GoDaddy takes away domain use from owner when asked to do by MySpace! Awful...

[woeger]

GoDaddy yanked a person's domain from resolving without any notice (per the account owner) for content on the domain that MySpace objected to. No court order - nada, just from a complaint.

This is a free speech issue and in my opinion shows just how anti-customer rights Godaddy is. See more on this NEWS.COM article about Godaddy's action concerning this one domain:

http://news.com.com/GoDaddy+pulls+s...laints/2100-1025_3-6153607.html?tag=nefd.lede

All GoDaddy customer should take this as a warning shot about how Bob Parson's company will apparently not be looking out for them and their interests, but rather bowing to companys' requests to deactivate or perhaps even delete domains. Your domains do not appear to be safe at GoDaddy...

I recommend switching any domains of value to another registrar that cares about your domain ownership rights ASAP (such as Moniker or other reliable registrars).

 

[Ronald Regging]

This isn't a matter of free speech. The content was obviously illegal and while I don't like the idea of the registrar taking action, one has to ask why they shouldn't? Anyone who sees an illegal activity has a right to try to stop it. In an idea world, I'd say they have a duty to try to stop it. And the site owner has a duty to want to stop it as well, even if he wasn't aware of it, he should be willing to cooperate in order to rectify and eliminate the illegal activity. When they do block a domain for a free speech issue, then it will be news. Until then...

 

[Jim_]

I guess since google caches cd-keys and credit card numbers they should have their domain taken away too.

 

[Domainate.com]

IMO opinion the biggest crimes always started with a gentle and innocent excuse

Question then: If it's not okay for a domain registrar to take the domain down, why should a host be able to take the content off? They would have the exact same excuse, and the person running the site is renting the space from them just like they are renting the domain from Verisign/Godaddy. Why not just allow people's sites to have whatever, simply because it's all over the internet anyways? In fact, why should there be any authority at all over the internet? Hey, why not go offline...why can't we have the right to do ANYTHING we want in our own homes? We own the home, more so than any domain or hosting...why should there be any authority over what we do in our own homes? Etc. etc.

So yea, the slope is slippery both ways. Given that hosts can do what they do, I don't see why GoDaddy didn't have a right to do what it does, and naturally their TOS gives them that right. Both are cases of users renting something.

Also, what if the owner of the website HAD HIS OWN SERVER? Everyone just waits for the court order? What if they can't find the person? All the passwords just stay online and the registrar says "well, it's his right to do whatever we want...and we can't find him anyways."

To the owner of Seclists: put in an approval process and you will never have to worry about this ever again. And I bet you won't do it.

 

[enlytend]

All the passwords just stay online and the registrar says "well, it's his right to do whatever we want...and we can't find him anyways."

All the passwords are still online - at the site that runs the fulldisclosure list and a few other archive mirrors...

 

[dotnom]

Question then: If it's not okay for a domain registrar to take the domain down, why should a host be able to take the content off? They would have the exact same excuse, and the person running the site is renting the space from them just like they are renting the domain from Verisign/Godaddy. Why not just allow people's sites to have whatever, simply because it's all over the internet anyways? In fact, why should there be any authority at all over the internet? Hey, why not go offline...why can't we have the right to do ANYTHING we want in our own homes? We own the home, more so than any domain or hosting...why should there be any authority over what we do in our own homes? Etc. etc.

So yea, the slope is slippery both ways. Given that hosts can do what they do, I don't see why GoDaddy didn't have a right to do what it does, and naturally their TOS gives them that right. Both are cases of users renting something

TOS gives them the right to do what the TOS says
OK i agree. Outcome : read TOS before you sign

I hope in their next TOS they will not put anything like this "if you piss me a lot i will strike you with my fist and you don't have the right to say aouch" which will be accepted of course because it will be in their TOS (started to loose focus to the topic, don't we)

So i rent my internet connection from my provider (if i had a dialup)
If i spam will the telco close my account or block my phone and i can't dial in or out ?

The topic started normal and now looks funny
Do you generalize all stuff under the word "rent"?

You're saying that if there is a bomb/or a dead rat if you don't like the bomb for example hidden in a building , it's the same if we lock the frontdoor (domain) or go and take it out from the physical storage where's hidden (webhosting)

Also, what if the owner of the website HAD HIS OWN SERVER? Everyone just waits for the court order?

Sorry i had the feeling that we leave in democracy. Yes wait for the court order.
Does internet has a different set of laws?

What if they can't find the person? All the passwords just stay online and the registrar says "well, it's his right to do whatever we want...and we can't find him anyways."

Yes it's his right to do whatever he wants face the penalty of his actions if his actions are against the law
I can't believe i'm reading all these

His own server connected with what? Hyperspace? Mars? Stargate Altantis?

There is no such thing "i can't find him" my friend in this world
There are carriers, backbones and the rest of the connectivity nodes
If someone wants to find you, he will. There is no hide and seek

Regarding this specific issue there is more info available to wired url and other URLs above which express more views

"The biggest crimes always started with a gentle and innocent excuse"
If you read history you'll see it's 100% true

I think i spend much from my time resources to deal with GoDaddy a registrar i respect for his marketing

We're free (i think) to choose and pay the company for hosting and domain name
So everyone can put his brain cells and select one
Will it be GoDaddy fine, other registras fine too

Let's deal with other topics at Namepros, shall we? At least this is what i'm gonna do

 

[shockie]

dotnom: have you ever heard of a citizen's arrest, and if so, what is your opinion on that?

 

[emega]

Question then: If it's not okay for a domain registrar to take the domain down, why should a host be able to take the content off? They would have the exact same excuse, and the person running the site is renting the space from them just like they are renting the domain from Verisign/Godaddy. Why not just allow people's sites to have whatever, simply because it's all over the internet anyways? In fact, why should there be any authority at all over the internet? Hey, why not go offline...why can't we have the right to do ANYTHING we want in our own homes? We own the home, more so than any domain or hosting...why should there be any authority over what we do in our own homes? Etc. etc.

So yea, the slope is slippery both ways. Given that hosts can do what they do, I don't see why GoDaddy didn't have a right to do what it does, and naturally their TOS gives them that right. Both are cases of users renting something.

Also, what if the owner of the website HAD HIS OWN SERVER? Everyone just waits for the court order? What if they can't find the person? All the passwords just stay online and the registrar says "well, it's his right to do whatever we want...and we can't find him anyways."

To the owner of Seclists: put in an approval process and you will never have to worry about this ever again. And I bet you won't do it.

Because with a domain name, the domain name is your "property."
With Web hosting, you are really renting the hosting space.

 

[Dave_Z]

Because with a domain name, the domain name is your "property."
With Web hosting, you are really renting the hosting space.

Then you might want to read your registrar's legal fine print. You're not going
to find anything there saying the domain name is "your property".

It doesn't matter how you see it. You violate any term of your registrar's legal
agreements with you, you can lose your domain name with just the click of a
button.

 

[Erdy]

I think what godaddy did was very very wrong. This is one reason I'm not using them and I advice others not to use them.

 

[WizKid101]

IMO the bottom line here is that a domain is my property and a registrar shouldn't take it away. Some registrars appear to agree with me and others on this thread that it isn't a registrars business to revoke the ownership rights of their customers, but GoDaddy clearly doesn't. Also note that this certainly isn't the only (or most agregeous) case of GoDaddy taking this type of action. Here's at least one other good example.

Here are some quotes I just pulled from the TOS of a few registrars:

MyDomain.com: Under no circumstances will we interfere with your ownership of your registered Domain.

NameCheap.com:

2. What We Do Not Do.

We cannot and do not check to see whether the domain name you select, or the use you make of the domain name, infringes legal rights of others...You should be aware that there is the possibility we might be ordered by a court to cancel, modify, or transfer your domain name.

Dotster.com: Dotster, Inc. and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to refuse or move any Content that is available via our services. Without limiting the foregoing, Dotster, Inc. and its designees shall have the right to remove any Content that violates this Registration Agreement or is otherwise objectionable.

