harm some of their customers, so it's difficult to imagine why they'd do anything to help you, absent some sort of legal obligation.
  - annoyingnoob 7y ago
    I guess ethics and good faith do not matter then. If your business is selling mostly to scammers then what does that make you? I'm saying that namecheap is unethical. You are right, I'm not their customer and never will be. If it was easy to spam block every single domain ever sold by namecheap then I would do that.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      If your business is selling mostly to scammers then what does that make you? Not even Facebook claims that Namecheap sells "mostly to scammers". There isn't even a question over which of these two firms helps scammers more or harms society more. Facebook wins all of those contests. They're, like, Vladimir Putin's favorite! If any online service should have to follow the law and actually litigate each instance of such allegations of "cyber-squatting" in court, it is certainly Facebook.
maram 7y ago
Facebook press release is a classical PR whitewash to rebrand Facebook through POSITIONING it as the FIRST brand that is fighting for users privacy. >>As a Namecheap customer, I'm glad that they aren't giving up their customers privacy. This is how we at the community of HN and engineers see it, but not how average non-technical person sees it. I'm a hacker who worked in PR and advertising; I worked on media monitoring; I drafted many press releases like this and worked on PR campaigns for P&G, LG and Unilever and other global brands. Here is what I learned: every time I read a stupid press release like this, I ask which audience is this company targeting? And why? To read this differently, think of the target audience. Who is Facebook targeting with this press release? Clearly, Facebook is not targeting the community of HN, or tech, evident by the number of people saying Facebook shouldn't sue Namecheap. Facebook is targeting the average person. Facebook is whitewashing/managing its PR crisis of privacy invasion by establishing itself as the FIRST tech leader who is fighting for people privacy. Like it or not, Facebook is the only one in the tech industry who is doing it and is being loud..underscore being loud. No other tech giant is fighting to be the leader in protecting users privacy and is being loud, I'm not talking about non-profit. I'm talking about Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook. Just read these poetic lines from the press release: "We don't want people to be deceived by these web addresses, so we've taken legal action. We filed a similar lawsuit in October 2019 against OnlineNIC, another domain registrar, and its proxy service. Our goal is to create consequences for those who seek to do harm and we will continue to take legal action to protect people from domain name fraud and abuse." Facebook is taking the initiative of fighting for users privacy, and it doesn't matter whether they are truthful or deceptive. What matters is that they are the first. We only remember the first. "The easy way to get into a person’s mind is to be first. If you can’t be first, then you must find a way to position yourself against the product, the politician, the person who did get there first What’s the name of the first person to fly solo across the North Atlantic? Charles Lindbergh, right? Now, what’s the name of the second person to fly solo across the North Atlantic? Not so easy to answer, is it? What’s the name of the first person to walk on the moon? Neil Armstrong, of course. What’s the name of the second? What’s the name of the highest mountain in the world? Mount Everest in the Himalayas, right? What’s the name of the second highest mountain in the world? What’s the name of the first person you ever made love with? What’s the name of the second? The first person, the first mountain, the first company to occupy the position in the mind is going to be awfully hard to dislodge. Kodak in photography, Kleenex in tissue, Xerox in plainpaper copiers, Hertz in rent-a-cars, Coca in cola, General in electric. The first thing you need to “fix your message indelibly in the mind” is not a message at all. Ries, Al. Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind
pergadad 7y ago
Registrars normally have terms of service that allow them to cancel domains at their own discretion. Now here's a registrar that's made aware that the domains are used for a crime. While I agree that registrars should not be tasked to proactively check and police domain content, it's a bit different to receive proof that a customer is doing criminal activities and to say you need a court order to do anything? The handing out of personal data is a bit more sensitive, but I would assume FB is already involving the police in the process. Not to hand data to FB seems fine, not to hand data to the involved police force seems like you might be actively helping them to hide/keep the crime going (again, assuming that the scam/crime is obvious).
- omnimus 7y ago
  And i am sure if police wants the site taken down Namecheap will do it. FB asking for this data is ridiculous. Go through process as anyone else. I am glad that Namecheap is standing their ground protecting private whois data.
IGotThroughIt 7y ago
At this point it's safe to almost always assume that any company that facebook is suing is probably doing the right thing and fb is likely just being a dick about it. That's how low fb has sunk.
StreamBright 7y ago
They do not have any obligation. Facebook is not an authority and they can only request that information via normal means. The fact that they claim that the other company has any obligation just point out how obnoxious and entitled they have become.
ksec 7y ago
>As a Namecheap customer, I am glad that they aren't giving up their customers privacy. Namecheap has been on the good side for most part, at least comparing to GoDaddy. I find it unfortunate that they had "Cheap" in their name that sort of give a slight negative impression in terms of quality.
- sumedh 7y ago
  For me its the opposite, the name tells me their prices are cheap which they are.
dhimes 7y ago
I just registered a domain with namecheap a few weeks ago and it definitely came up as something they didn't want to give me. It was close to another trademark name. I had to agree to accept the risk. I looked it up, and they are in a different business (and the names are really that close to a human, just to an algorithm). So I accepted the risk. So FB can't claim they ignore this stuff. They seem to be making a good-faith effort to prevent this kind of fraud.

