6 ms·
Has I understood this correctly? Microsoft, a private company, has been granted the right to filter all dns traffic, and choose what will bee forward to this ot
by runarb 12y ago
Has I understood this correctly? Microsoft, a private company, has been granted the right to filter all dns traffic, and choose what will bee forward to this other company, No-IP. No-IP will so bee allowed to run there service for the remaining customers Microsoft approves?
Is this common practices in the us legal system? Would it work like this in the offline world also? If my neighbor sometimes had loud parties that bothered me, could I be granted the right to stand in front of his door and turn any potential troublemakers away.
- lstamour 12y agoIt's a temporary restraining order. It obviously affects Microsoft's products and its customers. It would be equivalent to say, blocking a phone switch that was misbehaving and calling you continuously causing a denial of service attack. That Microsoft customers are suffering more than Microsoft itself and that No-IP appeared to be in denial seems to support the temporary restraining order -- No-IP, aware of such reports via blog posts, chooses to do nothing by asking for reports rather than investigating and stopping the behaviour themselves.
- ntakasaki 12y ago>If my neighbor sometimes had loud parties that bothered me, could I be granted the right to stand in front of his door What if they were bothering 7.4 million people and inconveniencing many more? And then didn't show up in court in spite of summons? The police or courts will take that far more seriously.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- nitrogen 12y agoMicrosoft is not the police or courts.
- cpncrunch 12y agoIt was the court that allowed Microsoft to do this.
- serf 12y agothe court deciding that a company (Microsoft) should act as the police (or in this analogy, a bouncer) is still terribly short-sighted, especially when that company has been historically accused by the DOJ of attempting to form varying monopolies. a capable government should not be in the habit of contracting valuable state-needed cyber-defense to private companys, as the 'keys to the kingdom', in this case domain records, should not be in the hands of a company that can benefit privately but rather a state-ran agency which employs proper check and balances.
- plaguuuuuu 12y agoA court appointed a private corporation to act as a police agency.
- alasdair_ 12y agoHotmail.com and outlook.com are regularly used to send out malware. I know this because I have received some personally every couple of months for the last 4-5 years. It's highly likely that over the years, more that 7.4 million spam emails have been sent through Microsoft's systems. Under the bar set by this judge, I should be able to apply for, and receive, ownership of outlook.com based on the fact that Microsoft doesn't always rush to comply with emails that I send them. It won't happen, of course, because Microsoft has more money than I do (and because it's a fucking stupid idea). This is an appalling remedy and I hope Microsoft and the Judge in question face serious repercussions for it.
- pjc50 12y agoIs this common practices in the us legal system? Courts not understanding the social effects of technological law and making an order in favour of the more "respectable" looking party? Happens all the time.