Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

The Sex.Com Story Continues 183

Posted by Hemos from the rolling-forward dept.
wherley writes "This story at news.com tells the tale of the lucrative sex.com domain, the incompetent Verisign transfer per forged request, and the $65 million dollars in damages hanging in the breeze."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Sex.Com Story Continues More

The Sex.Com Story Continues

Comments Filter:

  • Sex sex sex! Why are court cases always about sex! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Marx_Mrvelous ( 532372 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @12:25PM (#4112213) Homepage
    Just kidding. This case is out of hand.

    One note though, a lot of people see nothing wrong with someone "stealing" a porn website, because they think porn is wrong, and stealing is wrong. But pornography is legal, stealing is illegal. I'm sure that this is one huge reason this case hasn't been settled yet.
  • " He said a ruling against his company would "create a world of hurt," opening the floodgates for all types of suits, including contract and property claims from people whose domains are down for just a short while."

    Or perhaps instances when the registrar refuses to transfer a domain as requested by the owner ... grrr
    • Yes, and what's even worse is when Verisign buys a smaller registrar, and updates the domains registrar as verisign/netsol, but don't update their own database with the information. Two domains now I've tried to transfer that all whois utilities say are registered with netsol, but when you talk to netsol or try to get the account number, "there is no such domain in our records"

      arrrgh
    • " He said a ruling against his company would "create a world of hurt," opening the floodgates for all types of suits, including contract and property claims from people whose domains are down for just a short while."

      Or perhaps instances when the registrar refuses to transfer a domain as requested by the owner ... grrr

      You touch, indirectly, on what I see as the main point of such a concern. A ruling against a company which places itself directly in the path of communications and commerce, then can't be bothered with ethical concerns deserves a slap-down. I can imagine the words in this lawyers head as he addresses his client's concern... "Please, please don't let lightning strike me, please!" If Veri$ign wants to be in that business, let them embrace fully the responsibilities and liabilities, or get the fsck out.

  • Other cx sites. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mr. Flibble ( 12943 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @12:28PM (#4112236) Homepage
    You know, I hope someone steals the domain for goatse.cx so it points somewhere far more harmless.

    My eyes have been permanently wounded by trolls posting that link here.
  • Two Slashdottings, in a row. :)

    Good thing their servers appear to be able to handle it. Either that, or nobody gives a damn about anything reported on CNet...
    • Heh, cnet, being _one of the bigest site networks on the net_ can handle a puny little slashdot effect.. They have far more horse power and visitors then slashdot.. (hard to believe i know ;-)

      They actualy still make some money from trafic to ... so no poor cnet here.. more happy cnet for free promotion

      (cnet is often in the top 5 of largest websites on the world.. slashdot isn't even near the top100)
      • According to MediaMetrix, CNET was #10 in July 2002 with 22 million unique visitors. OSDN's advertising claims they get 6.6 million unique visitors per month, which probably would put them in bottom half of the top 100. Slashdot probably represents more than 50% of all OSDN traffic. So if Slashdot, by itself, isn't actually in the top 100, then it *is* close to it.
    • First off, most /.ers don't read the articles to begin with. Secondly, we all know that there won't be any cool pictures in that article or any other CNet article. Third, keep in mind that CNet also runs download.com which I'm sure has a million users a day, all tranferring complete applications measureable in megabytes, where as the webpage is probably only 50k or so. I doubt they even noticed the blip on the OC999999999 utilization graphs.
      • What are you talking about, most people don't read the articles? You have it exactly backwards. Most people I mention Slashdot to read the articles, but never post, or even look at the comments. This explains why the top story on the front page can have "0 of 1 comment" comments and already be Slashdotted - most people are just clicking on the article link.

  • Floodgates, Or perhaps??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @12:31PM (#4112259) Homepage
    "He said a ruling against his company would create a world of hurt," opening the floodgates for all types of suits, including contract and property claims from people whose domains are down for just a short while."

    Or perhaps a floodgate of lawsuits where Verisign royally screwed up and did nothing to try to rectify the situation.

    There is a difference from being down for a little while, and giving someone a domain that you paid for and registered. Then saying, "ooopps...well here is your registration fee back."

  • See! (Score:2, Funny)

    by TheKubrix ( 585297 )
    THIS is why we need a nice complex, privacy intrusive, ID System [slashdot.org], because otherwise cuplruits can easily take your personal porn domain away!!