tptacek 7y ago

You're glad Namecheap is protecting the registrant of "whatsappdownload.site"?

blackearl 7y ago
First they came for faceb0ok.com and I did not speak out
notRobot 7y ago
They're glad that Facebook isn't being handed information just because they're a big company. Want private registrant info? Get a subpoena. It should be very easy if you have a legit reason.
- tedivm 7y ago
  That's literally what they're doing?
  - Phil987 7y ago
    Yeah and that's why they're happy.
- pliu 7y ago
  In cases like the example mentioned, this is clearly a malicious entity. I don't agree that "get a subpoena" is the right response, some judgement should be applied to cases where someone is clearly using your service to do harm.
  - mundo 7y ago
    And in cases that aren't so clear? One of the three cited in the press release was instagrambusinesshelp.com - that doesn't sound remotely malicious to me.
    - lima 7y ago
      Still a likely trademark violation. But yes, not something Namecheap should decide.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    I'm pretty happy with "judgement" being a thing that courts do and not a thing unqualified call center drones do.
  - jacurtis 7y ago
    > some judgement should be applied to cases where someone is clearly using your service to do harm This is Facebook's argument essentially. But who decides that it is "clearly" doing harm? Should Facebook have the power to just tear domains away from their owners at their sole discretion? Should Namecheap be deciding if they break their privacy contract (the entire WHOISGUARD product that they offer) because a domain sounds too close to another company's product? Why should Facebook (or Namecheap) have the power to soley make decisions on this manner? Why do they get to "play god"? These types of Copyright or Trademark issues have a proper and appropriate channel for handling these disputes. Facebook should be using the APPROPRIATE channels (ie the Judicial system) to handle this. The courts could issue a subpoena to Namecheap and Namecheap can take it down or hand over the information or whatever a judge decides should be done. But a sworn judge is the one that should be making these decisions, not a private company. This is where Namecheap is right in its stance and Facebook is wrong. Facebook is big and has lots of money, but that doesn't allow them to circumvent the Justice system. We swear in Judges to handle things like this. The judge can decide if this is "clearly" a violation or not. The judge will also help decide on the gray cases as well. The Judge will look at the facts of each case individually and help to protect Facebook's copyrights and trademarks while also protecting the rights of the citizen that owns the domain in question. He is the impartial authority that is trained and authorized to make these decisions. Namecheap is doing it right, and this makes me very happy to be registering domains through them. I am happy that they don't buckle to the pressure of a big scary corporation. Facebook is once again proving that they are not a good internet citizen. Another reason the world would be better if they disappeared. Facebook isn't above the rest of us, or our governmental processes. The fact that they think they are is reason enough to never trust them with your data.
amerine 7y ago
It’s about there already being a process for this, and not being cool with Facebook using lawyers to do it.
- ensignavenger 7y ago
  Well, part of the appropriate process may involve lawyers- but they do not appear to be following the process properly, and this PR stunt is absurd.
- ipsum2 7y ago
  > there already being a process for this It's not clear at all what the process is. Can you elaborate?
  - ensignavenger 7y ago
    https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- tempestn 7y ago
  For what it's worth, the problem with that process is that it creates an uneven burden. Any scammer with 10 bucks can create a misleading domain. This happened to us when some scammers created "autostempest.com" to mimic our car search site, autotempest.com. They put fake listings up and scammed many people out of tens of thousands of dollars. Our only legal recourse was a UDRP claim (short of suing namecheap, which would have been even more expensive), but that would have cost about $2000 because you need to go through a registered provider—and these are private companies, which take advantage of this regulatory oligopoly. Now, $2000 would be worth it to shut down a scammer like that, except nothing stops them