Facebook sues Namecheap - <AUTHOR> https://about.fb.com/news/2020/03/domain-name-lawsuit/ <comment><USER2> As a Namecheap customer, I am glad that they aren't giving up their customers privacy. Facebook claims they have an obligation to do so- but they don't provide any citation for such an obligation.

ICANN has an established process for handling these types of disputes, and Facebook should avail themsleves of that process. [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp- en](https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en)

(It isn't clear if Facebook is seeking a financial judgement or just a court order to delete or transfer the domains to Facebook?)

<comment><USER3> You're glad Namecheap is protecting the registrant of "whatsappdownload.site"?

<comment><USER4> It's about there already being a process for this, and not being cool with Facebook using lawyers to do it.

<comment><USER5> For what it's worth, the problem with that process is that it creates an uneven burden. Any scammer with 10 bucks can create a misleading domain. This happened to us when some scammers created "autostempest.com" to mimic our car search site, autotempest.com. They put fake listings up and scammed many people out of tens of thousands of dollars. Our only legal recourse was a UDRP claim (short of suing namecheap, which would have been even more expensive), but that would have cost about $2000 because you need to go through a registered provider—and these are private companies, which take advantage of this regulatory oligopoly.

Now, $2000 would be worth it to shut down a scammer like that, except nothing stops them from simply ignoring the UDRP claim and once their domain is shut down, they can register autotempests.com or something for another 10 bucks. (They actually did end up registering autostempestgroup.com and several others.)

On the other hand, if you could simply go to the registrar, show clear evidence of the very obvious infringement, and have them shut down the domain, perhaps it would actually be feasible to put a dent in that kind of scam.

I do understand the concern of having a private company like Namecheap be the judge in these matters, but I'm not sure it's as black and white as that. I could see a system working where they do take unilateral action on obvious cases (autostempest, whatsappdownload.com, faceb00k, etc.), but require the formal process for less clear cases.

<comment><USER6> So here's the trouble with "it's obvious":

[http://www.slutsofinstagram.com/](http://www.slutsofinstagram.com/)

"Slütsof In Stagram", naturally, what did you expect? See also "Whöresof In Stagrâm" at similar URL.

Yes, someone tried to register SlutsOfInstagram.com and WhoresOfInstagram.com and when Facebook/Instagram objected, they turned the sites into something else entirely.

The point being that you can't really tell anything from the name.

But then you can't really tell anything from the content either, because if there is phishing content the first thing the registrant will claim is that they've been hacked. Which is hardly uncommon in that context. So then you need someone to make a judgement call. Which is what courts are for.

<comment><USER5> If there's a combination, it's very obvious. To use my personal example again, the domain was autostempest.com, and they had copied our logo directly, and created a car listings site. It would be trivial to see that we were using the name and logo first.

Going to court just wasn't an option. For one thing, we couldn't even identify the people behind these sites without first going to court against namecheap. And after all that effort and expense, it's entirely possible they'd registered the domain with fake info and the effort would have been wasted. Even the UDRP option was not cost effective, because nothing would stop the scammers from opening a new fake domain. What we eventually did that worked was found a "CSIRT" company that would use its private connections to hosting providers to, for a fee, get offending content taken down. So, that's the kind of thing the status quo is incentivizing. Hardly better than if there was a takedown process available through namecheap it seems.

That said, you'd certainly want to avoid the situation with Youtube, where the power is swung all the way in the other direction, so creators have almost no recourse when purported rights holders issue a claim.

<comment><USER7> I used to work for a company that offered brand-protection services. The customer would grant my old employer power of attorney to send C&D letters and file takedown lawsuits on their behalf, and we would do all the monitoring and brand-defense work, then send a report to the customer justifying the exorbitant fees.

Maintaining a trademark costs time and money. You can save money by doing the work yourself, or by using backchannels, as you mentioned. You can save time by hiring someone to do the tedious work for you. Even a single-partner specialist law firm should have boilerplate templates on hand for taking down an infringing website fast, using regular channels. I imagine that most of the cases result in no answer from the main defendant and default judgment that orders the registrar to transfer the domain to the plaintiff, who can then blackhole it or redirect to the genuine site.

A higher-service firm will also proactively scour the Internet for threats to your brand--at a higher price, of course.

I would not recommend my former employer for this, as they got bought out, and the new owner arbitrarily fired the entire development team.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Our goal is to create consequences for those who seek to do harm

Rich coming from FB.

On the one hand, scam sites should be stopped, on the other, I am not sure we should let companies wantonly decide which domains other people register are bad.

I can't even tell what the legality of this is. What does facebook even sue for, trademark infringement? Or is it fraud related which I would assume they'd go to the courts for. If namecheap is breaking the law, then the justice system should be involved, otherwise it's namecheap rolling over anytime facebook decides to sue them for anything they want.

<comment><USER9> In the meantime, Facebook claims it is unable verify political ads for truth.

<comment><USER10> that is indeed partly impossible to do, one thing they should improve is checking that the one buying ads is actually affiliated with the politician/party in the ad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Seems like a lawsuit is the exact legal method that should be used to uncover the names that Facebook is seeking. As a Namecheap user who also sometimes uses whoisguard, I would expect Namecheap NOT to turn over any information until required to do so buy a subpoena signed by a judge. There is probably no other way to get one than to file a suit and ask a judge for it.

<comment><USER2> I am fine with Facebook petitioning a court of competent jurisdiction and following legal due process to stop phishing activity. I am glad that Namecheap is not giving up this information without a proper court order. I am not happy with Facebook making this PR release trying to paint Namecheap in a bad light because they are standing up for privacy. This PR release is completely unnecessary if Facebooks intentions were simply to stop the phishing attacks.

<comment><USER12> While I'm happy that Namecheap won't reveal the names,I'm not happy that these kind of website names can not just be registered but also kept running for years.

<comment><USER13> Again, that's how it's supposed work though. If I pay for 10 years for my domain name, I don't want it to stop working because evilCorp makes a request to take it over (for whatever reason). If I am ruining the internet with a nefarious use of my domain, then it should be easy enough to prove to a valid court, and then there should be a legit way to take over control. It shouldn't be impossible, but it shouldn't be a cake walk either.

<comment><USER14> A court from what country?