  • As far as Verisign is concerned.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) <jhummel.johnhummel@net> on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @12:34PM (#4112288) Homepage
    I'd think that they can be held liable - not for $65 mill, perhaps, but let's face it: if not for their crummy system, and for really dropping the ball as far as security and verification are concerned, this never would have happened.

    I've worked in banks for years, and I know if someone comes in claiming to be Ms. Smith, then steals all of the real Ms. Smith's money/safety deposit box items/etc, the bank is held accountable for fucking up. I don't see a big difference here.

    Verisign should pay a fair and equitable amount for their mistake, improve the system (if they haven't already) so it never happens again, and go on.
    • I think you've hit on the main point of the appeal. Money/safety desposit box items/etc. are all physical property. The original court ruled that Verisign can't be held accountable because no physical property was involved. The article didn't make it clear (at least to me) why this made a difference.
      • the saftey deposit box may have physical property, but money isn't really a physical property anymore.

        The article mentioned stock certificates which is probably a closer analogy. They are just pieces of paper that say you own some stock. So how do you "get" the stock - it's not a tangible thing. But there are a lot of companies running in fear of the SEC over these non-physical things right now.

        But how liable should verisign be? If they acted in good faith (okay...calm down...that was funny) and thought the transfer request was legit how liable should they be?
      • While the domain name itself doesn't represent anything physically tangible, you can bet your bottom dollar that the revenue that would have been generated from the domain is certainly tangible.

        It should be a no brainer that Verisign cost this guy millions of dollars when they gave away his domain name.

        Likening the domain name to stock certificates (if you read the article) was a very nice analogy.

      • Ok, imagine it as "hacking" an online bank system. No physical money was stolen from the account - but the bank is still responsilble for the missing monies (unless, of course, some bozo gave out their credientals and the bank can prove within reasonable doubt that was the way the hacker did the deed).
      • The article didn't make it clear (at least to me) why [no[n] physical property] made a difference.
        I have to agree with you that the physical nature of a stolen property is a vague point to make a legal defence on. According to copyright, I can steal the ideas in a book without having to steal the book. It's generally called plagerism [lycos.com].

        Similarly, stealing the domain name for a high taffic pay-site (and being sex.com you KNOW it had to have huge amounts of traffic) and funneling those users to your pay-site is no less a crime. The logs on that domain would have to be staggering. I'm fairly certain that's where the $65 million judgement comes from.

        As a side note, wouldn't it be interesting to grep [gnu.org] those logs and see what your neighbor's been up to? ;)
      • David Dolkas, an attorney at Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich, the firm representing VeriSign, said that if the judges were asking "is the DNS database somehow representative of an ownership right, the answer is no."

        "Why not?" Kozinski replied. "Why isn't that exactly what it is?"

        The first court was wrong, Kozinksi is appealing.

        On the the other hand... if the "No Physical Property" argument is true, let the MP3 trading begin!

    • Re:As far as Verisign is concerned.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Verisign should be force to pay $30m. They acted negligently and when told that they transfered the domain erronously, they did nothing about for years. If thats not negiligent, I dont know what it. Its like me standing outside your shop with a gun or telling people that you shop has anthrax. You cant do business with the property and/or goods that you have purchased. Verisign neglected to act. Its their fault, 100%
    • I've worked in banks for years, and I know if someone comes in claiming to be Ms. Smith, then steals all of the real Ms. Smith's money/safety deposit box items/etc, the bank is held accountable for fucking up.

      Yes, the "bank" was real careful when I came in asking for a certified cheque for some $45000 from one of my accounts (I was putting a down payment on a house from the proceeds of the sale of a previous one).

  • dotster.com may be a concern as well (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @12:34PM (#4112289)
    Once you have payed for your domain name from dotster.com, they want you to buy the NameSafe service for an extra $10 per year, to "prevent any unauthorized changes from being made to your domain." Should I need to buy insurance, or should they guarantee their product?
  • I got my first domain (waste.com, since sold) well before there were any associated charges with even having a domain at all. When NSOL took over and began to charge, they didn't bother notifying me -- I only found out about the charges while listening to CNET radio, which had one of NSOLs reps on complaining about unpaid domains, and threatening to delist domains whose accounts were in arrears. Sheesh.

  • Think about it (Score:2, Insightful)

    by corwinss ( 523546 )
    This is an interesting question. Is a domain name physical property?
    I think that it is. The line between physical and intellectual property is very fuzzy.
    At the same time, should a company be punished for responding to a letter that looked official?
    I suppose that depends on it. I think that if a lucrative domain name sends a letter asking for a transfer, the domain controller should be contacted. Seeing that he apparently wasn't, I think that the company is responsible.
    • I'm with you. Yes, Verisign sucks. Yes, they are also victims of the forgery, but the incompetence exhibited in the caser is bad enough that they are not innocent victims. Businesses with a lot less at stake do a lot more to prevent fraud.

    • Re:Think about it (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Eccles ( 932 )
      I suppose that depends on it. I think that if a lucrative domain name sends a letter asking for a transfer, the domain controller should be contacted.

      Well, a letter *is* contact. According to the article, the guy got sex.com for five years. The big unanswered question here is, once they knew of their error, why didn't they give it back?
  • What I don't understand, is this owner of sex.com hasn't seen the Judge ordered 65 mil so he thinks he will get the money somehow and make a case against Verisign? And on top of that his "bounty" is only a mere $50,000... Will people look arround for a nerd in mexico?

    His "Case" against Verisign is weak. He said it "could have been avoided if they had simply called, or emailed..." "They do it now. They should have done it then" Thats a case?! Verisign can't ammend their policies?
    • Ah, but amending their policies indicates an admission that Verisigns (ok, NetSols) policies were inadequate. If he can show that Verisign/NetSol knew (or reasonably should have known) that their policies were inadequate, then they've been irresponsible, and can be sued for damages.

      So, yeah...that's a case. A reasonable one, too.

      • Re:Money Hungry (Score:2, Informative)

        by Dymus ( 595974 )
        Ah but the pesky rules of evidence won't allow for such an inference. Assuming of course that the jurisdiction in question follows the Federal Rules of Evidence (which most do). Rule 407 specifically disallows evidence of subsequent remedial measures to be used as evidence to prove negligence (reasonable person stuff blah blah), culpable conduct, etc etc. Granted you can use this sort of thing to show anything other than negligence, but if this is what his case is resting on then it won't last long since he hasn't shown they are negligent...but then again I didn't read the case so I don't know what else he was offering.
    • Ehm, well depends on what you call a case. You apperently don't agree with him that a domain registration is like any other product you can buy that does not involve the physical transfer of an item. Lets take a bank account or credit account for example. If someone through fraud draws money from my account the bank has to reimburse me for the money lost. In the article the example of stocks is made.

      Verisign is accountable to moment you stop thinking of a domain name as some geeky gadget. Whole companies need to be sure that they can rely on having that name once they pay for it. If verisign can't handle that they should get out of the registar business. Just like any bank that can not meets its obligations and indeed any company that cannot must cease to trade.

  • There *is* potential for a great world of hurt (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dbretton ( 242493 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @12:35PM (#4112303) Homepage
    As much as I do not like Verisign, I cannot see how Verisign can be held responsible for the transfer. After all, this was a forged transfer.
    I can see how they could be held responsible for negligence in correcting the matter in a non-expeditious manner....

    Anyway, there is a potential for a world of hurt, especially if a DNS server is considered to be a legitimate and unerring source of information linking a domain name with owner information. The liability would be incredible, as would the potential for mega-lawsuits!

    • I can see how they could be held responsible for negligence in correcting the matter in a non-expeditious manner....

      Seeing as how it took 5 years to get the domain back that would probably qualify under the "non-expeditious manner".
    • "if a DNS server is considered to be a legitimate and unerring source of information linking a domain name with owner information"

      And your point is? What else is a top level DNS server? Isn't that what they are supposed to provide? They charge $35 per domain (the most expensive around) each year to provide a service, maintaining the connection between the DNS name and it's proper owner. They should invest in some insurance, or do their job properly.
    • As much as I do not like Verisign, I cannot see how Verisign can be held responsible for the transfer.


      I agree that Verisign shouldn't be held liable because of the transfer - they were conned into it.
      But they didn't fix the mistake after it had been pointed out, and for that, they should be nailed.
      Maybe not for the full $65,000,000.00, say for a percentage equal to the amount of time they allowed to pass after being informed of their mistake, plus the few days it takes to fix it.