from simply ignoring the UDRP claim and once their domain is shut down, they can register autotempests.com or something for another 10 bucks. (They actually did end up registering autostempestgroup.com and several others.) On the other hand, if you could simply go to the registrar, show clear evidence of the very obvious infringement, and have them shut down the domain, perhaps it would actually be feasible to put a dent in that kind of scam. I do understand the concern of having a private company like Namecheap be the judge in these matters, but I'm not sure it's as black and white as that. I could see a system working where they do take unilateral action on obvious cases (autostempest, whatsappdownload.com, faceb00k, etc.), but require the formal process for less clear cases.
ensignavenger 7y ago
Yes. I don't want Namecheap stepping in to judge how I use my domains- I want a court of competent jurisdiction to make those determinations. There is an appropriate process for these issues.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  It seems that the appropriate process for this issue would be suing the registered owner of these domains (Whoisguard), which is what they're doing now - and a court of competent jurisdiction will be ruling on it.
  - ensignavenger 7y ago
    Facebook doesn't say exactly what they are seeking, but that is one possibility. However, this PR piece seems to be accusing Namecheap of doing wrong- and it appears that Namecheap is entirely in the right. If all Facebook was doing was seeking control of the domain name, and they didn't make this accusatory post, I would agree that they were following the proper process.
allenskd 7y ago
Yes. I'm fine with Namecheap taking the domain down. Handing information like that just because they ask for it? That's a huge no. Let them proceed through the legal channels to get that information.
- jethro_tell 7y ago
  Yeah, we have a process for this. I realize that FB thinks laws don't apply to them, but they do, or maybe will at some point?
  - zymhan 7y ago
    A lawsuit is exactly that process.
    - jacurtis 7y ago
      Sort of. But not this lawsuit. Facebook is suing Namecheap because Namecheap is not handing over the information just because Facebook asked them to. Facebook decided that the domain should be taken down and expected Namecheap to just do what Facebook said. Namecheap refused. That is why Facebook is suing them. What Facebook should do is file a trademark dispute against the domain owner. Then a judge will look at the case, decide if Facebook has been wronged, and if so, the judge will ask Namecheap for the domain owner's information, at which point Namecheap would then be expected to (and not wrong for doing so) hand over the information to the judge. The court system will handle the rest. That is why we have these court systems. I know Facebook is confused and thinks they are above the government, but that is why it is good for Namecheap to remind them of that.
      - zymhan 7y ago
        They don't know the owner though, because Namecheap won't tell them, presumably without FB obtaining a court order in some way.
        jethro_tell 7y ago
rndgermandude 7y ago
Yes. Do you know what content was on there? Scam/malware? Critical reporting on facebook's business processes? A parody site making fun of whatsapp? A redirect to Signal? At least two of the 4 examples I gave are perfectly legal even under trademark and/or copyright law. And 3 are non-malicious
Fnoord 7y ago
Yup, more so with GDPR. It is nobodies business who's behind a domain. Authorities can of course figure it out (with subpoena, as it should be) should the need arise.
lacker 7y ago
Yes. I want Namecheap to protect my privacy. When they show they're even willing to protect the privacy of a low-reputation actor, it proves to me that they are likely to protect my privacy as well. It's the same reason I'm glad that HTTPS and SSL protect the registrant of whatsappdownload.site.
- tgeorge 7y ago
  I have the same sentiment, I'm glad it's not automated.
enlyth 7y ago
Yes.
lima 7y ago
I worked for a European domain registrar a few years ago. An obviously malicious site like "whatsappdownload.site" would be taken offline very quickly, but under no circumstances could we give non-public subscriber information to a third party without a warrant. > You're glad Namecheap is protecting the registrant of "whatsappdownload.site"? In most cases I've seen, registrant data would either be fake, the result of identity theft, or an innocent customer's whose account got hacked.

