5 ms·

From TFA, Facebook "... continues to claim that being a registered trademark holder is sufficient to be granted full access to the Whois database, and that all

From TFA, Facebook "... continues to claim that being a registered trademark holder is sufficient to be granted full access to the Whois database, and that all other routes are unduly burdensome." So any fraudster just needs a registered trademark and they would, according to Facebook's request, be granted full access to the database. And no oversight, as "all other routes are unduly burdensome." That means they DON'T want subpeonas or any kind of restriction in between like a judge who could evaluate the request based on some kind of merit. No limits. Just a giant straw they can use to get all that juicy data. Facebook's request doesn't sound very good to me. Sounds great for criminals though.

waheoo 6y ago
I agree with your position but that last sentence is a bit redundant.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  Not disagreeing with you, but "criminals" is not a Boolean variable when you have power over those who determine who is and isn't a criminal. Facebook (and other big social media) has a lot of power over those who define and enforce the laws, both within the bounds of the existing laws, and within a grey area where they'd be technically breaking the law, but nobody would want to enforce said law on them due to potential repercussions (Facebook could instantly shut down a lot of politicians' careers by just airing their dirty laundry, on which Facebook has a lot of visibility due to its omnipresence). Those who make the laws rely on Facebook to succeed in their own personal interests (getting elected, which means money & power). The problem here isn't just Facebook, it's the people that are supposed to be drafting & enforcing laws in the best interests of society are instead doing so to pursue their own personal interests instead. Facebook is just coming along for a free ride - can't really blame them.
  - flattone 6y ago
    So if cyanide gets into your bloodstream we will blame Your body not the poison ?
    - flattone 6y ago
      I just wanted to clarify that this comment was meant to illustrate a thing... ONLY nothing more. It was not worded in good taste.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    I think you might have missed it, I was simply calling facebook a bunch of criminals.
    - Nextgrid 6y ago
      Yep, I understood that, just wanted to add my (maybe unnecessary) 2 cents.
DisjointedHunt 6y ago
This is a wonderful admission by Facebook. So any one of the millions of companies who have had their copyrights or trademarks infringed by fraudulent Chinese advertisers on Instagram and Facebook should now be given FULL access to all advertisers personal details on Facebook including the complete historic library of ads that have ever run on Facebook since, by their own argument, “You don’t know who to sue until you’ve got the Whois information,”
- inetknght 6y ago
  I agree. I also think getting a judge to sign off on that would be unduly burdensome.
- hedora 6y ago
  No. They’re arguing anyone with a registered trademark should have full access to everything, with no infringement required. They’re also arguing a restriction to advertisers would be an undue burden.
fortran77 6y ago
Just holding the domain, without conducting business under that name, shouldn't be enough to be considered "infringing" in the mark. So this argument isn't valid under any means. If someone has a business (offering goods and services in exchange for money) using an infringing trademark, then it should be possible to contact them through the same means that customers do to buy their product or service. No need for the "whois" data.
- throwaway_jobs 6y ago
  No if you are filing a lawsuit you can’t just “contact them” the same way a customer can. You have to serve them pursuant to the law, which generally for businesses means serving their registered agent. In order to find the registered agent you will need the legal name of the business running the infringing website (you will need the state of incorporation as well).
  - fortran77 6y ago
    Right. But to be a LLC, C Corporation, or S Corporation I have to have a "registered agent" listed with the State. There's no requirement that the domain owner's contact be a "registered agent." In fact, the person who owns the domain may be different from the business using it. And while the Registered Agent is the correct legal way to serve a notice, if a business accepts and acknowledges it via another route, that's fine, too.
    - inetknght 6y ago
      > There's no requirement that the domain owner's contact be a "registered agent." In fact, the person who owns the domain may be different from the business using it. No, but if the domain itself is serving content then the domain owner is, and should be, party to any complaints related to the domain. Even if the domain owner isn't the "registered agent" of the business, they assuredly must know how to contact the registered agent and should have "skin in the game", so to speak, for being a proxy. Not knowing or being able to contact the business owner is, I would argue, grounds for fraud and misrepresentation.
charwalker 6y ago
If I pay for my identity to be masked, would I not be entitle to a refund if my identity was revealed by the same vendor?
- advisedwang 6y ago
  morally maybe, but legally I'd guess they have provisions in whatever ToS you agreed to that mean not.
- beagle3 6y ago
  Do you really want your $10 (or however much cloaking cost you), rather than the right to sue for damages (and that right being what keeps the service honest and on your side?) I have a great business: pay me $100 to guarantee the gender of your not-yet conceived child. If you didn't get what you asked for, I'll refund your $100. How does that sound?

waheoo 6y ago

I agree with your position but that last sentence is a bit redundant.

