5 ms·

The comments here are surprisingly pro-Microsoft. I'd personally rather deal with spam and botnets over a corporation legally being able to take over the DNS of

by ddod 12y ago

The comments here are surprisingly pro-Microsoft. I'd personally rather deal with spam and botnets over a corporation legally being able to take over the DNS of other companies due to the actions of users of a service. Despite pretty clear slippery-slope arguments, I recognize this isn't a universal opinion. There are many people who would like to curb cyber-bullying at the expense of freedom of speech or curb terrorism at the expense of privacy and civil liberties. It takes all kinds, I guess.

jpgvm 12y ago
I don't agree with the precedent set here but it does seem No-IP was doing a pretty bad job of responding to mass abuse. While I do take issue to the actions of Microsoft and the courts I also think No-IP hasn't done themselves any favours and are at least partially to blame for this coming to pass. It stands to reason that it's close to impossible to create a free service that is impervious to abuse however it's still their responsibility to avoid mass abuse of their platform to orchestrate botnets.
- ddod 12y ago
  That responsibility is not absolute, and could be interpreted differently in the frameworks of ethicality, legality, economics, and liberty. Ethically, I think you're correct that it's their responsibility to do what they can. Legally, the court in this situation thought it was somehow Microsoft's responsibility to fix it. Economically, I'd say being held liable to what users do on your platform will hurt innovation and competition. In terms of liberty, botnets and spam don't seem like they compare to an attack on someone's business, their users, and their freedom to operate independently. I guess you can choose which perspective makes the most sense to you, personally.
  - threeseed 12y ago
    You believe in terms of liberty that botnets who compromise machines in order to steal data, spam and many other nefarious activities doesn't compare to one business being temporarily affected ? That is a strange perspective I have to say.
    - ntakasaki 12y ago
      It is even more strange because botnets are the source of most DDoS, so there are ton of companies out there who have been crippled by DDoS and/or blackmail.
    - ddod 12y ago
      In terms of liberty, one crime doesn't excuse another, especially when they're not directly related. If I manufacture cigarettes and someone dies of lung cancer, I could be ethically liable but my liberty to make cigarettes shouldn't be impacted. If someone uses YouTube to upload copyrighted things, should YouTube have its domain stolen and its users unable to use the site any more?
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        I don't think cigarettes are the best example because there is no use for them that doesn't potentially invoke the harmful effects for every single user. YouTube, ISPs, and dynamic domain providers have valid, widespread, legitimate, harmless uses, so YouTube is a better analogy IMO. If one accepts the idea that courts should be seizing entire swaths of domains just to fight malware, it's still absolutely bizarre that Microsoft themselves should be given control of them, rather than an independent policing body. If there are to be Internet police, they should be independent of any one corporation, industry group, or government.
      - smsm42 12y ago
        >>> In terms of liberty, one crime doesn't excuse another, Except it is not a crime if it's done under lawful authority (by definition) or in self-defense. Otherwise you'd argue imprisoning a murderer or using force to defend your life is a crime, because outside of these circumstances limiting one's freedom of movement or using force on somebody is a crime. >>> If someone uses YouTube to upload copyrighted things, should YouTube have its domain stolen and its users unable to use the site any more? If that's the only thing his domain is used for, it very well may happen, and similar things already happened. Seizures of domains used for illegal activities are commonplace.
  - jpgvm 12y ago
    I don't believe they should be held liable for the actions of malicious users, that would violate all sorts of safe harbour provisions. However, safe harbour does atleast imply reasonable effort to curb mass abuse. Responding case by case is nice but it's not the same. As it leaves open the proverbial DDoS attack where botnets just create so many domains that the process put in place to resolve them is too burdensome for companies like Microsoft (or even law enforcement) to reasonably utilize. Hence if you have a platform that is vulnerable to such abuses you should have systems in place to handle this at a bigger scale than single case by case means.
DangerousPie 12y ago
It wasn't actually due to the actions of their user though, was it? It was because of the actions of NoIP themselves, who did not act to prevent abuse by their users. From what Cisco and Microsoft are reporting NoIP is (was?) a hotspot of botnet activity. If NoIP was not doing anything against that Microsoft's lawsuit doesn't sound that unreasonable. How this was actually implemented in the end (MS just taking over the DNS) does seem a bit strange to me though. They should at least have been taking over by a government agent.
- ddod 12y ago
  I think some related arguments to your point are that you could say ISPs don't do enough to prevent pirated content from being transmitted on their networks or that Muslims don't do enough to prevent Islamist extremists in their communities. These claims might be true, but should companies or governments be stepping in to solve these situations? Who is mandating that they need to be "solved"? What are the consequences of solving things these ways? Could there be more nuanced implications than the solving of the thing they're trying to fix on the face of it?
- cortesoft 12y ago
  Wouldn't a similar line of reasoning be "It seems that computers running Microsoft Windows are a hotspot of botnet activity. Year after year, a vast majority of computers used in botnets are running Windows; they are clearly not doing enough to prevent abuse by their users. Lets give control of the Windows code base to Linus"
  - smsm42 12y ago
    I think most of the judges would be able to see through it and recognize that running a free DNS service which ignores abuse by botnets and having an OS which can be used to run various programs on, including malware, is a bit different thing. If you could prove Microsoft "clearly not doing enough to prevent abuse", you could probably win a juicy class-action lawsuit, but proving this would be extremely hard.
    - 12y ago

by ddod 12y ago

jpgvm 12y ago

I don't agree with the precedent set here but it does seem No-IP was doing a pretty bad job of responding to mass abuse. While I do take issue to the actions of Microsoft and the courts I also think No-IP hasn't done themselves any favours and are at least partially to blame for this coming to pass. It stands to reason that it's close to impossible to create a free service that is impervious to abuse however it's still their responsibility to avoid mass abuse of their platform to orchestrate botnets.