gruez 7y ago

>ICANN has an established process for handling these types of disputes, and Facebook should avail themsleves of that process. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en Facebook wants information on the registrants. A quick skim of the link you provided suggests that the process only results in the domain being taken down, not information revealed. >Under the policy, most types of trademark-based domain-name disputes must be resolved by agreement, court action, or arbitration before a registrar will cancel, suspend, or transfer a domain name.

PeterisP 7y ago
"Agreement, court action and arbitration" - all three of those require knowing the identity or at least directly communicating with the other party to start the process.
- ensignavenger 7y ago
  Not necessarily- they explicitly mention filing an in-rem action- which does not require knowing the identity of the domain registrant.
  - r-w 7y ago
    Didn’t they file that against Namecheap, not the registrants?
ensignavenger 7y ago
If that is all Facebook is seeking in their suit, then I am fine with their lawsuit- and I am glad that Namecheap is holding out for a final, legal court order in a court of competent jurisdiction. Facebooks PR piece trying to paint Namecheap in a bad light is something I am not okay with. Namecheap is right not to give up this information without legal due process.
- mattkrause 7y ago
  Lawyers, Would the registrar normally be sued here? I would have thought it'd be against a fictitious defendant, with a Doe subpoena used to find out their actual identity.

NamecheapCEO 7y ago

Is it not enough that Facebook and Zuck tread all over their customers privacy on their own platform? Now they want other companies to do it for them with their own customers as well. This is just another attack on privacy and due process in order to strong arm companies that have services like WhoisGuard which is intended to protect millions of customer’s privacy.

drKarl 7y ago
I agree with everything you said, just a minor comment... Facebook users are not Facebook customers, they are the product. Facebook customers are all the companies which pay Facebook for advertisement.
- KarlKemp 7y ago
  This tired cliché is annoying enough when people use it in situation where it arguably has some explanatory power—a complaint about FB’s customer service, say. It adds absolutely nothing to this discussion. Facebook has an interest in retaining users that is indistinguishable here from an interest to retain customers. I struggle to come up with reasons that motivate the incessant regurgitation of memes such as this in online discussions. Sure, I chuckled the first time I saw it because it was novel and somewhat contrarian. But after the hundredth time it feels more like bad ML picking up on the wrong keywords.
- sumedh 7y ago
  > Facebook customers are all the companies which pay Facebook for advertisement. I dont know about FB but there are companies who will sell the data of their paying customers as well.
animalnewbie 7y ago
Are you actually your username I wonder?

Techies4Trump 7y ago

Me too, I'm also a Namecheap customer and have nothing but good thinks to say about them. This makes me like them even more. If only FB were as professional with their customer's data as Namecheap...

