4 ms·

What I don't understand and haven't seen anyone ask is, why Microsoft? I mean, obviously some shady legal tactics are at work here, but why did Microsoft got t

by saganus 12y ago

What I don't understand and haven't seen anyone ask is, why Microsoft? I mean, obviously some shady legal tactics are at work here, but why did Microsoft got to control those domains instead of, Mozilla for example? or Google? even more so, why wasn't control transferred to ICE for example? Not saying it's a better alternative or even that I agree with it, but it's very VERY unsettling (and I'm not even American) that a corporation can basically say "dibs on this" backed up by a court order! I would understand if the procedure went some more like, MS cries wolf, a court order is issued and a gov agency takes temporary control. At least it's "the government" doing the policing (even if guided by a corporation or whatever). What's next now? Comcast and Verizon sending their IP Police to arrest you because they have a log showing piracy was downloaded at an IP owned by you? And they get to seize your stuff and now your house is a Comcast/Verizon store? Wtf is this? It's so unreal. Edit: typo

kevingadd 12y ago
Our government has a pretty long track record of privatizing law enforcement (not to mention prisons, warfare, etc...) so it's not surprising to see this handed off to Microsoft. If anything, a company like MS, Google or Mozilla at least has the expertise to do a good job. Still not happy to see it, though.
- saganus 12y ago
  I agree. But it's pretty strange that control was not given to the corresponding government authority. They could then have MS work as "consultants". I don't agree either, but at least that would have made some sort of sense. Maybe even better if it wasn't just one company but a panel of several institutions, including IETF for example, or something like that.
danielweber 12y ago
Apparently because Microsoft went to court to stop it. Google could have tried this, too.
- saganus 12y ago
  So that would imply a first-come first-served basis? Meaning, whatever companies gets the court order first gets to control a competitor's assets? That's pretty scary. I hope this process is sufficiently controlled so as to no provoke a "race to control other's assets" of sorts.

by saganus 12y ago

kevingadd 12y ago

Our government has a pretty long track record of privatizing law enforcement (not to mention prisons, warfare, etc...) so it's not surprising to see this handed off to Microsoft. If anything, a company like MS, Google or Mozilla at least has the expertise to do a good job. Still not happy to see it, though.

saganus 12y ago
I agree. But it's pretty strange that control was not given to the corresponding government authority. They could then have MS work as "consultants". I don't agree either, but at least that would have made some sort of sense. Maybe even better if it wasn't just one company but a panel of several institutions, including IETF for example, or something like that.

danielweber 12y ago

Apparently because Microsoft went to court to stop it. Google could have tried this, too.

saganus 12y ago
So that would imply a first-come first-served basis? Meaning, whatever companies gets the court order first gets to control a competitor's assets? That's pretty scary. I hope this process is sufficiently controlled so as to no provoke a "race to control other's assets" of sorts.