      -- this is not a .sig

  • Verisign sucks hard and long (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Algan ( 20532 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @12:37PM (#4112315)
    It took them almost 4 weeks and 7-8 calls their CS to configure my .ms domain to point to my own DNS servers. Their CSRs are clueless drones and you absolutely, positively cannot talk to somebody higher than a CS supervisor. Normally, I would use a different registrar (domaindiscover.com is decent) but there aren't many that can do .ms domains.

    For what I care, they can be slapped with the 65mil damages, that will make my day...

    Just my $0.02...
  • That though the types of crimes change, people STILL go into hiding in Mexico! It is truely a country without boundaries, at least when it comes to what type of criminal hides there.
  • How can a domain name not be property, when the registration process allows you the EXCLUSIVE use of the domain, and a fee is charged for the transaction? Sure, I can't touch it, or put it in a jar, but that does not mean it isn't mine if I paid for it - and continue to renew the domain name when it comes up for renewal.

    Is this another licensing thingy, where you are not the owner of the property, just being allowed to license it from the true owner - in which case it is still owned by someone, and therefore is property, or perhaps rental of database space? What about IP rights, would those apply - again, implying the domain name is property.

    I would guess there is some slippery lawyer interpertation that will be introduced, and hope someone can explain it to me...

  • Shock! Horror! (Score:5, Funny)

    by brennan73 ( 94035 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @12:39PM (#4112330)
    You're KIDDING!! Verisign? Incompetent? The hell you say! Who could possibly have guessed? Why, I've had nothing but an easy time with them, and their procedures have been nothing but pleasurable to conform to. And I have *not* abandoned them for other registrars.

    -brennan

    • Re:Shock! Horror! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Monkeyman334 ( 205694 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @01:21PM (#4112684)
      Oh man, I know it's a joke, but it's very close to the real thing. I work for a domain reseller/hosting company and we currently get our domains through opensrs at reseller prices. Before opensrs we were using verisign, they charged us the typical $35 a year, and they ache every time we transfer a domain. They first called us and asked us pretty please to stop transfering domains. We basically laughed at them and told them we'd transfer back as soon as they could offer a cheaper price. I mean, it's a pretty simple service. Then came the shirts. They sent us a t-shirt for most of our domains that hadn't been transfered. We got some hemp ones, ones we didn't know or care we had. I'd much rather have a verisign shirt I can jog in and thrash instead of e-xxxcentral.com or whatever russian bride domain we might have registered over the years. And then the other day I call from Verisign *VIP* services. And the person reading the script said that we were valuble to the company. I tried to get them to voicemail because my boss didn't want to talk to them.
      • That's awesome. We've got very few domains, but we're basically in the process of doing the same type of thing. I don't think I've ever dealt with a company with more obtuse procedures than Verisign.
  • How much trouble did this guy go through in dealing with Verisign to get the domain back. 5 years sounds like an awfully long time.
  • Just like there are variations of Joe69@msn.com, can't they just come up with www.sex#.com?
  • Why did it take 5 years to get the domain name back?

    It seems that if he had pursued the return of the domain early, that there would not have been 5 years to run up $65million in lost revenues.

    How is this verisign's problem? Forged documents - One letter, return of domain name. I just don't understand.

    Did Verisign refuse to return the name registration??
    • verisign fucked up by not verifying the letter

      how about i forge a letter to your bank saying to transfer all your money to me, and, without verifying it with you, they go and do that?

      • Liability (Score:3, Interesting)

        by elindauer ( 520825 )
        Let's get one thing straight here... morally Verisign is completely in the clear, and this joker hiding in Mexico is completely to blame. Verisign received a forged letter, which they acted upon. They had no intent to harm the legitimate owner.

        The question is, does Verisign have any legal responsibility. Ideally, no one would ever forge a letter to Verisign (or my bank), and it wouldn't be an issue. Since it's well known that seedy elements do exist in society, organizations have some obligations to guard against fraud. So what exactly should they have to do to guard against fraud?

        Of course, in the end, it will come down to a judges interpretation of existing laws, and how they apply to domain names. For the purposes of this discussion though, I'd argue that they probably did enough and should not be held liable, certainly not for anything near the full 65 million dollar amount. It sounds like this occurred early in the development of the internet, at a time when procedures and practices surrounding domain names was just being thought out. Obviously now that movies about websites are being made (fear.com), the thought of turning over a domain without contacting the owner for independent verification seems negligent. And of course, they don't do that now. If someone told you about this in 1995 though, I doubt it would have seemed nearly so clear cut.

