5 ms·

As far as I can tell, GoDaddy did not add the section to the ToS that prohibits services from “violat[ing] the privacy or publicity rights of another User or an

by paulgb 5y ago

As far as I can tell, GoDaddy did not add the section to the ToS that prohibits services from “violat[ing] the privacy or publicity rights of another User or any other person or entity [...]” in response to this site, so unless you either think that this site did not do that, or that GoDaddy does not have the right to have and enforce a ToS, I don't see what the problem is. The idea that GoDaddy should need to make an exception to their ToS when a case is politically charged is scarier, IMHO.

pseudo0 5y ago
GoDaddy also hosts crimestoppersusa.org, a site that has functioned as a similar "snitch line" for years, yet they have not been terminated for violating the ToS. The exception seems to be this enforcement action. Also, it's definitely not clear that reporting a perceived violation of Texas statute would be a violation of privacy rights.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  Because these are massively different and we have to be fucking happy that when the courts have failed us there's at least some basic decency in companies. Anyone working with the abortion ban of Texas should be publicly humiliated and BDSed. This is to an extent what dual power in the US looks like.
  - pseudo0 5y ago
    It looks awfully similar to me. In both cases these are private entities that allow users to confidentially submit tips about potentially illegal behavior. And the "medical procedures" bit discussed below seems like a pretty blatant deflection. If someone were doing back-alley kidney transplants, would anyone really object to that being reported to Crime Stoppers? Or perhaps more plausibly, someone illegally performing FGM on their child? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/detroit-emergency-room-doctor-arrested-and-charged-performing-female-genital-mutilation https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/detroit-emergency-room-doctor...
    - notahacker 5y ago
      The whole point of the website is that the stuff being reported isn't criminal, because Texas and the Supreme Court have decided that the state setting civil penalties and letting private vigilantes sue is a convenient way of circumventing instead of reversing the constitutional precedent that the state has no business excessively restricting abortion.
      - pseudo0 5y ago
        Violating a state statute is still illegal by definition, even if the remedy provided is civil rather than criminal. That makes the Crime Stoppers comparison still pretty fair, in my opinion. And no, the Supreme Court didn't decide that, the people bringing the suit failed on procedural grounds and will get a chance to argue the merits when they re-file properly. My guess is that this whole thing will be a tempest in a teacup that will get sorted out in short order.
        magicalist 5y ago
        > Violating a state statute is still illegal by definition, even if the remedy provided is civil rather than criminal. You wouldn't be "violating" anything, but if we sidestep that issue, you appear to be arguing that all behavior that someone has standing to sue over should be called "illegal". That seems like a semantic game most everyone should have a serious problem with.
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        > you appear to be arguing that Careful: you wouldn't want to be unfairly misrepresenting somebody else's views! That would be libellous. (You don't want to say something illegal, now, do you?) But yeah: not all torts are crimes, and there's good reason for that. Lumping them together under the same “illegal” banner is how IP-as-control got started.
        pixl97 5y ago
        So I should be able to make a civil law in my state that says pseudo0 cannot post on the internet under the threat of civil suit? The issue here is you don't have the right to steal, but we do have the right both to communicating on the internet and to an abortion.
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    Basic decency? Says the guy who supports infanticide. May GoDaddy be BDSed. May it hemorrhage customers until it reconsiders.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kyrra 5y ago
    The courts haven't failed. If you are referring to the SCOTUS emergency relief ruling, that was entirely procedural. Important thing to know is that via emergency relief, judges cannot strike down a law, they can just stop people or groups from enforcing said laws. The case that went to the supreme Court was asking for a group of eight different people that have them blocked from enforcing the law. 7 of them were state employees of various positions, one was a private citizen. For the private citizen the plaintiff asked the court to consider the that person as a group, but they did not have time to get that through the courts (I think). The private person ended up signing an affidavit saying they would not try to enforce the law. If you go search the news, you will find a pro life group has already had a temporary restraining order placed against them from applying this law or assisting other people and applying this law. You can also bet as soon as anybody brings a lawsuit about this, it'll be immediately dismissed as being in violation of Casey (Roe).