<comment><USER15> Indeed, it's a difficult question. But we should rather be asking, why isn't there better cooperation to catch cyber-criminals across borders?

<comment><USER13> Maybe because some governments are directly involved in the cyber crime?

<comment><USER16> _Some?_ More like basically all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> For what it's worth, I reported dozens of domains used in phishing scams to Namecheap and their support could not possibly give less of a crap. I reported about 26 domains used in SMS scams in Australia and Namecheap refused to action more than one domain. As far as I'm aware, the remaining 25 or so are still active.

Their chat support is unable to take spam complaints and instead directs you to their "Legal & Abuse Department" based in Eastern Europe. And what you get is basically what you'd expect from an underpaid, disgruntled level one IT support.

<comment><USER18> You should report illegal activities to the authorities, not companies.

I wouldn't expect Namecheap, a low cost registrar with "cheap" in its name, to have the legal resources to investigate or make a conclusion for each accusation that comes their way for one of their 10 million domain names.

As with everything internet related, I think there's a vast misunderstanding of scale, and difficulty in automation (domains sniping!), for what they're facing.

I also wouldn't expect them to hand out information to anyone that asks for it, especially a large company known for misusing any information they can get their hands on, without a subpoena.

I think the real solution would have to come from a third party group(s) that could collect, monitor, and produce high quality reports, with a high level of accuracy, that all of these registrars could use. Who would fund these groups? Probably whomever gains/loses less from the phishing scams being terminated.

<comment><USER19> > I wouldn't expect Namecheap, a low cost registrar with "cheap" in its name, > to have the legal resources to investigate or make a conclusion for each > accusation that comes their way for one of their 10 million domain names.

Exactly. And if they _did_ I'd be just as concerned that they're now allowing a vector to take domains down.

Balancing the two is difficult..

<comment><USER20> Actually, if it violates their tos they should normally appreciate the report and take action on it.

<comment><USER19> Of course, but how would they know? The vector I refer to is my ability to create "evidence" and report you to their customer service.

Eg, i'd wager the GGP comment who reported 26 domains did so in a manner that would be fairly easy to fake. So what is the requirement of reports? Too loose and it's easy to fake, too strict and it becomes to difficult to report _(or too costly to verify)_.

<comment><USER17> Every domain had the same content, was styled in the same format (something like a28d92.com, then b28d92.com...) and all were acting as redirection platforms for phishing sites and all were registered on the same day.

It wasn't hard to verify or easy to fake, or loose. Namecheap's legal/abuse department are just completely incompetent/don't care about their own TOS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Is it not enough that Facebook and Zuck tread all over their customers privacy on their own platform? Now they want other companies to do it for them with their own customers as well.

This is just another attack on privacy and due process in order to strong arm companies that have services like WhoisGuard which is intended to protect millions of customer's privacy.

<comment><USER8> ^ Namecheap CEO

Can you explain the legal details of what's happening here? Who's responsibility is it to deal with domains that are potentially dangerous, what exactly is facebook suing you for? What rule are they talking about when they say you're supposed to provide the WhoisGuard information (someone else mentioned that's only for government requests)?

I've also seen some complaints by other people here that there are some namecheap domains that are sometimes scammy and namecheap sometimes deals with them and other times they don't (based on user comments here). Can you clarify if namecheap does indeed take action and if so, why they haven't here?

Also in the future, you might want to sign off at the end of the comment since it's really easy to ignore the username as it's grayed out. And FWIW, great job with namecheap, I've had a really good experience with it.

<comment><USER22> FWIW, a username like "NamecheapCEO" does not inspire confidence in its authenticity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Does this mean I can sue Facebook because, despite my (unreasonable) demands they stop showing me fake news and ads for crypto-mining mobile games that pretend to be affiliated with legitimate news sources or the games they're knocking off, they haven't stopped?

I think that's a pretty comparable analogy because in both cases, a party is being unreasonably expected to police third-party content provided through their platform/business, or else be sued for failing to do something completely infeasible.

<comment><USER24> You can (almost) do whatever you want, when you have enough money for it.

<comment><USER25> Couldn't fb's users start a kind of grouped judicial procedure ? A "class action" ? (I'm not a lawyer and not American)

<comment><USER26> There's most likely an arbitration clause to try and stop that in the EULA. Depending on your jurisdiction that might not apply though.

Still got the billion dollar lawyer army to get through.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm so happy to be a Namecheap customer right now.

Contrast their behavior with Go Daddy who will turn over data of people who dare complain: [https://skepchick.org/2014/04/godaddy-released-my- personal-i...](https://skepchick.org/2014/04/godaddy-released-my-personal- information-to-a-spammer-troll/)

</comment><comment><USER28> So Facebook is suing to dispute the business model of whoisguard, because they believe they are "obligated" to work with fb? I'm scratching my head at the implications here, I can guarantee fb doesn't want to be responsible for kyc on their users or ad providers (both can deliver intentionally misleading content on their platform). So what is their goal? My best guess is they think they can scare namecheap into working with them, but this feels like a case of chicken.

</comment><comment><USER29> It's ironic how Facebook uses all kinds of lies and dark patterns to steal data from their users but gets pissed off when someone else does it (or provides services for it as it is in this case).

<comment><USER30> Yes, that's because phishing is an actual crime.

<comment><USER31> so is wiretapping, but in our household we have a running joke that if we're too lazy to google something, or say "ok google", we can just say "ok facebook bed frame bed frame bed frame" in the direction of our phones, and fb/instagram will start showing us ads for bed frames in a few hours. It works a surprisingly large amount of the time.

<comment><USER32> I can't speak for other platforms, but if you've ever developed apps for iPhone, you'd know this is pretty much impossible for FB to do.

<comment><USER22> Doing this specific thing is quite easy, using public APIs, just by correlating data between signed in users.

<comment><USER32> I should be more clear: I'm referring to secretly recording audio.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I feel like the title "Facebook sues Namecheap for registering phishing domains" is somewhat misleading.

> 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. We > sent notices to Whoisguard between October 2018 and February 2020, and > despite their obligation to provide information about these infringing > domain names, they declined to cooperate.

Specifically, they're suing Namecheap _and their proxy service_ for not providing information about the true registrants of the allegedly infringing domains.

