4 ms·

If the article is correct in that Facebook is requesting this data for domains that look alike to Facebook and/or do Phishing, then I very much believe they sho

If the article is correct in that Facebook is requesting this data for domains that look alike to Facebook and/or do Phishing, then I very much believe they should receive the data necessary to go to court. Just because Facebook is highly unsympathetic, doesn't mean that all their initiatives are evil. And shady websides hiding behind third party privacy providers to avoid legal responsibility for their illegal content is sadly something that I've had to deal with myself in the past.

justinclift 6y ago
The clear examples given of FB repeatedly trying to gain the personal owner details of non-shady websites, purely in order to sue them... that's ok with you?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  This might be an unpopular opinion, but it’s ok with me. I don’t find restricting discovery needed to allow the filing of lawsuits to be something beneficial for society. There’s a real reason corporations need to have registered agents, mostly so they can be contacted (including to be sued) via a reliable process. I don’t see why a domain owner should be entitled to avoid official contact via privacy policies. I’m fine if there’s a reasonable policy to access it (including a possible workaround of an agent willing to accept official contacts). That someone would use the information purely in order to sue someone is a desirable feature, not a bug.
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    > That someone would use the information purely in order to sue someone is a desirable feature, not a bug. The only problem with this is that your legal system is fucked so the winner is always that big corp. Have fun being sued to hell and bankrupt after a corp decides to go after your website criticising them. Have you even looked at the list of domains they are going after? > And then it has a whole section for “domains that use the full trademark [but] nevertheless evince an indication that the domain is or will be used to discuss grievances with the company in question.” Every one of them comes from Facebook: addictedtofacebook.org, banned-by-facebook.com, divestfacebook.com, facebooksucks.org, protestfacebook.org, saynotoinstagram.com. And there are legal processes to sue someone as others have explained. Facebook wants to avoid them. Also did people forget - https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/15/21291666/ebay-employees-arrested-journalist-harassment https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/15/21291666/ebay-employees-a...
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    I don't see how owning a domain could possibly be anything like running a company. Just by incorporating you take on resposibility of paying taxes, accounting, submitting regylar reports, etc. Presumably you will be selling something, and people need to have an address for recourse. That 'address' could be a PO box somewhere, or be in a tax heaven. By contrast owning a domain does not obligate you to do anything in society, and doesnt affect anyone life. Most people register a domain to have a custom email. Why should you have the right to deanonimise that? If you are concerned about hatemail: you can send real post anonymously, with a postage stamp, though an unattented mailbox. I can even put somone else's return address on it.
  - rbrtl 6y ago
    They do not avoid official contact. They avoid unofficial contact, such as that of FB directly approaching any domain owner they feel like without proving to a judge that there is reasonable grounds to file suit. The same way you put your email address in a mildly obfuscated format instead of jim@cimpress.com. You don't want anyone or anything that comes across your bio having access to your email address without human intervention, or at least a degree of intelligence. > but it's ok with me.
blibble 6y ago
yeah I'm sure facebooksucks.org is phishing facebook accounts
amaccuish 6y ago
Then facebook can do that through the official means by submitting requests. They want to skip that process. I'd prefer their requests to be vetted before personal information is divulged. That way there is oversight. We've already seen with the DMCA what happens when you give free-reign to companies in this area.
- jsnell 6y ago
  What process would that be? Genuine question, since the only process that the article mentioned apparently was only meant for law enforcement and registrars. In particular, in the linked to lawsuit there's example sites that Facebook requested details for from Namecheap, and Namecheap chose not to give out the information. Many of them were 100% obvious phishing sites [0]. Clearly no option where the registrar gets to decide when to reveal information about the owner would work. [0] E.g. facebo0k-login.com, facebokloginpage.site, faceboookmail.online
  - caf 6y ago
    The normal process is Facebook files a lawsuit against a John Doe respondent ("Facebook vs The Registrant Of Domain facebo0k-login.com"), then issues a subpoena to Namecheap.
    - vajrabum 6y ago
      ...then a judge who is assigned the case evaluates the claim and then issues a subpoena if the request meets the standards of the law.
      - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
        Facebook thinks they're above this process and should have unrestricted access to the PII behind every single domain name in existence. I'm sure we, collectively, could rustle up a few dozen instances where Facebook would immediately abuse such information, in moments.
  - 6y ago

justinclift 6y ago

The clear examples given of FB repeatedly trying to gain the personal owner details of non-shady websites, purely in order to sue them... that's ok with you?

