9 ms·

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 p

by 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.
    - roel_v 7y ago
      Sometimes, but not in this context.
    - rhizome 7y ago
      This isn't a court, you don't have to litigate this detail. Oh, but it's "wrong." Let us now break out the XKCD.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - jeltz 7y ago
      Then politely correct him with that he probably meant subpoena. Your previous comment did not mention the word "subpoena" anywhere. Btw, in my language there is no distinction between warrant and subpoena, both are just court orders.
- haberman 7y ago
  Sort of related: one time a scammer conned my grandma out of thousands of dollars by calling her and pretending to be me in distress. She wired the money to my name (I think it was Western Union or something), in a foreign country, and somebody "showed ID" as me. We reported it to the police, of course, but I don't think it was ever really pursued. I wanted to dig in myself but whoever the company was said they wouldn't give up the records without a subpoena. Very frustrating as I am the person who was being impersonated. It seems like there are times where you should have standing as an individual to get a subpoena for information directly related to you.
  - tannedNerd 7y ago
    Im sorry that sucks, but we should not give up rights because some customers are easily fooled. This is a slippery slope you do not want to start on, because where does it end?
    - unreal37 7y ago
      But if John Doe wants information on someone named John Doe who "showed ID" to claim the money, he's just asking about "himself". I kinda get the point. If someone impersonates you, that information should not be protected because it's supposedly you.
      - ralphstodomingo 7y ago
        Isn't this problem solvable by looking at it differently? To me, the problem is that it's easy for scammers to impersonate someone. What if there was a way to reasonably check a person's identity in a standard way accessible to everyone without going through hoops?
        r-w 7y ago
        That ideal won’t come true for a very long while. I appreciate your idealism, but for better or worse, we need a reasonable and attainable solution in the interim.
markdown 7y ago
> If they DIDN'T do this, they would then be responsible for policing EVERY site they provide WhoisGuard for, and that would be ridiculous. Why would that be ridiculous? If they can't make sure that their clients are legit, they shouldn't be in the business at all. In fact domain name ownership shouldn't be private at all (in the same way that land ownership isn't private)
- FpUser 7y ago
  "If they can't make sure that their clients are legit, they shouldn't be in the business at all" Really? Then why do we have courts, prosecutors, police and a whole shebang of associated entities. It is their job and they're being paid for it.
- randallsquared 7y ago
  > If they can't make sure that their clients are legit, they shouldn't be in the business at all. Banks are required to have Know Your Customer systems. Domain registrars, hardware stores, and grocery stores are not. Do you really want to extend this additional expense to all the businesses from which you buy?
  - markdown 7y ago
    > Do you really want to extend this additional expense to all the businesses from which you buy? No idea where you got hardware stores, grocery stores, and "all the business from which you buy" from. Read my comment again. Domain name ownership should be public information, just like land ownership, and the ownership of media organisations.
    - drdaeman 7y ago
      > Domain name ownership should be public information Why?
      - markdown 7y ago
        Ownership of land, legal entities, and domain names should be public information because that would be better for society. EDIT (HN won't let me reply or post any more): > Maybe they're exposing corruption or sharing information that powerful people don't want to have exposed. Sure there are edge-cases where anonymity would be desirable, but they pale in comparison to the real harm done every day to regular people through anonymously registered domain names.
shauhdej 7y ago
Who are they advertising to though? They might look like bullies to people in the industry but that's probably not who they're trying to market themselves as privacy/security concerned towards. Combined with how dire the state of mainstream tech 'news' is, I'd be surprised if this actually backfired regardless of which way the lawsuit goes.
ralphstodomingo 7y ago
Yeah, Facebook's trying to strong-arm registrars, but the fundamental premise comes off to me as entitled. It's like they're asserting they're too important and they don't want to go after these domain holders one-by-one, so the registrars should do their bidding.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Xelbair 7y ago
I have no idea how facebook can presents themselves as "concerned about privacy" when their whole bloody business model is about exploiting it.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  Standard Oil was concerned about Oil. Resource companies generally are concerned about the resource they exploit, and especially about keeping all access to it for themselves and none for others.
- sisfs 7y ago
  AMEN!
KarlKemp 7y ago
Doing something once does not, contrary to popular (on the internet) theory, create an obligation to do so perpetually and in all situation. That’s the whole point of Section 230 of the DMCA, for example. Judging by this thread, this faulty logic has been embraced wholeheartedly, and it leads to the strange position that is actually immoral, apparently, to make any judgement calls in the cause of your everyday life or business. When you are asked to work for a scammer, you are supposed to throw up your hands, say “who am I to judge”, and take their money. Courts are, apparently, the only unfailing entities that can tell right from wrong. Even when something is universally agreed to be wrong, you are supposed to ignore it lest you feel tempted or required to then make decisions in more nuanced cases. It’s a rather convoluted scheme to abdicate all moral responsibility.

