Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Facebook listed 3 of the 45, including one that I'd argue does not at all violate TM or phish. In a post like this, they'd likely pick the most egregious examples, so your statement about how obvious this is is entirely baseless. Furthermore, I'm absolutely okay with Namecheap not honoring a demand for information without a subpoena. Those whoisguards protect me from spammers, scammers, and anyone who would want my information from a whois.


Agreed 100%. I'm a huge fan of removing all PII from whois info. Get a subpoena if you want that data. Otherwise next thing you know they'll be demanding registrant info for "facebookisevil.com" because it "infringes on our trademarks!!!"


Isn't "getting a subpoena" basically what they're doing?


I think normally they would sue the people who registered the domain to get a subpoena, not namecheap itself.


I thought the point was that they're suing namecheap to get the names of the people who registered the domain, because namecheap was serving as an anonymity service.


Actually all PII information is already removed from whois info. I think it was a consequence of gdpr


Nah namecheap made whoisguard free for all long before GDPR if memory serves correctly


They may have but regardless of them doing so, gdpr resulted in the making of whois data not generally available to anyone.


Why do I care about the other examples if the egregious examples include obvious phishing sites?


It sounds like Facebook asked, not a court. Just because you're a big company doesn't mean others need to bend to your will.


Well what's the point of protecting the domain owner if anyone who comes by and asks can get that info?




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: