4 ms·

You seem to miss a key takeaway from this: the analogous comparisons to this in physical services companies is laughable: If, as a car company, i sell cars wit

You seem to miss a key takeaway from this: the analogous comparisons to this in physical services companies is laughable: If, as a car company, i sell cars with potentially lethal flaws, i am required/told to recall and fix those vehicles. Other companies who sell cars are NOT allowed to have a court order the seizure of my phone numbers and have them direct to competitive business, so they can figure out who is driving safe cars and who isn't. Secondly, the idea that private companies can be labeled "wretched hives of scum and villainy" by other private employees and have that permissible as anything other than meaningless hearsay is itself, nonsense. I have read many documents on this today and every HN comment and I have yet to find someone present a case as to why on earth this is a good and sustainable precedent.

secalex 12y ago
I did not miss that, nor did I make any comparisons to car dealers. In fact, I've been to seven ICANN meetings and have participated in the debate on the proper role of law enforcement and civil seizure in policing the namespace. Microsoft presented evidence to the court that No-IP domains were being used to facilitate real crimes against real people, and the court acted. I think there is an interesting debate to be had on venue and the level of malicious activity that needs to happen before a domain is seized, but instead all I see is standard HN smashing of the keyboard and "Microsoft Bad!"
CHY872 12y ago
How does missing the 'car analogy' help at all? Analogies are only ever useful to explain to those who do not understand the first case - trying to draw parallels otherwise inevitably leads to gross simplifications, and they're incredibly frequently abused to try and make another point. Analogies are great if John Oliver, or you're at the bar and talking to Erv the local HVAC guy - but this is hacker news, we normally understand this - and trying to port it to a completely different legal framework is probably disingenuous.

secalex 12y ago

I did not miss that, nor did I make any comparisons to car dealers. In fact, I've been to seven ICANN meetings and have participated in the debate on the proper role of law enforcement and civil seizure in policing the namespace. Microsoft presented evidence to the court that No-IP domains were being used to facilitate real crimes against real people, and the court acted. I think there is an interesting debate to be had on venue and the level of malicious activity that needs to happen before a domain is seized, but instead all I see is standard HN smashing of the keyboard and "Microsoft Bad!"

CHY872 12y ago

How does missing the 'car analogy' help at all? Analogies are only ever useful to explain to those who do not understand the first case - trying to draw parallels otherwise inevitably leads to gross simplifications, and they're incredibly frequently abused to try and make another point. Analogies are great if John Oliver, or you're at the bar and talking to Erv the local HVAC guy - but this is hacker news, we normally understand this - and trying to port it to a completely different legal framework is probably disingenuous.