sokoloff 6y ago
This might be an unpopular opinion, but it’s ok with me. I don’t find restricting discovery needed to allow the filing of lawsuits to be something beneficial for society. There’s a real reason corporations need to have registered agents, mostly so they can be contacted (including to be sued) via a reliable process. I don’t see why a domain owner should be entitled to avoid official contact via privacy policies. I’m fine if there’s a reasonable policy to access it (including a possible workaround of an agent willing to accept official contacts). That someone would use the information purely in order to sue someone is a desirable feature, not a bug.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  > That someone would use the information purely in order to sue someone is a desirable feature, not a bug. The only problem with this is that your legal system is fucked so the winner is always that big corp. Have fun being sued to hell and bankrupt after a corp decides to go after your website criticising them. Have you even looked at the list of domains they are going after? > And then it has a whole section for “domains that use the full trademark [but] nevertheless evince an indication that the domain is or will be used to discuss grievances with the company in question.” Every one of them comes from Facebook: addictedtofacebook.org, banned-by-facebook.com, divestfacebook.com, facebooksucks.org, protestfacebook.org, saynotoinstagram.com. And there are legal processes to sue someone as others have explained. Facebook wants to avoid them. Also did people forget - https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/15/21291666/ebay-employees-arrested-journalist-harassment https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/15/21291666/ebay-employees-a...
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  I don't see how owning a domain could possibly be anything like running a company. Just by incorporating you take on resposibility of paying taxes, accounting, submitting regylar reports, etc. Presumably you will be selling something, and people need to have an address for recourse. That 'address' could be a PO box somewhere, or be in a tax heaven. By contrast owning a domain does not obligate you to do anything in society, and doesnt affect anyone life. Most people register a domain to have a custom email. Why should you have the right to deanonimise that? If you are concerned about hatemail: you can send real post anonymously, with a postage stamp, though an unattented mailbox. I can even put somone else's return address on it.
- rbrtl 6y ago
  They do not avoid official contact. They avoid unofficial contact, such as that of FB directly approaching any domain owner they feel like without proving to a judge that there is reasonable grounds to file suit. The same way you put your email address in a mildly obfuscated format instead of jim@cimpress.com. You don't want anyone or anything that comes across your bio having access to your email address without human intervention, or at least a degree of intelligence. > but it's ok with me.

blibble 6y ago

yeah I'm sure facebooksucks.org is phishing facebook accounts

amaccuish 6y ago

Then facebook can do that through the official means by submitting requests. They want to skip that process. I'd prefer their requests to be vetted before personal information is divulged. That way there is oversight. We've already seen with the DMCA what happens when you give free-reign to companies in this area.

jsnell 6y ago
What process would that be? Genuine question, since the only process that the article mentioned apparently was only meant for law enforcement and registrars. In particular, in the linked to lawsuit there's example sites that Facebook requested details for from Namecheap, and Namecheap chose not to give out the information. Many of them were 100% obvious phishing sites [0]. Clearly no option where the registrar gets to decide when to reveal information about the owner would work. [0] E.g. facebo0k-login.com, facebokloginpage.site, faceboookmail.online
- caf 6y ago
  The normal process is Facebook files a lawsuit against a John Doe respondent ("Facebook vs The Registrant Of Domain facebo0k-login.com"), then issues a subpoena to Namecheap.
  - vajrabum 6y ago
    ...then a judge who is assigned the case evaluates the claim and then issues a subpoena if the request meets the standards of the law.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
      Facebook thinks they're above this process and should have unrestricted access to the PII behind every single domain name in existence. I'm sure we, collectively, could rustle up a few dozen instances where Facebook would immediately abuse such information, in moments.
- 6y ago