Trias11 7y ago
"If only FB were as professional with their customer's data as Namecheap..." +100
- cosmodisk 7y ago
  Facebook customers are companies that pay for advertising. Billions of sheep,who signed up for the chance to see endless streams of cat pictures, are the product.
puranjay 7y ago
Same here. Shifted all my domains to Namecheap from GoDaddy. It was a breath of fresh air not being upsold to all the time, and not dealing with ridiculous renewal fees.
- Techies4Trump 7y ago
  I did the exact same. I used to be a Godaddy customer and had a bunch of domains with them. One day I cancelled some of them, but when I did this it didn't auto-cancel the associated services, as I expected, so they continued to charge me for whois guard, and some other services for domains I no longer owned after they expired. Godaddy are thieves. I'll never use them again.
- corobo 7y ago
  As much as I like Namecheap, you can't really say they don't upsell. At least not anymore. Every domain purchase comes with the chance to register premium DNS, hosting, all sorts of guff

dpcan 7y ago

I totally agree. Namecheap probably had to tell Facebook, "get a warrant". If they DIDN'T do this, they would then be responsible for policing EVERY site they provide WhoisGuard for, and that would be ridiculous. Facebook is trying to use this as a way to show they are concerned about privacy and security, but they're coming across as bullies that didn't get what they wanted and now they have to use the necessary legal methods to do so.

zymhan 7y ago
Facebook cannot "get a warrant", only law enforcement officials can do that.
- travisjungroth 7y ago
  “File a suit, leading to discovery and a warrant ordered by a judge” doesn’t quite roll off the tongue.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
    Warrants are for criminal searches. Subpoenas are the process used to compel discoveryin civil cases and for some parts of criminal cases.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- teh_klev 7y ago
  Please don't be obtuse, I think we all know fine what this means.
  - rat9988 7y ago
    I honestly did not. All I knew is they couldn't have a warrant.
  - zymhan 7y ago
    There is a big difference between a subpoena and a warrant. Glossing over that may be fine to you, but it's wrong and misleading.

gist 7y ago

Effective strategy on the part of facebook. Namecheap can either decide to spend untold sums and fight this (and let's see the amount and how that goes) or they can turn over the info and move on. No legitimate customer of namecheap that isn't fishing is going to take this as anything important to them and importantly even if they even know it's happening. I don't get all of this rah rah. My question for you (the OP) is how many domains do you have with namecheap? And how many customers like you do you think make up their business? Nobody is filing a lawsuit to uncover whois privacy info trivially unless the reason makes sense (on the end of the person wanting the info).

ensignavenger 7y ago
I have several, but not as many as I have had registered either for myself or customers in the past. I will probably have more in the future. I am fine with Facebook filing a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to get this information. However, they don't state what they are seeking in their post. Further, they attack Namecheap as if Namecheap were doing something wrong. I don't expect Namecheap to spend a fortune fighting this- but I would like to see due process followed. If a proper court of competent jurisdiction rules that Namecheap has to reveal the identity of the domain owners, and their are no bounds for appeal, and Namecheap does, that is an acceptable legal outcome. The problem is Facebook trying to paint Namecheap as being in the wrong here, when it appears that they are doing the right thing.

brodouevencode 7y ago

Lawsuits don't always mean monetary damages are sought. It could be an injunction (do this thing or stop doing that thing) or forced turnover of data.

woofie11 7y ago

I kind of agree. This is the sort of thing which should be handled through a $500 lawsuit, not a $50 million law suit: * Namecheap should say: "That's not our problem. It's up to the courts. Get a warrant." * Facebook should say "okay." * Namecheap should notify the domain holder, and let them fight it if they want. * If they don't fight it, Facebook should have a short filing explaining the problem and asking for a release of information. If it's reasonable, the judge should sign it, and Namecheap should give up the information. If it's unreasonable, the judge should not sign it. It's how courts should work, and it's how due process should work.