Nextgrid 6y ago
Not disagreeing with you, but "criminals" is not a Boolean variable when you have power over those who determine who is and isn't a criminal. Facebook (and other big social media) has a lot of power over those who define and enforce the laws, both within the bounds of the existing laws, and within a grey area where they'd be technically breaking the law, but nobody would want to enforce said law on them due to potential repercussions (Facebook could instantly shut down a lot of politicians' careers by just airing their dirty laundry, on which Facebook has a lot of visibility due to its omnipresence). Those who make the laws rely on Facebook to succeed in their own personal interests (getting elected, which means money & power). The problem here isn't just Facebook, it's the people that are supposed to be drafting & enforcing laws in the best interests of society are instead doing so to pursue their own personal interests instead. Facebook is just coming along for a free ride - can't really blame them.
- flattone 6y ago
  So if cyanide gets into your bloodstream we will blame Your body not the poison ?
  - flattone 6y ago
    I just wanted to clarify that this comment was meant to illustrate a thing... ONLY nothing more. It was not worded in good taste.
- waheoo 6y ago
  I think you might have missed it, I was simply calling facebook a bunch of criminals.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    Yep, I understood that, just wanted to add my (maybe unnecessary) 2 cents.

DisjointedHunt 6y ago

This is a wonderful admission by Facebook. So any one of the millions of companies who have had their copyrights or trademarks infringed by fraudulent Chinese advertisers on Instagram and Facebook should now be given FULL access to all advertisers personal details on Facebook including the complete historic library of ads that have ever run on Facebook since, by their own argument, “You don’t know who to sue until you’ve got the Whois information,”

inetknght 6y ago
I agree. I also think getting a judge to sign off on that would be unduly burdensome.
hedora 6y ago
No. They’re arguing anyone with a registered trademark should have full access to everything, with no infringement required. They’re also arguing a restriction to advertisers would be an undue burden.

fortran77 6y ago

Just holding the domain, without conducting business under that name, shouldn't be enough to be considered "infringing" in the mark. So this argument isn't valid under any means. If someone has a business (offering goods and services in exchange for money) using an infringing trademark, then it should be possible to contact them through the same means that customers do to buy their product or service. No need for the "whois" data.

throwaway_jobs 6y ago
No if you are filing a lawsuit you can’t just “contact them” the same way a customer can. You have to serve them pursuant to the law, which generally for businesses means serving their registered agent. In order to find the registered agent you will need the legal name of the business running the infringing website (you will need the state of incorporation as well).
- fortran77 6y ago
  Right. But to be a LLC, C Corporation, or S Corporation I have to have a "registered agent" listed with the State. There's no requirement that the domain owner's contact be a "registered agent." In fact, the person who owns the domain may be different from the business using it. And while the Registered Agent is the correct legal way to serve a notice, if a business accepts and acknowledges it via another route, that's fine, too.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    > There's no requirement that the domain owner's contact be a "registered agent." In fact, the person who owns the domain may be different from the business using it. No, but if the domain itself is serving content then the domain owner is, and should be, party to any complaints related to the domain. Even if the domain owner isn't the "registered agent" of the business, they assuredly must know how to contact the registered agent and should have "skin in the game", so to speak, for being a proxy. Not knowing or being able to contact the business owner is, I would argue, grounds for fraud and misrepresentation.

charwalker 6y ago

If I pay for my identity to be masked, would I not be entitle to a refund if my identity was revealed by the same vendor?

advisedwang 6y ago
morally maybe, but legally I'd guess they have provisions in whatever ToS you agreed to that mean not.
beagle3 6y ago
Do you really want your $10 (or however much cloaking cost you), rather than the right to sue for damages (and that right being what keeps the service honest and on your side?) I have a great business: pay me $100 to guarantee the gender of your not-yet conceived child. If you didn't get what you asked for, I'll refund your $100. How does that sound?