  - SaltyBackendGuy 5y ago
    > there's at least some basic decency in companies I would exercise caution with this perspective. They stand to gain a bit of mind share from this action as it's a popular position to take. I am not saying virtuous companies don't exist. In general they act in the best interest of their bottom line (in this case public image).
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    > and BDSed What does this acronym mean?
    - tomp 5y ago
      Probably “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions”, which is often promoted as an appropriate response to Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
- irq-1 5y ago
  Does crimestoppersusa.org DOX the people reported? That's the clear intent of the abortion website.
  - cdot2 5y ago
    Someone who is charged with a crime doesnt have a right to keep that private. That information is publically available through the courts for a reason
    - rootsudo 5y ago
      What about someone who had an illegal abortion in Texas that was aborted through Crimestoppers?
- Brybry 5y ago
  I don't think crimestoppersusa.org actually has direct tip submission on its site? It looks to me like it links primarily to other crime stoppers programs (which do have tip submission). Your argument definitely stands though: there's not much difference in private information that's requested on a crime stoppers form[1] vs the right to life form[2]. [1] https://www.p3tips.com/tipform.aspx?ID=458 https://www.p3tips.com/tipform.aspx?ID=458 [2] https://archive.is/zspjG https://archive.is/zspjG
krona 5y ago
Reporting someone of a crime is a violation of their privacy and/or publicity rights?
- iNate2000 5y ago
  But the site is not a law-enforcement official. Also, a person’s health-care information is quite private.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    HIPAA doesn't apply to ordinary people, only entrusted medical personnel.
    - mintplant 5y ago
      No one mentioned HIPAA.
- s5300 5y ago
  If you've not read, it's not about that. GoDaddy had a ToS that includes statements about inquiry of medical conditions Crimestoppers or whatever isn't asking you to submit things regarding people's medical status, it's asking for crime reporting. There's been a large amount of privacy with regards to healthcare in the US in general for the longest time. The fact anybody is surprised by this is somewhat unsettling.
- smnrchrds 5y ago
  What crime? The new Texas law is civil, not criminal.
pyuser583 5y ago
What the TOS says is: “violates the privacy or publicity rights of another User or any other person or entity, or breaches any duty of confidentiality that *you owe* to another User or any other person or entity.” Most people don’t owe any privacy rights in regards to others medical care. GoDaddy can say “we don’t want to be involved in this sort of thing.” But they should not pretend their clients are breaking the law. There is lots of caselaw involving whether anti-abortion groups can gather this sort of information. They can. GoDaddy doesn’t have to be involved in it. But they shouldn’t pretend there is an obligation or duty being violated by the site owner.
- kemayo 5y ago
  There's the other part of their TOS though: "You will not collect or harvest (or permit anyone else to collect or harvest) any User Content (as defined below) or any non-public or personally identifiable information about another User or any other person or entity without their express prior written consent." That seems way stronger in forbidding the exact purpose of this site. (With the privacy/publicity/confidentiality rights sometimes applying, but only to specific reports.)
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    In summary, the part being violated is: “You will not collect any PII about any entity without their consent.” There’s probably an implied “You will not use this service to collect …” at the start. So basically, you can’t host a portal to gather PII on non-consenting parties. It would be pretty easy for the website to get around that. The website asked for the contact info of the user and then had a textarea field with the caption “If applicable: Do you have information about potential violations of the Texas Heartbeat Act?” All they would have to do is change that textarea into a Yes/No radio button. Edit: confusingly, it said, “we will not follow up or contact you” but also asked the best time to contact you.
    - kemayo 5y ago
      Having not read the full TOS and all its definitions, I'll agree that would likely get around GoDaddy's objection. GoDaddy could maybe argue that the fundamental purpose of the website was still to facilitate gathering that data, but that seems more of a stretch. "You are using our servers to gather this forbidden data" vs "you are using our servers to gather this allowed data, which will later be used to gather forbidden data elsewhere"... I'd guess that the reason the website doesn't want to make this change would be that it'd greatly increase their own costs in terms of followup they'd have to perform. Makes it a more high-touch operation.