<comment><USER34> And to be clear, all Namecheap had to do to prevent this lawsuit was identify the owners of or delete the obviously-phishing and obviously-TM-infringing domain names. They didn't, so now Facebook is taking them to court over it.

<comment><USER35> 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.

<comment><USER16> 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!!!"

<comment><USER36> Actually all PII information is already removed from whois info. I think it was a consequence of gdpr

<comment><USER16> Nah namecheap made whoisguard free for all long before GDPR if memory serves correctly

<comment><USER36> They may have but regardless of them doing so, gdpr resulted in the making of whois data not generally available to anyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Is Namecheap obligated to respond as FB claims? Isn't this the proper way it should happen, through the courts? I don't want Namecheap giving my personal info out just because a business claims a domain infringes their trademarks.

<comment><USER38> I'd say it's a little different if you're running a blatant phishing site, it's more than just trademark infringement

<comment><USER37> Is it? Doesn't that responsibility fall to law enforcement, not a company?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Title is misleading, from the article:

> We sent notices to Whoisguard between October 2018 and February 2020, and > despite their obligation to provide information about these infringing > domain names, they declined to cooperate.

Title should be closer to "Facebook sues Namecheap/Whoisguard for not providing information on phishing domain registrants"

<comment><USER40> opening paragraph: "This week we filed a lawsuit in Arizona against Namecheap, a domain name registrar, as well as its proxy service, Whoisguard, ___for registering domain names_ __that aim to deceive people by pretending to be affiliated with Facebook apps "

<comment><USER41> Who is the registrant who registered the name? Who is the registration service that recorded the registration? Who requested the name be proxied by a registered name holder?

Which of these actors had 'intent' for the letters in the name?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> cadence- Facebook is very heavy handed when it comes to these things. I'm talking from my own experience with them. I own a free dynamic dns service, and yes scammer sometimes use it to plant familiar sounding subdomains to cheat users. One such subdomain was related to Facebook. So Facebook didn't even contact me about it. Instead, they banned my whole domain on FB. If now I try to give people my email address with my domain on Messenger or any FB post, it will get blocked with the message that my domain has malicious content.

That's what you get when dealing with big companies. I guess they cannot just block namecheap like this, since they are much bigger than my small hobby dynamic dns server. So they are suing in this case. But I'm sure there are plenty of cases like mine where they just block the whole domain or IP range without even contacting the owner. Because they can, and we cannot do anything about it.

</comment><comment><USER42> Very proud about Namecheap!! Great company that doesn't give your infos to anyone without your permission. and the whole story is another reason to stop using anything facebook-related.

</comment><comment><USER43> Facebook's hypocrisy, as noted, is rich. But phishing impacts innocent users, not Zuckerberg and his cabal of blood-sucking c-suite plutocrats. Namecheap isn't an innocent. See [https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/06/bad-men-at-work- please-d...](https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/06/bad-men-at-work-please-dont- click/). They court this demographic through a business model which is entirely their own choice.

</comment><comment><USER44> Is Facebook targeting Whoisguard directly? I am incredibly thankful for Whoisguard — back when I purchased my first domain, I didn't know about it, and to this day, I get 5-10 spam emails per day regarding my domain. It's so bad that I've had to change my primary email to something else.

There definitely should be a mechanism by which large companies like Facebook can approach Whoisguard and ask for a site to be taken down, though.

</comment><comment><USER45> A company or individual putting "Facebook" or "Instagram" in their domain name without Facebook's authorization would constitute trademark infringement.

Pretty sure this lawsuit is just Facebook doing what they're supposed to do to "protect" their trademarks.

When you have a trademark, you're obligated — by law — to attempt to protect it in cases of seeming infringement. If you don't, you lose the power of the trademark.

<comment><USER46> >A company or individual putting "Facebook" or "Instagram" in their domain name without Facebook's authorization would constitute trademark infringement.

That is not true in the US.

A trademark consists of both a name _and_ the goods/services which a company provides under that name. If you use the trademarked name in a completely different industry or context from the entity which registered the mark, you aren't infringing on it.

So if you had a business selling...I dunno, physical books made out of faces, then you might be able to use "Facebook" without infringing.

In practice, Facebook could spend enough money to convince the legal system that they are right, but merely having some letters in a domain name does not imply infringement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Why does Facebook want to know who these people are? That itself seems a bit creepy. Sure, get the domains taken down, get Whoisguard to block them from registering more domains in future. But what does Facebook want, names and addresses? Weird.

<comment><USER48> > But what does Facebook want, names and addresses?

Uhhhh, to help in the investigation and arrest of the ring of people that are scamming and fishing Facebook customers?

<comment><USER47> Shouldn't law enforcement have that information rather than Facebook? Or does Facebook see itself as the internet police now?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Isn't the obligation only to provide registrant info to governments or when the info has been subpoenad? Or should namecheap hand over info to any private entity that thinks their trademark is being infringed upon or that the domain is malicious?

Inb4 FB wants the info of the person begins "facebookisevil.com".

</comment><comment><USER35> Facebook sues Namecheap for _allowing people to to register_ phishing domains

<comment><USER49> Facebook sues NameCheap for allowing people to register phishing domains, _and failing to meet their obligation to provide information about those domains when notified_. But it's not near as good a headline.

<comment><USER35> Namecheap has no obligation to give out customer data at _all_ unless directed so by a court.

<comment><USER50> Is it possible there's something in the ICANN registrar policies that requires them to do so?

If not, isn't this sort of suit _how_ you'd get a court to issue such an order?

<comment><USER49> It appears there is:

[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with- specs-20...](https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with- specs-2013-09-17-en#raa)

See section 126.96.36.199

<comment><USER51> I'll bet that clause was intended to apply to law enforcement, but as worded (IANAL) it appears to say that literally anyone could send a registrar proof of "reasonable evidence of harm", and they're liable unless they turn it over. Very odd.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Is facebook responsible for what its users do? Is namecheap responsible for what its users do?

Isn't this exactly the argument facebook makes when it doesn't want to be regulated as a platform or whatever?

<comment><USER53> Side note: Actually with upcoming EU regulations Facebook will be responsible for what users do. For example by not filtering copyrighted images.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Uh, the hypocrisy makes me sick.

Facebook takes money from people spreading fake news to influence the elections in my country and they refuse to reveal the names of the people funding this fake news.