        That still leaves open the question of why it took five years to get back the domain name. If Verisign was just lazy, well, that's another story, which we don't seem to have many details on. For now, I'll assume Verisign acted reasonably here (perhaps not a good assumption based on other comments about Verisign posted here...).

        In short, it's an unfortunate situation (kind of... it is sex.com after all), but Verisign shouldn't have to pay.
        • Let's get one thing straight here... morally Verisign is completely in the clear, and this joker hiding in Mexico is completely to blame. Verisign received a forged letter, which they acted upon. They had no intent to harm the legitimate owner.

          I don't think so. The problem here is one of negligence on the part of Verisign, and morally they are very much responsible for the harm that was cased to the rightful owner of sex.com.

          Lack of intent doesn't let you off the hook, morally or legally, when we're talking about negligence. Consider this: Suppose I hop into my car knowing full well that the brakes are in dangerously poor condition. And sure enough, they fail as I'm driving, and I slide into a schoolbus and kill the entire load of children.

          So, do I get a "get out of jail free" card? After all, I never intended to hurt anyone - I just wanted to drive to the grocery store, right?

          Well, of course not. Of course I'm responsible, both legally and morally. My negligence in not acting to avoid an entirely foreseeable and preventable consequence has caused harm to someone else, and I am liable both legally and morally.

          And by the same token, Verisign's negligence in not taking simple steps to verify that the transfer request was, in fact, legitimate, makes them partly responsible for the harm to this man, whether they intended to harm him or not...

  • No more real than real property (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @01:02PM (#4112493) Journal
    Net domains and real property have more in common than difference:

    1. Both are fixed - only one entity may occupy a particular "parcel" at a time.

    2. There is a fixed supply of each (excluding adding stupid TLDs, and Hawaii)

    3. Whether you "own" either is really just a description of what you own, stored in a central database which can be verified by a third party.

    4. In general, any changes you make or sites you build are just superficial - they may add or detract from the value, but the basis of the value is more dependent on the site (location, location, location). Once you relinquicsh your license/deed, the next owner may keep or remove your additions, but the space hasn't really changed.

    Of course, there are exceptions, however...

    Owning real estate is just ownership of a document which has the force of law allowing you limited use within a prescribed boundary. Nearly identical to a namespace.

    • 1. Both are fixed - only one entity may occupy a particular "parcel" at a time.

      2. There is a fixed supply of each (excluding adding stupid TLDs, and Hawaii)

      A better way to state this is "each domain name is globally unique". There are an awful lot of "good enough" names possible in the namespace so you wouldn't want to imply that the supply is "scarce". With the advent of quality search engines, there's no real reason to keep the artificially scare scheme of simple TLDs around.

      -l

  • Dolkas said people who feel they've been wronged in the domain name process already have a variety of private dispute resolution remedies. "There's no hole that needs to be plugged," he said.
  • Verisign lawyers are really good. They managed to convince the judge of the original case that domain names are somehow "intangible" and Verisign can not be held responsible for the very service they sell. So I can send them a letter authorising the transfer of "slashdot.org" to Mr. William Gates III and Verisign will happily comply.

    Maybe it is all for a greater good. If it holds maybe other intangible goods like future contracts and stock options can be so tranfered without much fuzz. We can them start redistributing Enron executives fortunes to Enron employees, for instance...

  • Why Verisign *IS* responsible (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tekrat ( 242117 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @01:09PM (#4112565) Homepage Journal
    Let me create an analogy for a minute. Let's say I'm some prankster, and I call up the Local Telco here (Verizon) and say I want to foward the number of IBM to my home phone instead. Now, if Verizon were as stupid as Verisign, all I'd have to do is fax them a change order on IBM stationery, and it would go through and all of IBM's business would come to my home phone. Don't you think IBM would hold the phone company responsible if it took them a long time to resolve the situation (or even let it happen in the first place!)

    Point is -- Verisign still thinks it's the wild west out here on the net, and they don't provide customer service of any kind. Furthermore, they are completely incapable of providing the services they offer. Criminal negligence is prosecutable. The fact that it's easier to change IBM's domian than it is to change IBM's phone number shows the maturity of the phone company -- they've already had to deal with pranks like that for decades.

    And the fact that Verisign has no provision for knowing how to deal with these situations, and furthermore doesn't follow standard business practices (such as those provided by a phone company) makes them responsible for both "letting it happen in the first place" and "dragging their heels to fix the problem once it became clear what happened".