edoceo 7y ago
Upvote for reasonable, pragmatic process. Maybe typo on step four to "if choose to fight".
lathiat 7y ago
same. this is exactly the kind of process I want in our courts whether the requestor is private or governmental. sadly at least in Australia we keep passing stupid new laws that erode the judicial oversight giving various authorities (and many more than just the "police") ability to do all sorts of things with no warrant or judge oversight and I don't like it.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Do you think that would make Namecheap change their ways at all? Won't it mean Facebook have to keep taking Namecheap to court; and other domain registrars?
- jeremyjh 7y ago
  By change their ways, do you mean Namecheap should violate their customer's privacy without any due process?
- skywhopper 7y ago
  What ways are you seeking to change?

badrabbit 7y ago

Lookup cybersquatting laws in the US, fb can just take over the domains.

r-w 7y ago
This doesn’t scale to companies that, unlike Facebook, can’t afford the ongoing associated costs.

zelly 7y ago

Same here. This is a huge endorsement of Namecheap as far as I'm concerned.

gravypod 7y ago

Same here. Namecheap customer with a few domains. Glad they aren't just rolling over. Even if they just asked FB to get a subpoena I'd be happy.

dmwallin 7y ago

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#raa https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-20... 3.7.7.3 Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name. A Registered Name Holder licensing use of a Registered Name according to this provision shall accept liability for harm caused by wrongful use of the Registered Name, unless it discloses the current contact information provided by the licensee and the identity of the licensee within seven (7) days to a party providing the Registered Name Holder reasonable evidence of actionable harm.

pavon 7y ago
I don't think that applies here. What this is saying is if Bob registers joe.com from Namecheap, and then licenses joe.com to Joe to use, then Bob is required to provide his own contact information to Namecheap, and Joe must provide contact information to Bob. Then if Bob is informed of wrongful use of the joe.com, he must hand over Joe's contact information, or be liable for the harm done. It says nothing about Namecheap's obligations.
- pavon 7y ago
  One applicable section is the requirements for registers that provide privacy proxies, and that has no specific requirements for when a registrar must hand over contact information. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#privacy-proxy.2 https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-20...
- nulbyte 7y ago
  But maybe it does apply. Isn't the registrant listed as WhoisGuard? So, shouldn't WhoisGuard be responsible for providing the contact information? Hence Facebook sued Namecheap. I think Namecheap is doing right, and I think Facebook is technically doing right, but they are talking up the action as Namecheap is evil and Facebook is good, which is nonsense. Honestly, what corporation puts up public notice they are suing someone? Anyone worth their salt waits until the outcome to talk about a court case.

annoyingnoob 7y ago

In my experience, namecheap takes care of issues when you report them but the do not prevent on-going issues. They let you play a game of whack-mole, where scammers can buy domains faster than those domains can be taken down.

jessaustin 7y ago
You're not their customer. You're actually trying to harm some of their customers, so it's difficult to imagine why they'd do anything to help you, absent some sort of legal obligation.
- annoyingnoob 7y ago
  I guess ethics and good faith do not matter then. If your business is selling mostly to scammers then what does that make you? I'm saying that namecheap is unethical. You are right, I'm not their customer and never will be. If it was easy to spam block every single domain ever sold by namecheap then I would do that.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    If your business is selling mostly to scammers then what does that make you? Not even Facebook claims that Namecheap sells "mostly to scammers". There isn't even a question over which of these two firms helps scammers more or harms society more. Facebook wins all of those contests. They're, like, Vladimir Putin's favorite! If any online service should have to follow the law and actually litigate each instance of such allegations of "cyber-squatting" in court, it is certainly Facebook.