</comment><comment><USER55> Haha, imagine a company suing another for the way people use their platform, as if it's _their_ responsibility to police the people using it for harmful purposes! Ridiculous!

<comment><USER56> I see what you did there ;)

<comment><USER55> I actually think hypocrisy should be a defence in court...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Thank you Namecheap.

Been using Namecheap since 2017 and was thinking of switching over, but this decision (although malicious, protects users privacy).

<comment><USER58> Why malicious? Facebook claims are bullshit, they deserve it and they're not exactly the people who has the best ethics shots.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I kind of feel like this could be a perfect opportunity to bring to light some of the weaknesses in the current SSL Cert infrastructure.

It sounds like what we need is for the browser to be capable of displaying a list of "favicons" (or something like this, perhaps a favicon encrypted by the domain's private key) from every domain in a domain's certificate chains. And for certificate authorities to allow domain owners to insert their other verified certs in these certificate chains that end up being used.

So, for example, let the owner of "DOMAIN1.COM" set up a certificate chain where DOMAIN1.COM is its own certificate authority who signs certs owned by DOMAIN1.COM. This way, when the browser sees the certificate chain it will proceed to verify the chain.

So now end users could easily see that DOMAIN2.COM is owned and "vouched for" by DOMAIN1.COM.

I don't think FB's claim SHOULD be valid, but given the current state of the art I think it IS valid.

</comment><comment><USER60> Going after the registrar is unnecessary to stop this sort of behavior, nothing would stop a scammer from creating www.facebook.route34.com/login

People are getting accustomed to complex URL parameters they don't understand. I doubt most people are paying attention. In a few years we might start seeing web browsers without the URL bar.

</comment><comment><USER61> This seems like a waste of time. It's not illegal to register a domain name, no matter how similar it is to your domain name. If you want those domain names, then buy them. My family runs a business and we bought the domain names that we thought were similar. We respect the fact that if someone buys our domain but with ".io" at the end instead, then that's their right. I would be very scared of a world where people can sue over names being "too similar to this large company with lots of money and power". These domain name companies serve one purpose: selling available domain names. It's not complicated. Let's not make it complicated.

</comment><comment><USER62> > We don't want people to be deceived by these web addresses, so we've taken > legal action.

I wonder if they reported the issue first unless it's all for show. I've reported phishing domains before and Namecheap is usually quick on taking them down if the domain belongs to that registrar. I think the last report within 24 hours they plugged it out. So makes me wonder what Facebook is on about with this.

Edit: ok, I missed the "despite their obligation to provide information about these infringing domain names, they declined to cooperate." seems Facebook wanted to go on a witch hunt.

</comment><comment><USER63> Slippery slope, and I hate Facebook more for doing this. It shouldn't be on Namecheap to police for Facebook. Tomorrow, Facebook could open something like cnn.facebook.com -- would CNN.com be off limits then? It'd be impossible to predict, track, and respond -- also it's fundamentally not Namecheap's responsibility to protect Facebook. Facebook could, and certainly has the money to, register anything they want -- anything that resembles a domain in their apps.

</comment><comment><USER64> [https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/31/facebook-sues-onlinenic- fo...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/31/facebook-sues-onlinenic-for-domain- name-fraud-associated-with-malicious-activity/)

[https://domainnamewire.com/2011/05/09/namecheap-sued-over- wh...](https://domainnamewire.com/2011/05/09/namecheap-sued-over-whoisguard/)

</comment><comment><USER65> "This week we filed a lawsuit in Arizona against Namecheap, a domain name registrar, as well as its proxy service, Whoisguard, for registering domain names that aim to deceive people by pretending to be affiliated with Facebook apps."

Wasn't Facebook supposed to request for information through the legal system instead of suing the registrar itself? Isn't Facebook publicly and unreasonably flexing muscle? So long justice...

</comment><comment><USER66> Tangential question: what are the chances that, if namecheap disclosed the identities of registrants, facebook would be able to do anything with it? You'd expect that if the domains were registered with the intention to do Bad Things, that they would be registered with fake information. You can use a throwaway email addresses, fake mailing address (doubt they would validate it), and pay with cryptocurrency.

<comment><USER67> If the registration information is falsified, + trademark dispute, FB has the inside track on getting ownership of these domains transferred to them. After all, the registered owners don't exist -- doesn't that make them up for grabs?

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> First time I find myself cheering for FB. Namecheap are notorious for criminal-friendly hosting. Just the other day I contacted Namecheap support about a site that was spamming Usenet groups and which was hosted with Namecheap. The site was offering to sell marijuana. Namecheap gave my contact details to their customer and told me they would do nothing.

Namecheap are happy to profit from criminality and no-one who values their reputation should have anything to do with them.

<comment><USER69> This is the same argument that could be leveraged against any privacy focused company. In fact it has been, against Apple and the various privacy focused email companies and WhatsApp and VPN companies, the list goes on.

What did you expect Namecheap to do? Take your word for it and ban one of their customers, just because you said so?

<comment><USER68> > What did you expect Namecheap to do? Take your word for it and ban one of > their customers, just because you said so?

What did I expect them to do? Look at the reported site they're hosting. Is it violating their TOS? If so, remove it.

<comment><USER70> What if selling marijuana is legal? And doesn't violate their TOS?

<comment><USER68> Legal where? It may be legal to sell it where it's hosted, but will they check that it's legal to deliver it to the destination? And the site in question has text on it promising to pack the goods in dog-proof bags and they also promise to refund customers whose orders are seized, indicating they know perfectly well they're breaking the law and are happy to help others do it too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Seems like a good opportunity to say, I've been a Namecheap customer for more than 10 years and I am very happy with them. :)

</comment><comment><USER72> Namecheap released my information inadvertently a while back by responding to a subpoena for someone else. And in the process just dumped all of my information that was not covered by the subpoena request at all.

Hopefully they go through with defending themselves from this lawsuit otherwise I don't think I could ever use or recommend them again.

</comment><comment><USER73> Finally, Facebook has found a legitimate way to get rich, classic American style. By suing people.

This is actually an ethical step forward.

</comment><comment><USER74> > despite their obligation to provide information about these infringing > domain names, they declined to cooperate.

Facebook just can't get their head around not sharing information.. On their customers. Nevermind just their users.