ddod 12y ago
That responsibility is not absolute, and could be interpreted differently in the frameworks of ethicality, legality, economics, and liberty. Ethically, I think you're correct that it's their responsibility to do what they can. Legally, the court in this situation thought it was somehow Microsoft's responsibility to fix it. Economically, I'd say being held liable to what users do on your platform will hurt innovation and competition. In terms of liberty, botnets and spam don't seem like they compare to an attack on someone's business, their users, and their freedom to operate independently. I guess you can choose which perspective makes the most sense to you, personally.
- threeseed 12y ago
  You believe in terms of liberty that botnets who compromise machines in order to steal data, spam and many other nefarious activities doesn't compare to one business being temporarily affected ? That is a strange perspective I have to say.
  - ntakasaki 12y ago
    It is even more strange because botnets are the source of most DDoS, so there are ton of companies out there who have been crippled by DDoS and/or blackmail.
  - ddod 12y ago
    In terms of liberty, one crime doesn't excuse another, especially when they're not directly related. If I manufacture cigarettes and someone dies of lung cancer, I could be ethically liable but my liberty to make cigarettes shouldn't be impacted. If someone uses YouTube to upload copyrighted things, should YouTube have its domain stolen and its users unable to use the site any more?
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      I don't think cigarettes are the best example because there is no use for them that doesn't potentially invoke the harmful effects for every single user. YouTube, ISPs, and dynamic domain providers have valid, widespread, legitimate, harmless uses, so YouTube is a better analogy IMO. If one accepts the idea that courts should be seizing entire swaths of domains just to fight malware, it's still absolutely bizarre that Microsoft themselves should be given control of them, rather than an independent policing body. If there are to be Internet police, they should be independent of any one corporation, industry group, or government.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      >>> In terms of liberty, one crime doesn't excuse another, Except it is not a crime if it's done under lawful authority (by definition) or in self-defense. Otherwise you'd argue imprisoning a murderer or using force to defend your life is a crime, because outside of these circumstances limiting one's freedom of movement or using force on somebody is a crime. >>> If someone uses YouTube to upload copyrighted things, should YouTube have its domain stolen and its users unable to use the site any more? If that's the only thing his domain is used for, it very well may happen, and similar things already happened. Seizures of domains used for illegal activities are commonplace.
- jpgvm 12y ago
  I don't believe they should be held liable for the actions of malicious users, that would violate all sorts of safe harbour provisions. However, safe harbour does atleast imply reasonable effort to curb mass abuse. Responding case by case is nice but it's not the same. As it leaves open the proverbial DDoS attack where botnets just create so many domains that the process put in place to resolve them is too burdensome for companies like Microsoft (or even law enforcement) to reasonably utilize. Hence if you have a platform that is vulnerable to such abuses you should have systems in place to handle this at a bigger scale than single case by case means.

DangerousPie 12y ago

It wasn't actually due to the actions of their user though, was it? It was because of the actions of NoIP themselves, who did not act to prevent abuse by their users. From what Cisco and Microsoft are reporting NoIP is (was?) a hotspot of botnet activity. If NoIP was not doing anything against that Microsoft's lawsuit doesn't sound that unreasonable. How this was actually implemented in the end (MS just taking over the DNS) does seem a bit strange to me though. They should at least have been taking over by a government agent.

ddod 12y ago
I think some related arguments to your point are that you could say ISPs don't do enough to prevent pirated content from being transmitted on their networks or that Muslims don't do enough to prevent Islamist extremists in their communities. These claims might be true, but should companies or governments be stepping in to solve these situations? Who is mandating that they need to be "solved"? What are the consequences of solving things these ways? Could there be more nuanced implications than the solving of the thing they're trying to fix on the face of it?
cortesoft 12y ago
Wouldn't a similar line of reasoning be "It seems that computers running Microsoft Windows are a hotspot of botnet activity. Year after year, a vast majority of computers used in botnets are running Windows; they are clearly not doing enough to prevent abuse by their users. Lets give control of the Windows code base to Linus"
- smsm42 12y ago
  I think most of the judges would be able to see through it and recognize that running a free DNS service which ignores abuse by botnets and having an OS which can be used to run various programs on, including malware, is a bit different thing. If you could prove Microsoft "clearly not doing enough to prevent abuse", you could probably win a juicy class-action lawsuit, but proving this would be extremely hard.
  - 12y ago