by paulgb 5y ago

pseudo0 5y ago

GoDaddy also hosts crimestoppersusa.org, a site that has functioned as a similar "snitch line" for years, yet they have not been terminated for violating the ToS. The exception seems to be this enforcement action. Also, it's definitely not clear that reporting a perceived violation of Texas statute would be a violation of privacy rights.

aaomidi 5y ago
Because these are massively different and we have to be fucking happy that when the courts have failed us there's at least some basic decency in companies. Anyone working with the abortion ban of Texas should be publicly humiliated and BDSed. This is to an extent what dual power in the US looks like.
- pseudo0 5y ago
  It looks awfully similar to me. In both cases these are private entities that allow users to confidentially submit tips about potentially illegal behavior. And the "medical procedures" bit discussed below seems like a pretty blatant deflection. If someone were doing back-alley kidney transplants, would anyone really object to that being reported to Crime Stoppers? Or perhaps more plausibly, someone illegally performing FGM on their child? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/detroit-emergency-room-doctor-arrested-and-charged-performing-female-genital-mutilation https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/detroit-emergency-room-doctor...
  - notahacker 5y ago
    The whole point of the website is that the stuff being reported isn't criminal, because Texas and the Supreme Court have decided that the state setting civil penalties and letting private vigilantes sue is a convenient way of circumventing instead of reversing the constitutional precedent that the state has no business excessively restricting abortion.
    - pseudo0 5y ago
      Violating a state statute is still illegal by definition, even if the remedy provided is civil rather than criminal. That makes the Crime Stoppers comparison still pretty fair, in my opinion. And no, the Supreme Court didn't decide that, the people bringing the suit failed on procedural grounds and will get a chance to argue the merits when they re-file properly. My guess is that this whole thing will be a tempest in a teacup that will get sorted out in short order.
      - magicalist 5y ago
        > Violating a state statute is still illegal by definition, even if the remedy provided is civil rather than criminal. You wouldn't be "violating" anything, but if we sidestep that issue, you appear to be arguing that all behavior that someone has standing to sue over should be called "illegal". That seems like a semantic game most everyone should have a serious problem with.
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        > you appear to be arguing that Careful: you wouldn't want to be unfairly misrepresenting somebody else's views! That would be libellous. (You don't want to say something illegal, now, do you?) But yeah: not all torts are crimes, and there's good reason for that. Lumping them together under the same “illegal” banner is how IP-as-control got started.
      - pixl97 5y ago
        So I should be able to make a civil law in my state that says pseudo0 cannot post on the internet under the threat of civil suit? The issue here is you don't have the right to steal, but we do have the right both to communicating on the internet and to an abortion.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  Basic decency? Says the guy who supports infanticide. May GoDaddy be BDSed. May it hemorrhage customers until it reconsiders.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kyrra 5y ago
  The courts haven't failed. If you are referring to the SCOTUS emergency relief ruling, that was entirely procedural. Important thing to know is that via emergency relief, judges cannot strike down a law, they can just stop people or groups from enforcing said laws. The case that went to the supreme Court was asking for a group of eight different people that have them blocked from enforcing the law. 7 of them were state employees of various positions, one was a private citizen. For the private citizen the plaintiff asked the court to consider the that person as a group, but they did not have time to get that through the courts (I think). The private person ended up signing an affidavit saying they would not try to enforce the law. If you go search the news, you will find a pro life group has already had a temporary restraining order placed against them from applying this law or assisting other people and applying this law. You can also bet as soon as anybody brings a lawsuit about this, it'll be immediately dismissed as being in violation of Casey (Roe).
- SaltyBackendGuy 5y ago
  > there's at least some basic decency in companies I would exercise caution with this perspective. They stand to gain a bit of mind share from this action as it's a popular position to take. I am not saying virtuous companies don't exist. In general they act in the best interest of their bottom line (in this case public image).
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  > and BDSed What does this acronym mean?
  - tomp 5y ago
    Probably “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions”, which is often promoted as an appropriate response to Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
irq-1 5y ago
Does crimestoppersusa.org DOX the people reported? That's the clear intent of the abortion website.
- cdot2 5y ago
  Someone who is charged with a crime doesnt have a right to keep that private. That information is publically available through the courts for a reason
  - rootsudo 5y ago
    What about someone who had an illegal abortion in Texas that was aborted through Crimestoppers?
Brybry 5y ago
I don't think crimestoppersusa.org actually has direct tip submission on its site? It looks to me like it links primarily to other crime stoppers programs (which do have tip submission). Your argument definitely stands though: there's not much difference in private information that's requested on a crime stoppers form[1] vs the right to life form[2]. [1] https://www.p3tips.com/tipform.aspx?ID=458 https://www.p3tips.com/tipform.aspx?ID=458 [2] https://archive.is/zspjG https://archive.is/zspjG