Also 45 Domain names ? out of how many ? Insane. This would be a parody if it was written.

</comment><comment><USER75> Maybe Facebook didn't get the memo, but Namecheap is not responsible for what their customers do.

Namecheap is just a platform.

#irony #sarcasm

</comment><comment><USER76> As much as I despise Facebook, it's great to have this kind of pressure put on NameCheap. When I first setup my own website many years back, I made the mistake of listing my email in plain text right on the main page. Fast forward years later and I think I've been added to every spam list possible. If it wasn't for exceptionally-aggressive email filters, I'd get 500+ spam emails a day.

In various times throughout the years, I'll run a WHOIS lookup on the last 1000 emails to have (attempted) to send me spam email. In 99% of cases, they resolve to a proxied NameCheap domain. I have submitted somewhere in the ballpark of ~800 domains throughout the years to NameCheap's abuse department. While they are timely in their "investigation", only about half of them are shuttered, and it's not clear to me if NameCheap is actually attempting to solve the problem as I strongly suspect there's a limited number of individuals behind the mass of nonsense domains used to spam me and likely countless others.

<comment><USER77> OK, but FB isn't suing NameCheap because domains registered through them spammed you.

<comment><USER76> My point was moreso that NameCheap appears willfully ignorant to abuses on their platform. As I am a nobody, I don't have the leverage to get them to solve these problems. Whereas Facebook suing them might introduce pressure on NameCheap to address abuse of their domains.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> > We regularly scan for domain names and apps that infringe our trademarks to > protect people from abuse.

Does FB "own" all the domain names that they're scanning? I don't know trademark laws so if some domains are illegal for me to own then how do I know?

<comment><USER79> If a phishing website is using the Facebook logo to phish credentials, sure the website is infringing on the trademark.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> >> We regularly scan for domain names and apps that infringe our trademarks to protect people from abuse.

Yeah, and namecheap is supposed to suspend them until the owners win in court the right to use their $9 domain name, right? Facebooks really has no shame.

</comment><comment><USER81> I'm not sure how this would work. 'facebook' is after all a generic word which had meaning before Facebook existed and is not only used in the context of the social network named after it. So the judge could reject it.

</comment><comment><USER82> Fuck off Facebook

</comment><comment> alok-g This is a genuine problem indeed. Someone is in violation of copyrights and is sitting hidden behind a domain name. What practical means do I have to even reach out to the violators, as an individual?

</comment><comment><USER83> For some reason I still couldn't register [https://www.quitfacebook.org](https://www.quitfacebook.org) on Namecheap, but could on GoDaddy.

</comment><comment><USER84> Shouldn't facebook really be pursuing the hosting company affiliated with these domains, not the registrar itself?

There's nothing illegal or infringing about owning a domain name.

</comment><comment><USER85> The really interesting thing about namecheap is they are not a registrar for most TLDs, they are simply a very large enom reseller (last I checked a year or two ago)

<comment><USER86> They used to be a reseller, but in early 2018 they completely moved off of Enom and registered domains directly: [http://domainincite.com/22467-namecheap-to-bring-millions- of...](http://domainincite.com/22467-namecheap-to-bring-millions-of-domains- in-house-next-week)

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> Would domain names like deletefacebook.com and facebookruinsyourlife.com count as being in this class of infringements? Where do you draw the line?

</comment><comment><USER88> So, this is simply a civil issue in Facebook's eyes?

</comment><comment><USER89> "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."

Layperson 2018: "No wonder WhatsApp is bad mouthing Facebook, their competitor!"

Layperson 2019: "I have just absolutely HAD it with Facebook. I am going to delete Facebook and move to INSTAGRAM!"

Layperson 2020: "Oh wait! So WhatsApp and Instagram are actually owned by Facebook?"

</comment><comment><USER90> I am using Namecheap and was afraid this is about something bad they did, but it's them just respecting the privacy laws.

</comment><comment><USER91> reminds me of the story when openbook "had to" change their name to okuna: [https://medium.com/okuna/about-the-word-book-in-openbook- ed3...](https://medium.com/okuna/about-the-word-book-in-openbook-ed33b1514e71)

</comment><comment><USER92> thing is we lack a framework for tagging those scam sites as scam and automate the takedown. In this particular case is legitimate for fb to ask for removal, although it may not be up to anyone to ask for removal of any domain without a proper legislative framework in place

</comment><comment><USER93> According to the facebook post: > We don't want people to be deceived by these web addresses, so we've taken legal action.

This particularly hypocritical and infuriating given facebook stance on horribly misleading and deceptive political advertisements on their platform. I hope this hypocrisy results in facebook eventually being sued.

</comment><comment><USER94> Just me, or is the domain "instagram business help" legit and shouldn't be something that Facebook can take down? If the entity helps people put businesses on Instagram and the site says they are not affiliated what is the harm?

Further, why would names of the parties be required here? I guess they're seeking damages?

</comment><comment><USER95> I wonder why the lawsuit was filled in arizona and not in, say, california.

<comment><USER96> Because Namecheap Inc's legal address is in Arizona

</comment></comment><comment><USER97> Now I'm even more glad I went with Namecheap. Thanks, Facebook!

</comment><comment><USER98> I just want to post the Michael Jackson popcorn gif right now.

</comment><comment><USER99> This is going to be great PR for Namecheap! :)

</comment><comment><USER100> Protecting against harm by doing harm huh?

</comment><comment><USER101> was it not namecheap where fb registered its initial domain? thats fck d

</comment><comment><USER102> Dear Namecheap,

How can I donate money?

</comment><comment><USER103> might makes right?

</comment><comment><USER104> sure

</comment><comment><USER105> another day another facebook swindle

</comment><comment><USER106> Can I sue Facebook for all the Facebook pages impersonating other business/doing shady stuff?

<comment><USER107> Yes. Let us know how that goes please.

</comment></comment><comment><USER108> underated

</comment><comment><USER77> so people should sue FB if someone uses FB to say bad things about them???

File a UDRP, it works with proxy services as well. NameCheap can't manually check or approve every name.

<comment><USER109> It's 45 domain names.

Facebook sent them a list.

No-one said anything about manually checking every name until you did.