by dpcan 7y ago

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.
  - roel_v 7y ago
    Sometimes, but not in this context.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    This isn't a court, you don't have to litigate this detail. Oh, but it's "wrong." Let us now break out the XKCD.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jeltz 7y ago
    Then politely correct him with that he probably meant subpoena. Your previous comment did not mention the word "subpoena" anywhere. Btw, in my language there is no distinction between warrant and subpoena, both are just court orders.
haberman 7y ago
Sort of related: one time a scammer conned my grandma out of thousands of dollars by calling her and pretending to be me in distress. She wired the money to my name (I think it was Western Union or something), in a foreign country, and somebody "showed ID" as me. We reported it to the police, of course, but I don't think it was ever really pursued. I wanted to dig in myself but whoever the company was said they wouldn't give up the records without a subpoena. Very frustrating as I am the person who was being impersonated. It seems like there are times where you should have standing as an individual to get a subpoena for information directly related to you.
- tannedNerd 7y ago
  Im sorry that sucks, but we should not give up rights because some customers are easily fooled. This is a slippery slope you do not want to start on, because where does it end?
  - unreal37 7y ago
    But if John Doe wants information on someone named John Doe who "showed ID" to claim the money, he's just asking about "himself". I kinda get the point. If someone impersonates you, that information should not be protected because it's supposedly you.
    - ralphstodomingo 7y ago
      Isn't this problem solvable by looking at it differently? To me, the problem is that it's easy for scammers to impersonate someone. What if there was a way to reasonably check a person's identity in a standard way accessible to everyone without going through hoops?
      - r-w 7y ago
        That ideal won’t come true for a very long while. I appreciate your idealism, but for better or worse, we need a reasonable and attainable solution in the interim.

markdown 7y ago

> If they DIDN'T do this, they would then be responsible for policing EVERY site they provide WhoisGuard for, and that would be ridiculous. Why would that be ridiculous? If they can't make sure that their clients are legit, they shouldn't be in the business at all. In fact domain name ownership shouldn't be private at all (in the same way that land ownership isn't private)

FpUser 7y ago
"If they can't make sure that their clients are legit, they shouldn't be in the business at all" Really? Then why do we have courts, prosecutors, police and a whole shebang of associated entities. It is their job and they're being paid for it.
randallsquared 7y ago
> If they can't make sure that their clients are legit, they shouldn't be in the business at all. Banks are required to have Know Your Customer systems. Domain registrars, hardware stores, and grocery stores are not. Do you really want to extend this additional expense to all the businesses from which you buy?
- markdown 7y ago
  > Do you really want to extend this additional expense to all the businesses from which you buy? No idea where you got hardware stores, grocery stores, and "all the business from which you buy" from. Read my comment again. Domain name ownership should be public information, just like land ownership, and the ownership of media organisations.
  - drdaeman 7y ago
    > Domain name ownership should be public information Why?
    - markdown 7y ago
      Ownership of land, legal entities, and domain names should be public information because that would be better for society. EDIT (HN won't let me reply or post any more): > Maybe they're exposing corruption or sharing information that powerful people don't want to have exposed. Sure there are edge-cases where anonymity would be desirable, but they pale in comparison to the real harm done every day to regular people through anonymously registered domain names.

shauhdej 7y ago

Who are they advertising to though? They might look like bullies to people in the industry but that's probably not who they're trying to market themselves as privacy/security concerned towards. Combined with how dire the state of mainstream tech 'news' is, I'd be surprised if this actually backfired regardless of which way the lawsuit goes.

ralphstodomingo 7y ago

Yeah, Facebook's trying to strong-arm registrars, but the fundamental premise comes off to me as entitled. It's like they're asserting they're too important and they don't want to go after these domain holders one-by-one, so the registrars should do their bidding.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Xelbair 7y ago

I have no idea how facebook can presents themselves as "concerned about privacy" when their whole bloody business model is about exploiting it.

bryanrasmussen 7y ago
Standard Oil was concerned about Oil. Resource companies generally are concerned about the resource they exploit, and especially about keeping all access to it for themselves and none for others.
sisfs 7y ago
AMEN!

KarlKemp 7y ago

Doing something once does not, contrary to popular (on the internet) theory, create an obligation to do so perpetually and in all situation. That’s the whole point of Section 230 of the DMCA, for example. Judging by this thread, this faulty logic has been embraced wholeheartedly, and it leads to the strange position that is actually immoral, apparently, to make any judgement calls in the cause of your everyday life or business. When you are asked to work for a scammer, you are supposed to throw up your hands, say “who am I to judge”, and take their money. Courts are, apparently, the only unfailing entities that can tell right from wrong. Even when something is universally agreed to be wrong, you are supposed to ignore it lest you feel tempted or required to then make decisions in more nuanced cases. It’s a rather convoluted scheme to abdicate all moral responsibility.