But in some cases good enough proof of unauthorised compromise of computer systems can be collected, in those cases, why isn't there any cooperation? E.g. botnet makers.
Some companies have registered misspellings and openly hostile domain names similar to their trademark, but it's hard to consider all permutations e.g. https://bankofamericasucks.com redirects to Coin Wallet.
Misspellings should be covered. But hostile uses should not.
If I register "facebook-sucks.com" and put a disclaimer that facebook is a registered trademark of Facebook Inc etc etc then I'm not attempting to confuse customers of facebook (btw, do "users" of facebook = "customers" of facebook?).
Therefore there is no trademark infringement and no cause for me to cease and desist.
That's different to registering "faceb00k.com" and trying to pass my site off as being facebook. That's exactly what trademark rights are there to protect. It's not the registering of the domain that is the infringement, it's the attempt to pass off my site as being facebook's. In that case, a court can order me to take down my content, and if "me" is not identifiable, then they can order my hosting provider to do the same.
Facebook itself has numerous different domains registered and its not known that some of them are facebook's registrations.
I expect the people who post on HN to be representative of people who buy domain names. So while it may be bad publicity for the general public, it doesn't really matter if potential customers see it as a good thing.
That's not their goal at all (obviously).
This is at best tangentially related, but I once had a business model where I asked people to send me a friend request on Facebook. Rather than give them the FB URL directly, I registered [name]onfacebook.com and just had that on the card they received. All the domain did was redirect to my profile. No interstitial, the URL was replaced on redirect, literally just so I could say "[name] on facebook dot com" and have be easy to remember.
Less than a week later I received a nastygram from FB legal about protecting their copyright and that they expected me to shut the domain down immediately.
It feels like an unessisary and possibly harmful step for a non-victim private company to suing another non-criminal private company so they can get these criminals to justice.
The fact that the domains are used for phishing or to perpetrate criminal acts is a secondary matter that adds gravitas to Facebook's public presentation of why they are suing Namecheap.
The infringing parties are those that register the domains using Whoisguard, and Namecheap is a non-party witness to the infringement.
So, serving Namecheap a subpoena, and then suing them for compliance after they neglect to respond to the subpoena is apparently a normal method for getting information from an uncooperative non-party witness in a civil legal proceeding.
Presumably, once they are successful in their lawsuit and have the names of the individuals responsible for the domain names, they will hand the evidence over to the police for investigation of criminal acts such as wire-fraud etc.
https://www.weil.com/~/media/files/pdfs/subpoenas-using-subp...
It indeed disgusts me that as a society of laws we go after violent criminals, not because they violate real victims, but because they infringe on a trademark of a multi-billion dollar company.
They'll take a report if you want, but there are only so many detectives. And these internet crimes need so many special skills and cross jurisdictional lines so easily...
We could establish a specialist police unit with the skills and funding levels needed to go after crimes against Facebook. Facebook might even be willing to help with funding and training, and doubtless big copyright holders would also be interested. Personally I don't think that would be a step in the right direction though.
I also get the sense that there is still a lot of victim blaming when it comes to scamming. This also has to change. Victims of scams have not done anything wrong. The criminals that scam other people are of full blame for their crimes, and they need to be brought to justice for their violent behaviour.
A lot of definitions put a physical qualifier, but that is not how the term is used by English speakers, e.g. bullying or psychological tormenting, is violent even though it is only verbal.
> behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
In every definition, violence requires physical force. Nobody calls psychological abuse violence, they call it "gaslighting" or "bullying" or "emotional trauma".
I would also argue that emotional and psychological abuse should be considered a serious crime, but I am not convinced that conflating it with violence is appropriate.
I realize that my categories leave a blind spot for more subtle method of bullying, especially in intrinsically violence-free cases like cyber-bullying or "intense-gossiping" which can be seriously damaging.
Still I do not think that classifying that as violence in and of itself is an appropriate solution.
Sure different forms of violence do vary in severity, but finding a new name for a type of violence that is done remotely and causes a different kind of harm both undermines and complicates the term “violence” and gives discount to some forms of violence by not labeling them as such.
Here I don't agree.
> Sure different forms of violence do vary in severity,
Also this is not the point. Emotional violence can be definitely worse than physical violence, I am not ranking them.
I am often bad at analogies, but I will try making one anyway.
When driving you are held to a concept of strict liability; if you cause an accident it is your fault; every time you sit in a vehicle you silently agree that every damage caused by your car will be (by default, but can be proven otherwise) your responsibility.
This is not the case when walking; if you push someone down the stairs because of a sneeze it is not manslaughter, it is manslaughter if you drive over a passerby because of that same sneeze.
Quite few things are considered in the context of strict liability, in general to be responsible of a damage the burden of proof is much higher.
Similarly physical and non-physical violence are held to different contexts; if I punch you then I am at fault a priori (there can be enough context to subvert this) and the reason is that I am expected to understand that punching you will cause damage (this is why accidental deaths in a fight can incur in manslaughter charges).
threats of psychological violence should be a crime, the same as other kinds of threats. On the other hand, with psychological violence there is not bright red line that can be as clearly crossed or not. It is much harder to argue that the abuser was conscious of the damage, or that the damage was done maliciously, or that the abuser should be held responsible for it.
It is not a matter of severity, it is just that one case of violence is significantly harder to judge fairly.
PS: > if there can be violent threats, then there can be emotional violence.
> threats of psychological violence should be a crime, the same as other kinds of threats.
should be after the last line.
It’s even worse if you use a credit card, get skimmed, have money stolen from you then your credit card company tries to deny your claim. No where in this situation are there police going to the ATM to view the video surveillance of who stole your money.
Most law enforcement seems to rely on identity fraudsters being high on drugs in cheap hotels and being caught with hardware / stolen cards etc etc.
Then again I haven't seen the court filings so maybe that's exactly what they did and Namecheap is just mentioned as an additional defendant.
Either way, I would also expect Namecheap not to reveal anything unless they are compelled to by court order or another legal obligation.