Enom.com: ...we and your Primary Service Provider may terminate or suspend the Service(s) at any time for cause...

You agree that if we terminate or suspend the Services provided to you under this Agreement, that we may then, at our option, make either ourselves or a third party the beneficiary of Services which are substantially similar to those which were previously providing to you and that any reference in this Agreement to termination or suspension of the Services to you includes this option.

 

[shockie]

IMO the bottom line here is that a domain is my property and a registrar shouldn't take it away.

if anyone grows marijuana in their home or sell cocaine or money launder or operate any other illegal business, the government can take their property away. it is (or in this case, was) your property, but it is a part of a larger body (your country). similarly, you own your domain name, but it is a part of a larger body, that has its own laws/rules as well, namely, the gd tos.

 

[WizKid101]

if anyone grows marijuana in their home or sell cocaine or money launder or operate any other illegal business, the government can take their property away. it is (or in this case, was) your property, but it is a part of a larger body (your country). similarly, you own your domain name, but it is a part of a larger body, that has its own laws/rules as well, namely, the gd tos.

The government can take your property away if you've been convicted in a court of law by a jury of your peers, yes! The government can take rights away if they go through the legal channels, but corporations can't take away our rights without being directed by the government to do so.

Not that it's directly analogous, but I was similarly pissed when Verison et al handed over our phone records to the government without the government having gone through the appropriate channels to obtain them. No, I'm not a terrorist and nor do I sympathize with anyone who knowingly violates the law, but I still don't want these companies depriving me of my rights without first being submitted to the checks and balances of our judicial system.

 

[shockie]

but corporations can't take away our rights without being directed by the government to do so.

gd can take away your domains as per their tos that you agree to when registering.

 

[circa1850]

In case anyone is curious and if this has not already been posted, the owner of that domain and site has created a new site and a link is posted below.

www.nodaddy.com

In case anyone is not curious and and could care less and even if this has already been posted, that still does not change the fact that the owner of that domain and site has created a new site and I have included a link posted above.

Just thought you'd like to know...or not :hi:

 

[WizKid101]

gd can take away your domains as per their tos that you agree to when registering.

The fact that a person has unwittingly signed their rights away to a more knowledgeable entity doesn't (at least in my mind) absolve them of wrongdoing. Sure they were acting within their legal rights per the TOS, but they're still a bunch of douches as far as I'm concerned.

 

[allroundguy]

The text in domain registration agreements usually really says that the registrar may cancel any account and take away any domain at any time for any reason. And there is no appeal, because registrants wave any right. We don't really own our domains. We rent them from landlords who dictate how to use and not to use domains. The moment we register a domain, we accept the TOS. That has nothing to do with legality or freedom of speech. Only registrars are sure that nobody can take domains that they registered for themself. Anyway: If a domain is canceled and the web content is published under another domain, then all search engine related parameters remain and the web should show up in about the same SERP under the new domain as under the former one.

 

[Dave_Z]

IMO

Well, that's your opinion. No problem with that.

If you want to challenge the registrar's opinions, do so at your own risk.

www.nodaddy.com

Me thinks dear Fyodor hasn't learned his lesson. Unless he's really intending to
transfer it out when he can.

 

[shockie]

Sure they were acting within their legal rights per the TOS, but they're still a bunch of douches as far as I'm concerned.

well if having more uncontrolled testosterone and pent up anger is more important then yes, the website owner beats gd. oh how it important it is nowadays for kids to be big and bold.

anyone else notice that the nodaddy site doesnt have the word "password" anywhere in it? lol, so one-sided.

 

[enlytend]

oh how it important it is nowadays for kids to be big and bold.

It seems many in this forum don't know who Fyodor is ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyodor
(old picture I think?? He's been around a LONG time!)

He is very well known and respected in the information security community as the author of a key security auditing tool (nmap) which he provides and maintains for free, and as a leader in some important security projects, among them the Honeynet Project .

The security staff in your bank, your brokerage, your insurance company, retail sites and other businesses use Fyodor's sites and tools as a source of information in their everyday jobs.

Fyodor did not phish the passwords, nor does he run the list they were originally posted upon. (BTW, by the time they were posted to that list they were already common knowledge in the blackhat community - does anyone really think those folks rely on public forums, lists or Google for their information ??)

He's considered an expert in the security field and one of the "good guys", he's also an advocate of the security policy of "full disclosure".

Had Myspace contacted him directly, he probably would have removed the post from the archives. However they didn't, GD took down his entire domain on ridiculously short notice in a non-emergency situation just because Myspace said so.

Looks like he's a little p*ssed off about that ...

 

[shockie]

Looks like he's a little p*ssed off about that ...

unfortunately, how p_ssed off he is doesnt determine whether gd's actions were right or wrong. often times people get angry because something bad has happened to them, but they're angry for the wrong reasons. maybe this will give him a chance to look back at what he's doing and its possible repercussions (one of which has already happened).

not even having the word "password" on the nodaddy site kind of gives some insight as to whether he's taken a good look at and accepted what has happened. maybe after he cools off for making his mistakes he'll take a more objective stance.

[edit: sometimes "good" people make bad judgement calls, and "good" people arent above the law... actually "bad" people usually are, lol]

 

[dotnom]

If the man wants to create an anti-GoDaddy site i don't see why not
(by the way i love the logo of NoDaddy.com)

There are LOT of people with the same anti-GoDaddy ideas
If he cross the legal lines then he will just pay for this, that's all

None waits to see GoDaddy disappear, his marketing is very good but we are not forced to bow GoDaddy too

People love GoDaddy (for some reason) or hate him (for other reasons)

What i recognize in Mr.Parson is that he's a hardcore gambler. He risks a lot but apart from this nothing else
Maybe he still has his killer instincts. I see he doesn't take no as an answer. His superbowl ad was REJECTED 13 times. I wonder what was his code of ethics when he tried to pass it the previous 12 times. I guess he doesn't want people to be so strict with his business as he is with his customers

GoDaddy gets clearly my THUMBS DOWN and i don't see his superb support to work either (for my case)
I sent a help request regarding one sale at tdnam and i never got a reply (there was no relevant reply at their faq)
It's a joke for me to trust my domains there


"Parsons learned his most important business lesson while sitting on a wall in Vietnam with the unshakable conviction that he was about to die. After nearly flunking out of high school, he had enlisted in the Marine Corps. He was still a raw recruit when he met up with his squad in the Quang Nam province in 1969 and learned that he was a replacement for one of four guys killed a couple of days earlier. Panic nearly paralyzed him. It was only after he accepted that his life would end in 'Nam that he could function, and he made surviving until each day's mail call his goal. "That attitude's gotten me through all the spooky stuff in business," he says"

 

[enlytend]

maybe this will give him a chance to look back at what he's doing and its possible repercussions (one of which has already happened).

Which is what ... having an automated process that archives (with permission) a list owned and run by somebody else to his site??? And not removing one of the thousands of posts made the last 9 days when ... nobody brought it to his attention and asked him to do so??

And what did this actually accomplish?
1) Added to the suspicions that MySpace's security team is shockingly clueless.
2) Showed that GD is spineless and gullible.
3) Created more links on a bunch of news sites and blogs to the copies of the list that are still online.

Real moral of the story: password1 = NOT a good password .

 

[Sabre]

Right, so let's get this straight.

If someone posted this list on NamePros and Myspace found it and closed down NamePros, you'd be perfectly happy and satisfied that the right thing was done?

It's like saying "well the robber walked out of the bank and gave me a bag of cash and I was subsequently arrested. But that was the 'right thing' to happen" because it was in my hand.

GoDaddy were wrong to do what they did. They should have contacted the site first and if no there had been no reply THEN they could have moved on with suspending the domain.

 

[dontknow]

I only feel bad for the
people who had their
private info posted...

 

[Matthew.]

Some of the analogies in this thread are shockingly awful...(and frankly irrelevant).