<comment><USER77> they sent "notices" so unless you know something more.... One cannot just ask for them divulge the names, that's the point of privacy. File a suit or whatever. It's cost of doing business

<comment><USER110> Filing a lawsuit is the whole point - facebook has grounds to sue the domain owners, so either Namecheap can disclose who they are so they can be sued, or Namecheap can be sued (i.e. what's happening now) to be forced to disclose who they are so they can be sued.

One _can_ just ask for them to divulge the names (FB did that); one can refuse to divulge the names (Namecheap did that); and then a judge can force that privacy to be revoked.

<comment><USER77> Yes, but you sue John Doe 1-45 under [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Pr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act) . NameCheap is then forced by the court to notify them. You shouldn't directly sue the service provider, NameCheap in this case. They were right to refuse to unmask the owners without a court order.

<comment><USER110> It seems to me that as far as domain registration is concerned, Namecheap's subsidiary Whoisguard is technically the domain owner in this case. Of course, they're doing this with the intent to be a proxy, but technically they are the owner and so it seems that it would be appropriate to sue them for the misuse of that domain.

I.e. "We found that Namecheap's proxy service, Whoisguard, registered or used 45 domain names" \- it's not that 45 John Does have registered these domains and we want their identities, we know who is the official owner of these domains is - it's Whoisguard; and it's up to Whoisguard to either accept full responsibility for the [mis]use of these domains or provide some arguments why someone else should be held responsible instead.

If "internet standard process" is that they should do something else other then sue Namecheap - well, that works as far as that other thing works faster/better/cheaper than suing Namecheap directly. If it does not, then the legal process is that they _can_ sue Namecheap if it feels more effective.

In essence what seems to be happening here is testing in a court whether the current practice of domain "privacy proxies" can be done without the proxy accepting any liability for the domains they're shielding. Such services were implemented in the notion that they don't intend to accept any liability, but as far as I know it has not yet been tested in courts whether they can get away with it.

It's worth noting that in many other similar aspects (e.g. copyright issues for user generated content, etc) the default position was that proxies _can_ be held liable as accomplices, and that changed only when specific laws were passed saying that such proxies are immune from liability if certain conditions are met (e.g. common carrier, dmca, etc, etc). So, depending on how the courts rule, it's plausible that we might get precedent that domain privacy proxies _do_ have to bear some liability if they happend to protect the anonymity of criminals, which would de facto mean that those proxies won't exist, that all such services would shut down.

<comment><USER77> You miss the point entirely: FB cannot do anything without suing, even if they had their names and addresses. These things are solved either via ICANN procedures or through federal courts. In both cases, NameCheap would be forced to notify owners or divulge their info.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER111> "Our goal is to create consequences for those who seek to do harm."

Isn't it ironic, don't ya think?

</comment><comment><USER7> This is without merit.

Facebook is free to register as many domains as may please it, paying the fee for each. Those registrations are for exact strings. They do not include any strings visually or phonetically or typographically similar to the registered string. Registering facebook.com does not automatically confer the rights to facebook-cdn.com, or facebook-images.com, or any other nearby string. The remedy for potential phishing domain names is to either register all those text-adjacent names first (unlikely), or to install measures on the registered domains that make it harder for phishers to fool the users, and limit the possible damage when those ruses succeed.

You can't break the whole DNS system to protect one company. Do your own danged phishing defense instead of trying to turf it off onto others as an externality.

<comment><USER66> >Facebook is free to register as many domains as may please it, paying the fee for each. Those registrations are for exact strings. They do not include any strings visually or phonetically or typographically similar to the registered string.

You seem to be conflating domain name registrations with trademarks. Having the "facebook" trademark does indeed give you rights over similar names (eg. facebook-ads.com), if they're determined by a judge to cause consumer confusion.

<comment><USER7> Trademarks are restricted to a specific type of business. Any of those sites could operate as anything other than software or computer services, which are the likely trademark classes for Facebook. (I didn't look up their mark.)

 _If_ one of those similar names puts up a website mimicking Facebook's sites, Facebook can then sue the operators as an unnamed party, and ask the court to order the registrar to reveal the unnamed party's identity, by convincing the judge that it's the only way to reasonably serve the defendants with the complaint.

They cannot preemptively unmask the domain owner with trademark--not until _after_ the trademark infringement occurs.

Facebook is skipping steps, and somehow requiring registrars to determine or presume the intent for the use of a domain while registering the name. That's not how DNS works. It associates names with numbers, so that the Internet can be made out of words. Making the registrar the defendant is abusing the system, and if the court allows it, we all might as well sue Facebook for anything and everything that any of its users do to us on its platform, arguing that they should have known what evils those people would do back when they created their accounts.

Also, "conflating" is not the correct word for the intent I presumed for your sentence. I am _dissociating_ DNS registration from trademarks. This is valid, as DNS is run by ICANN, not the USPTO, or by any other international trademark registration agency. If ICANN chose, it could create top-level domains that correspond to international trademark categories, and automatically tie registered trademarks to those TLDs. It has not. So for now, there is no implicit connection between DNS and trademark. If I register something like coke.etc, and then put up an informational website about carbon fuel, Coca- Cola can't do anything to that domain on the basis of trademark. I have to infringe first.</comment></comment></comment>


Huawei's Microchip Vulnerability Explained - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48345509 <comment><USER2> The article fails to mention that non-US companies with any kind of connection to the US are affected too.

The US sanctions affect pretty much all multinational companies.</comment>


A spaceship shooting game developed using JavaScript ES6, Canvas - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/gd4Ark/star-battle <comment><USER2> It's in Chinese, the thing doesn't move with arrows nor mouse, and it uses a copyrighted soundtrack from Star Wars.</comment>


Three layers of encryption keeps you safe when SSL/TLS fails - <AUTHOR> https://blog.agilebits.com/2017/02/23/three-layers-of-encryption-keeps-you-safe-when-ssltls-fails/ <comment><USER2> This is simply not true. If TLS fails, the vehicle used for code delivery has been compromised and can be used to deliver compromised code. Everything written in the article is only true if you assume that the code is delivered with its integrity in tact, which on the web is a property that can only be guaranteed by TLS.

<comment><USER3> The article wasn't about delivering software updates. 1Password provides syncing of password vaults and online access, and this article explains how they do not rely solely on SSL/TLS to secure that data in-flight, and thus the Cloudflare issue could not have exposed such data in a usable way to third parties.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The takeaway from the Cloudflare story seems to be: don't rely on TLS encryption for critical data, since it may be compromised by third-party actions and may be completely compromised in the future.