maram 7y ago

Facebook press release is a classical PR whitewash to rebrand Facebook through POSITIONING it as the FIRST brand that is fighting for users privacy. >>As a Namecheap customer, I'm glad that they aren't giving up their customers privacy. This is how we at the community of HN and engineers see it, but not how average non-technical person sees it. I'm a hacker who worked in PR and advertising; I worked on media monitoring; I drafted many press releases like this and worked on PR campaigns for P&G, LG and Unilever and other global brands. Here is what I learned: every time I read a stupid press release like this, I ask which audience is this company targeting? And why? To read this differently, think of the target audience. Who is Facebook targeting with this press release? Clearly, Facebook is not targeting the community of HN, or tech, evident by the number of people saying Facebook shouldn't sue Namecheap. Facebook is targeting the average person. Facebook is whitewashing/managing its PR crisis of privacy invasion by establishing itself as the FIRST tech leader who is fighting for people privacy. Like it or not, Facebook is the only one in the tech industry who is doing it and is being loud..underscore being loud. No other tech giant is fighting to be the leader in protecting users privacy and is being loud, I'm not talking about non-profit. I'm talking about Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook. Just read these poetic lines from the press release: "We don't want people to be deceived by these web addresses, so we've taken legal action. We filed a similar lawsuit in October 2019 against OnlineNIC, another domain registrar, and its proxy service. Our goal is to create consequences for those who seek to do harm and we will continue to take legal action to protect people from domain name fraud and abuse." Facebook is taking the initiative of fighting for users privacy, and it doesn't matter whether they are truthful or deceptive. What matters is that they are the first. We only remember the first. "The easy way to get into a person’s mind is to be first. If you can’t be first, then you must find a way to position yourself against the product, the politician, the person who did get there first What’s the name of the first person to fly solo across the North Atlantic? Charles Lindbergh, right? Now, what’s the name of the second person to fly solo across the North Atlantic? Not so easy to answer, is it? What’s the name of the first person to walk on the moon? Neil Armstrong, of course. What’s the name of the second? What’s the name of the highest mountain in the world? Mount Everest in the Himalayas, right? What’s the name of the second highest mountain in the world? What’s the name of the first person you ever made love with? What’s the name of the second? The first person, the first mountain, the first company to occupy the position in the mind is going to be awfully hard to dislodge. Kodak in photography, Kleenex in tissue, Xerox in plainpaper copiers, Hertz in rent-a-cars, Coca in cola, General in electric. The first thing you need to “fix your message indelibly in the mind” is not a message at all. Ries, Al. Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind

pergadad 7y ago

Registrars normally have terms of service that allow them to cancel domains at their own discretion. Now here's a registrar that's made aware that the domains are used for a crime. While I agree that registrars should not be tasked to proactively check and police domain content, it's a bit different to receive proof that a customer is doing criminal activities and to say you need a court order to do anything? The handing out of personal data is a bit more sensitive, but I would assume FB is already involving the police in the process. Not to hand data to FB seems fine, not to hand data to the involved police force seems like you might be actively helping them to hide/keep the crime going (again, assuming that the scam/crime is obvious).

omnimus 7y ago
And i am sure if police wants the site taken down Namecheap will do it. FB asking for this data is ridiculous. Go through process as anyone else. I am glad that Namecheap is standing their ground protecting private whois data.

IGotThroughIt 7y ago

At this point it's safe to almost always assume that any company that facebook is suing is probably doing the right thing and fb is likely just being a dick about it. That's how low fb has sunk.

StreamBright 7y ago

They do not have any obligation. Facebook is not an authority and they can only request that information via normal means. The fact that they claim that the other company has any obligation just point out how obnoxious and entitled they have become.

ksec 7y ago

>As a Namecheap customer, I am glad that they aren't giving up their customers privacy. Namecheap has been on the good side for most part, at least comparing to GoDaddy. I find it unfortunate that they had "Cheap" in their name that sort of give a slight negative impression in terms of quality.

sumedh 7y ago
For me its the opposite, the name tells me their prices are cheap which they are.

dhimes 7y ago

I just registered a domain with namecheap a few weeks ago and it definitely came up as something they didn't want to give me. It was close to another trademark name. I had to agree to accept the risk. I looked it up, and they are in a different business (and the names are really that close to a human, just to an algorithm). So I accepted the risk. So FB can't claim they ignore this stuff. They seem to be making a good-faith effort to prevent this kind of fraud.