krona 5y ago

Reporting someone of a crime is a violation of their privacy and/or publicity rights?

iNate2000 5y ago
But the site is not a law-enforcement official. Also, a person’s health-care information is quite private.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  HIPAA doesn't apply to ordinary people, only entrusted medical personnel.
  - mintplant 5y ago
    No one mentioned HIPAA.
s5300 5y ago
If you've not read, it's not about that. GoDaddy had a ToS that includes statements about inquiry of medical conditions Crimestoppers or whatever isn't asking you to submit things regarding people's medical status, it's asking for crime reporting. There's been a large amount of privacy with regards to healthcare in the US in general for the longest time. The fact anybody is surprised by this is somewhat unsettling.
smnrchrds 5y ago
What crime? The new Texas law is civil, not criminal.

pyuser583 5y ago

What the TOS says is: “violates the privacy or publicity rights of another User or any other person or entity, or breaches any duty of confidentiality that *you owe* to another User or any other person or entity.” Most people don’t owe any privacy rights in regards to others medical care. GoDaddy can say “we don’t want to be involved in this sort of thing.” But they should not pretend their clients are breaking the law. There is lots of caselaw involving whether anti-abortion groups can gather this sort of information. They can. GoDaddy doesn’t have to be involved in it. But they shouldn’t pretend there is an obligation or duty being violated by the site owner.

kemayo 5y ago
There's the other part of their TOS though: "You will not collect or harvest (or permit anyone else to collect or harvest) any User Content (as defined below) or any non-public or personally identifiable information about another User or any other person or entity without their express prior written consent." That seems way stronger in forbidding the exact purpose of this site. (With the privacy/publicity/confidentiality rights sometimes applying, but only to specific reports.)
- pyuser583 5y ago
  In summary, the part being violated is: “You will not collect any PII about any entity without their consent.” There’s probably an implied “You will not use this service to collect …” at the start. So basically, you can’t host a portal to gather PII on non-consenting parties. It would be pretty easy for the website to get around that. The website asked for the contact info of the user and then had a textarea field with the caption “If applicable: Do you have information about potential violations of the Texas Heartbeat Act?” All they would have to do is change that textarea into a Yes/No radio button. Edit: confusingly, it said, “we will not follow up or contact you” but also asked the best time to contact you.
  - kemayo 5y ago
    Having not read the full TOS and all its definitions, I'll agree that would likely get around GoDaddy's objection. GoDaddy could maybe argue that the fundamental purpose of the website was still to facilitate gathering that data, but that seems more of a stretch. "You are using our servers to gather this forbidden data" vs "you are using our servers to gather this allowed data, which will later be used to gather forbidden data elsewhere"... I'd guess that the reason the website doesn't want to make this change would be that it'd greatly increase their own costs in terms of followup they'd have to perform. Makes it a more high-touch operation.