<comment><USER5> Huh?

Cloudflare's screw-up had no impact on third parties. What it did was cause havoc for Cloudflare's own _customers_ who had agreed Cloudflare could purposefully MITM them.

For it to function at all, Cloudflare undoes all the TLS encryption, signing up for Cloudflare means saying "Yeah, Cloudflare now has total control of my web site, I don't care, I'm sure these people I've never met are competent and will protect my site and its users". I guess that's OK if you're running a blog about your cat ? But millions of people decided it sounded pretty good for their business or private data. -shrug-</comment></comment>


Twilight of the Taj Mahal - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/twilight_of_the_taj <comment><USER2> The need to maintain Taj is not new, in fact just a couple of decades after its construction in 17th century, the dome leaked and it had to be repaired. As Mughal reign fell into decline, the plunder began and the British were not left behind. The precious stones were removed from inlays, furniture was plundered and even plans were made to dismantle and auction the marble.

One must evaluate the decline of Taj in this broader context. It is currently maintained by ASI and they have replaced many precious stones abd repaired the Taj as much as they can. Unfortunately they do not always follow the same medival construction methods and do not have adequate funds, so repairs do fail.

Polloution is terrible in Delhi- Agra corridor but one must balance the needs of the poor to earn a living vs. the needs of the tourists to see the Taj in pristine condition. For this reason a blanket ban will not work in practice.

I think the BBC article is one sided, and the complexity of the situation needs to be taken into account before painting a pessimistic picture.

Aga Khan trust has done excellent work in Humayun's tomb and I think it is a better model for moving forward.

[https://youtu.be/eCLEFJU1p5A](https://youtu.be/eCLEFJU1p5A)

</comment><comment><USER3> The monument is being neglected. The current government has an attitude which is very similar to "not invented here" whereby anything not created by Hindus is not to be valued: [https://www.firstpost.com/india/yogi-adiyanath-govt-in- uttar...](https://www.firstpost.com/india/yogi-adiyanath-govt-in-uttar- pradesh-ignoring-taj-mahal-betrays-its-myopic-view-of-history-4105095.html)

Hinduism is not a religion like Islam or Christianity. People in India behave as if it is. Our past was glorious. It, however, cannot guarantee a similar future unless people wake up.

<comment><USER4> > government has an attitude which is very similar to "not invented here" > whereby anything not created by Hindus is not to be valued

Curious, what are list which is created by Hindus which is well maintained and valued by government?

<comment><USER5> Another handle created merely minutes ago merely to reply to comments.

How frequently do you people monitor forums like HN? How many people work on this? Must be a dream job to get paid to read HN all day.

<comment><USER6> I don't know about the other guy, but hopefully you'll bear with me since I've been on HN for a while now and wasn't paid by a government IT cell to comment (since you seem to be implying that).

I am not sure what the parent commenter means by "Hinduism is not a religion like Islam or Christianity". Do they mean that Hindus don't practice Abrahamic principles? Because other than that, I'm not able to understand what they mean.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a phase Europe went through as well - many of the great Medieval and Renaissance cathedrals were badly damaged by the pollution of industrialization, and had to be restored after pollution got under control. Luckily, that seems to have worked out (at great expense), and was a major rallying symbol for the environmentalist movement.

</comment><comment><USER8> "Incredible India", as the country's tourism slogan claims, is fast disappearing. I know this may get downvoted by fans of India, but I'm just saying it as I see it. If it matters, I'm of Indian origin too.

First of all, India has everything it needs to be amazing. A young workforce, driven, technical people, a nice selection of flourishing industries, bucket loads of natural resources and abundant sources of renewable energy. Yet it seems to make use of those things poorly.

Whenever I step into Delhi, or any major Indian city, I feel like I'm stepping into chaos. The buildings are blackened and poorly planned. The sky, perpetually grey with pollution. The traffic is idiotic. I'm convinced the volume of cars is not the problem, but instead lack of road etiquette is to blame. Every car, whether it be a cheap Honda or an expensive S-class has a dent or two in it. Everyone's beeping horns for no apparent reason, and crawling forward at ten meters a minute. It's a great metaphor for the country as a whole - it appears loud and active, but the actual activity is somewhat unsubstantial.

While I was in Delhi about 2 weeks ago, my father asked me to advise the 17 year old son of one of his employees. I met the guy - a studious, fiercly competitive lad, but pleasant nonetheless. He wanted to become a doctor; I asked him "why a doctor?". His response was that he could make a lot of money in that field, specifically because people come to you when they're in need and in trouble. I then asked him "What about helping people? Interest in the subject itself? Passion?". He fobbed those questions off like they simply didn't matter. (Aside: the medical system in India is ruthless - if you're ill, you will likely be taken advantage of, and it can bring you and your family to your knees very, very quickly. Even my own grandfather's gold rings and dental filings mysteriously disappeared when he passed away in the most reputable hospital in Delhi).

Why am I telling you the above story? Well, because I see this mindset almost everywhere in India. Cold hearted profiteering is killing passion and genuine interest amongst vast swathes of society. It's horribly unpleasant, and it doesn't surprise me that things of cultural importance are taking such a back seat. In the case of the Taj, I bet the money was available, but improperly used or swindled away (adminstrative government officials in India are known for their corruption - it's one of the perks of the job apparently). Anyway, the crumbling Taj is simply another metaphor for the crumbling culture of India, and it really does make me rather sad.

<comment><USER9> >While I was in Delhi about 2 weeks ago, my father asked me to advise the 17 year old son of one of his employees. I met the guy - a studious, fiercly competitive lad, but pleasant nonetheless. He wanted to become a doctor; I asked him "why a doctor?". His response was that he could make a lot of money in that field, specifically because people come to you when they're in need and in trouble. I then asked him "What about helping people? Interest in the subject itself? Passion?". He fobbed those questions off like they simply didn't matter.

You have to have a certain level of wealth before you care about "passion". Sometimes if you grow up seeing the consequences of being poor, the desire to never go through that again becomes your passion. That is why you then optimize your career to make money rather than follow your "passion".