    Just my 2 cents.
  • thats not ALL thats hanging in the breeze. wink wink, nudge nudge, saynamore. ;)

  • liability (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phriedom ( 561200 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @01:30PM (#4112794)
    I would say that VeriSign should not be held in strict liability, where everything that goes wrong is their fault. However, I do think they should be liable for negligence. They should be held up to standards the same way that banks or real estate escrow companies are.

    As it is now, you have almost no recourse, and they have little incentive to perform. I had a heck of a time getting a domain moved to a new host last year. Their system wasn't working for me and there was no other way to contact them. They were ignoring faxes and they don't have a customer service phone number.

    • Re:liability (Score:2, Informative)

      by javahacker ( 469605 )
      they don't have a customer service phone number

      That's not true, I have called it numerous times. I never could talk to a person, but there was a customer service number, and a machine to answer it.

      In the end I paid them for another year, since they refused to transfer my domain name to another registrar, or even provide me any way to talk to them and request it.

      They do provide handy forms online if you want to transfer from another registrar, just no help at all if you want to transfer from them. I guess I could take them to court, but I'm not going to, since it would cost me way more than it will to just pay them their yearly fee. Nice business model, get them hooked, and make it too expensive to get them to perform their job properly.
      • To transfer to another registrar, make sure you're all paid up, and then go to the registrar you want to transfer to, and tell them what domains you want to transfer.

        In short, to transfer a domain, the registration can't be expired, then it's fairly simple. Of course, if any problems occur during the transfer, they don't try too hard to fix them, and nobody else can.
        • I decided to test it today after reading these posts. I'm transferring a domain that expires next February to a new registrar and renewing for another year. I have a deep dark sense of forboding about it because the new registrar made it clear that Verisign might just deny the transfer and there would be nothing they could do about it. I'm keeping my fingers crossed and knocking on wood.
  • They say that "a domain name isn't tangible property."

    Uh huh. Tell that to people who wind up on the wrong end of 'cybersquatter' lawsuits, like this guy. [nissan.com]

    If a domain name isn't tangible property, then doesn't this ruling somehow negate or diminish the concept of a trademark, which is also in most cases just a name?

    If a big corporation can sue for alleged misuse of their name or dilution of their trademark, then I would say that a name certainly can be tangible property and that the ruling that stated it isn't is flawed as all hell. Or is this just another case of monied corporations having rights that citizens don't?

    ~Philly
  • Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Verisign the 'Internet Trust' company? Perhaps they could issue a digital certificate to all entities who register a domain with them for verification of the change requestors identity.

    I know this is dangerously close to the core idea of their company so it would probably never work. It's all part of the "if you're not sales, you're overhead" mentality if you ask me. Why give a certificate to your customers when you might be able to sell it to them.

  • VeriSign got spoofed on ID? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mbogosian ( 537034 ) <matt@arenaun[ ]ited.com ['lim' in gap]> on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @01:44PM (#4112919) Homepage
    Does anyone else find it slightly ironic that VeriSign (you know, the company that markets itself as the electronic ID validator) is now responsible for damages resulting from a forged letter? I realize it was Network Solutions at the time, but this can't be good for their image....

    Then again, they could always spin it and say, "See? See why you need to pay our monopoly^W company $xxx.95 for a VeriSign-certified PGP key?"
  • At Burning Man last year, a skywriting plane was hired to trace "sex.com" in smoke above the city. People were pissed! Burning Man is supposed to be totally devoid of commericialization, and the skywriter's took advantage of our inability to stop them. On the ground, they would have been mobbed, but up there, they left with only a booing crowd. Lame stunt.
  • Heh, I'm suprised I haven't heard a joke about the penal system being involved in this yet.

  • And I quote: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Wednesday August 21, 2002 @03:00PM (#4113568) Homepage Journal
    "There's no hole that needs to be plugged," he said.


    something isn't right...
  • While Lisa Bowmans article seems unbiased, I feel it could have given greater analysis for the sake of a few extra lines.

    Usually greater analysis in the media equates to corporate spin.

    > In this phase of the legal saga, which has gone on for more than six years, the appellate judges are trying to decide VeriSign's culpability in the case.

    VeriSign knew it possible to spoof transfers and DID NOT verify the transfer with original owner - so why aren't they guilty of gross negligence?

    Objectively, who can say they are not to blame?

    Should it not have been pointed out, for those new to this story, that the case was overwhelming against VeriSign?

    > However, the court also ruled Kremen cannot sue VeriSign for the transfer because a domain name isn't tangible property. Now Kremen's hoping the appellate panel will overturn that ruling.

    Is intangible property worth nothing when owned by individuals - but worth a fortune when owned by corporations?

    Obviously, double standards are wrong.

    VeriSign had a duty of care for this property.

    > Judge Alex Kozinski wondered how VeriSign's DNS database of domain names was any different from a stock certificate, which he said connects an owner with some property.

    > David Dolkas, a lawyer for Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich who's representing VeriSign, said that if the judges were asking "is the DNS database somehow representative of an ownership right, the answer is no".

    > "Why not?" Kozinski replied. "Why isn't that exactly what it is?"

    Nobody can deny that the DNS is representative of an ownership right (as well as pointer to web address).

    The article should have highlighted that David Dolkas spun a LIE in court.

    > Judge Margaret McKeown also grilled Dolkas, asking him if the company is claiming that it has no responsibility at all in the case.

    > Dolka reiterated claims that VeriSign shouldn't be held liable, saying the database is simply a neutral translator between Web addresses and domain names.

    The database is a neutral translator between domain and web address - but that is not germane to this central question.

    It is spin - evasion - deflection.

    Article certainly should have highlighted this.

    VeriSign are responsible for the security and accuracy of their database.

    They also have a duty to their clients - which they are evading.

    Ask anybody in I.T. - the essential requirement of any system like this is for ACCURATE SECURE DATA.

    > He said a ruling against his company would "create a world of hurt", opening the floodgates for all types of suits, including contract and property claims from people whose domains are down for just a short while.

    It is evasion again - article should have pointed out that this is not at all what the case is about.

    The case will make registrars more careful about verifying transfers of domain with the original owner.

    > Wagstaffe said the whole case could have been avoided if VeriSign had simply phoned or emailed Kremen and asked him if he approved the transfer. "They do it now. They should have done it then," he said.

    Exactly - what else need be said?

    > At one point, the judges chastised Cohen's lawyer for his characterisation of the federal judge who ruled against his client. Mike Mayock said the judge was "sucker punched" and "blindsided" by Kremen, an assertion that didn't go over well with the judges.

    > "You're really standing there telling us he's a fool?" wondered an incredulous Kozinski. "I don't think it's appropriate for you to call a district judge a sucker."

    Shame - Judge Alex Kozinski showed good insight earlier.

    Cohen's lawyer was telling the truth, the judge was "sucker punched" - he never said the judge was a moron.

    Clever people can fool us ALL.

    It is an unwise person who thinks they or others cannot be fooled.

    Who here is so arrogant - they think themselves so intelligent, they cannot be fooled?

    Additionally: It is my informed opinion the facts are clear - should VeriSign 'get away with it', then either the court is an ass - they ARE morons OR the court is lead by corporations - they ARE corrupt.

    P.S. On the Domain Name System, Corporations steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment.

    The Corporations illegally abuse and expand their brand using domain names - above all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Competition Law.

    The authorities LIE - they know how to make trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization [wipo.org.uk] - not connected with United Nations WIPO.org !
  • Shouldn't the plaintiff pursue a civil case against
    the person who forged the letter to begin with?
    Seems like a criminal charge of fraud together
    with civil asset forfeiture would go a lot further
    than trying to sue verisign for "65 million".

    • There is a criminal case against him, but he's in Mexico, which isn't extremely friendly with the US. If the US has an extradition treaty with them, they're honoring it the same way the US is honoring NAFTA with regards to Mexico.
  • Domain names aren't intellectual property. Copyright, trademarks, and patents are all concrete and solid when you compare them to the slippery and ethereal realm of domain names.

    Real IP at least has an objective existence even if it's abstract. But domain names exist only subjectively. They are a server's opinion of what address maps to a name. Another server may have a different opinion. By saying that Verisign's opinion of a name mapping is somehow "property", you state-legitimize their opinion and hold it higher than everyone else's. This is an inappropriate position in a democracy, since ICANN does not represent people.

    Furthermore, real IP involves creativity. Nobody involved in this case invented the word "sex". Comparing this to a trademark dispute, is ludicrous.

    In Verisign is liable in any way, it should only be in terms of defaulting on a contract with a customer, to publish a mapping. This issue should be entirely limited within that scope.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close