Namecheap vs. Facebook on Privacy(namecheap.com)
namecheap.com
Namecheap vs. Facebook on Privacy
https://www.namecheap.com/blog/the-secret-fight-for-your-personal-information/
16 comments
"We found that Namecheap’s proxy service, Whoisguard, registered or used 45 domain names that impersonated Facebook and our services, such as instagrambusinesshelp.com, facebo0k-login.com and whatsappdownload.site" via: https://about.fb.com/news/2020/03/domain-name-lawsuit/
Facebook thinks they have a "legitimate interest" to know who put up these domains, Namecheap does not. As generally unsympathetic as I am to Facebook, I think they are in the right here. Those domains are obviously designed to confuse people into thinking they are accessing Facebook products or services.
Facebook thinks they have a "legitimate interest" to know who put up these domains, Namecheap does not. As generally unsympathetic as I am to Facebook, I think they are in the right here. Those domains are obviously designed to confuse people into thinking they are accessing Facebook products or services.
Whether or not Facebook has a legitimate quarrel with the owner(s) of these domains is a non sequitur if, as Namecheap argues, the GDPR standards require minimization and Facebook has sufficient alternative avenues for bringing anticybersquatting litigation.
Thanks this is hugely helpful. While I agree that those domains should be taken down I don't think facebook should be the one to do it. If there isn't a federal agency who has the legal authority to prosecute such things one should be created.
The FBI...?
they can request a takedown, but giving up private details is a bad precedent. what's next, faceblock.com? lacebook.com? fivebook.com?
> Is facebook trying to get access to namecheap's user info on the grounds that it might help them get trademark infringers?
Apparently. At least that's the impression I got.
> Why does facebook think this will help them?
I don't know. The article explicitly goes into how whatever data NameCheap has is not necessary to enforce a trademark action.
> Are the trademark infringers really just phishers publishing fake "facebook" sites that look like facebook but aren't?
It doesn't say. Who knows? Who cares? The point is that NameCheap is not giving up the data unless legally compelled to do so by a court, and a demand letter from a FB lawyer doesn't cut it.
Apparently. At least that's the impression I got.
> Why does facebook think this will help them?
I don't know. The article explicitly goes into how whatever data NameCheap has is not necessary to enforce a trademark action.
> Are the trademark infringers really just phishers publishing fake "facebook" sites that look like facebook but aren't?
It doesn't say. Who knows? Who cares? The point is that NameCheap is not giving up the data unless legally compelled to do so by a court, and a demand letter from a FB lawyer doesn't cut it.
Anyone have a link to the court docket?
edit: looks like https://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/2:2020cv0047... but I don't have a PACER account.
edit: looks like https://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/2:2020cv0047... but I don't have a PACER account.
Previous post on the matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22497391
Thanks for sharing this. I hadn't heard about this latest apparent over-reach from facebook. I didn't see that the article clarified whether facebook wanted domain registration for all users, for a particular domain that fb claimed was somehow fraudulent against facebook? Is it a fishing expedition that could be used to later request info on random people so they can expand their surveillance capitalism or is this really just a one off request?
I am very glad that namecheap is pushing back on requests like this.
I am very glad that namecheap is pushing back on requests like this.
More self-serving excuses on behalf of a Namecheap, a company that provides bullet-proof domain registration and hosting for every manner of criminal gang imaginable, from illegal drug sales to phishing to malware hosting, and who hide behind the American constitution when confronted with their criminality. The sooner Namecheap are sued into a smoking crater and every one of their executives is behind bars the better.
> We refuse to hand over your private information unless the company requesting it has established a legal right to it.
Why do you think a company should betray its users without so much as a warrant?
Why do you think a company should betray its users without so much as a warrant?
Huh. I use them and are in none of those categories. You sound kinda mad.
Just a couple of things:
1. Namecheap are the top domain registrar for botnet C&C servers, and have been for years [1]. At one point they were over 65% of all botnet domains. They didn't get and hold that position by being responsive to complaints.
2. The US Justice Department had to sue Namecheap in March over a scam outfit called coronavirusmedicalkit.com [2]. Namecheap happily supplied service to this blatantly criminal fraud.
3. Namecheap have a reputation for ignoring complaints about spammers on their site. [3][4] In my own case, when I reported drug-dealing spammers to them they gave my email address to the spammers in a bid to intimidate me into silence.
As for your apparent interpretation of my remarks as saying that everyone hosting with Namecheap must be a criminal, that is so ludicrous a leap as to merit no further attention.
[1] https://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/798/spamhaus-botnet-th... [2] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-its-... (See PDF attachments for name of defendant) [3] https://smartypants.com/index.php/news/article/update-on-spa... [4] http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200312-namecheap-eff-and-the...
1. Namecheap are the top domain registrar for botnet C&C servers, and have been for years [1]. At one point they were over 65% of all botnet domains. They didn't get and hold that position by being responsive to complaints.
2. The US Justice Department had to sue Namecheap in March over a scam outfit called coronavirusmedicalkit.com [2]. Namecheap happily supplied service to this blatantly criminal fraud.
3. Namecheap have a reputation for ignoring complaints about spammers on their site. [3][4] In my own case, when I reported drug-dealing spammers to them they gave my email address to the spammers in a bid to intimidate me into silence.
As for your apparent interpretation of my remarks as saying that everyone hosting with Namecheap must be a criminal, that is so ludicrous a leap as to merit no further attention.
[1] https://www.spamhaus.org/news/article/798/spamhaus-botnet-th... [2] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-its-... (See PDF attachments for name of defendant) [3] https://smartypants.com/index.php/news/article/update-on-spa... [4] http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200312-namecheap-eff-and-the...
I'm trying my best to understand what is zuck building. But I can't do far. A global surveillance machine will serve what purpose, and how does he benefit from it? The guy has everything bar being liked.
To sell people better targeted ads and make more money.
Is facebook trying to get access to namecheap's user info on the grounds that it might help them get trademark infringers?
Why does facebook think this will help them?
Are the trademark infringers really just phishers publishing fake "facebook" sites that look like facebook but aren't?