<comment><USER8> I don't disagree with you, however, the individual in my story was not "poor" \- he was part of India's middle class. His father was being paid reasonably well at my dad's firm for the last 20+ years.

<comment><USER10> So, while his father was being paid reasonably well according to you - he is employed by your father's firm, which leads me to believe you grew up with considerably more resources to be able to pursue your _passions_ then the child in question. As such, the argument still applies that not everyone has an ability or an opportunity to pursue their _passions_.

<comment><USER8> My personal situation, on a relative scale, is rather more tragic. I would suggest you not to make that assumption about my upbringing, for you would be quite incorrect.

<comment><USER10> Fair enough, _mea culpa_.

However, my argument (stated differently) that _passion is a luxury that not everyone can afford_ , still stands.

<comment><USER8> I don't think you understand what I'm saying. In a sense, I'm agreeing with you.

Passion is a luxury in India, yes, but because of the way society has been set up. We need to change things so as to nurture the passions of our people, rather than have them scrambling for basic necessities. I believe we have all the ingredients to make it happen, but seem to lack the will or a plan.

<comment><USER10> I think where I'm disagreeing with you is I believe passion is a luxury due to economic constraints rather than an artifact of societal setup, at least in the modern times.

In historic times, and to a lesser extent even now, careers were decided based on family, so there yes societal setup led to suppression of passion. However, even then how much of that was due to economic reasons and how much societal if a difficult question to answer, at least for me.

But, OTOH, I do agree that India has all the ingredients to become much greater - how do we get there is a much more complicated topic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It might be under-repaired, but entering "Taj Mahal maintenance" into Google shows there are tons of travel articles on their maintenance efforts, and which parts will be under repair when. It seems a bit questionable that this is totally omitted.

<comment><USER12> This is from the BBC which has a definite negative reporting bias on anything to do with India.

<comment><USER13> Wrong. BBC is as much fair on this issue as Indian Media state or Supreme Court. [https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/sc-holds-asi- resp...](https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/sc-holds-asi-responsible- for-taj-mahal-s-upkeep-1300907-2018-07-31) Also, BBC is quite fair, unlike Indian Media which doesn't have the guts to take Modi in to account for not holding a single press conference in his 4 year rule.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2sc9A2aVtM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2sc9A2aVtM)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This, even as the state government is spending resources on changing names of cities all over the state, and ironically, `Taj Mahal` itself.

</comment><comment><USER15> It's crazy to me that if we disregard all of the historical importance, the government still doesn't have the foresight to invest in maintaining it's number one tourist destination in the country. However, I fear throwing money at the problem is a temporary solution for the actual structure where fixing the surrounding pollution is more important.

<comment><USER16> Money is thrown at issues in India when there's a direct individual (or a few) beneficiary from that money throwing and the solving of that problem was not even the last point on the agenda.

So I'll present an example. Let's talk about a 10km road that needs repair. The discussion would start at points like how much the contractors would make, what will be the cut of tie engineer, chief engineer, MLA, MP, district administration if they are involved. Whether a cut has to go to the CM too? Or tje _party fund_. Things of practical interests.

How strong the road will be, how safe it would be, quality assurance etc are a matter of formality and routine which also ensures there's another repair after a year or two and everyone is happy again.

However if the intention is to really solve a problem then it takes years - committee after committee, studies after studies - became no one is interested.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> "The Taj is so wasteful, so decadent and in the end so cruel that it is painful to be there for very long. This is an extravagance that speaks of the blood of the people." VS Naipaul

<comment><USER18> Irrespective whether it bankrupted the Moghuls and made the successor of the throne, epitome of rape, pillage and plunder.. those dues have been paid, and there is no un-turning.

As repulsive the history behind the Taj and its consequences are, ruining it with a cocktail of incompetence, corruption and apathy is not the step forward.

<comment><USER19> "dues have been paid". was it a direct desposit, sir?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Seems surprising to me that the supreme court is so involved in this issue. In the United States, the supreme court tries its hardest to avoid answering a question if it can, and certainly tries to avoid anything that looks like it's writing a new law.

Can someone who is more knowledgeable comment on this?

<comment><USER21> In India, the Supreme Court is enthusiastically involved in many things. It considers it to be its job to keep the government honest, etc. See this blog post on the tenure of the most recent Chief Justice of India, by a lawyer and expert: [https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2018/10/01/ends- without-...](https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2018/10/01/ends-without- means-outcomes-without-reasons-a-look-back-at-dipak-misra-and-the- constitution/) (See also: [https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2018/10/30/constituting-...](https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2018/10/30/constituting- constitution-benches-the-dipak-misra-years/) )

<comment><USER20> It seems to me based on the articles you linked that the Indian Supreme Court flagrantly disregards the constitution regularly!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The problem with maintenance in India is lack of will power in local governments (not national government).

State and local governments in India are filled with incompetent fools (pardon my French) who only want the power and fame. They're often uneducated, often unexposed to the rest of the world and have the ego of a supreme emperor to do anything that would improve their citizen's lives.

Education is a major problem in India. Until they achieve an entire generation of great education all the way down to villages, this will not improve.

</comment><comment><USER23> What a shame, it's literally falling apart. I remember visiting the Taj Mahal back in the day (15-20 years ago) on a full moon night, do they still open on certain nights? Imagine how it would shimmer in the dark, if they still had all the precious stones encrusted in the marble!

</comment><comment><USER24> >In 1998 the Supreme Court established a special exclusion area to keep heavy industry at a distance from the monument. The Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) covers an area of more than 10,400 sq km.

How was this ever going to be workable in a country like India, with so much unemployment and massive requirement for industry, power, infrastructure etc. In these scant conditions, obviously there will be little resources for cleaner, greener alternatives to fulfill economic requirements. And because people are resourceful they will make do with whatever is at hand which for example are, unfortunately, the dirtier diesel generators, coal fired plants, and polluting vehicles. All this is tragec to be sure, but people will choose their own livelihoods over a beautiful mausoleum.

</comment><comment><USER25> The Taj Mahal was the highlight of my trip to India. It surpassed all expectations. I hope that the Indian government can figure out how to save it before it's too late, but this article gives me little to no faith.

</comment><comment><USER26> So, the marble is deteriorating because of acid rain, I presume? At least it hasn't been looted like so many wonders of the world. I imagine the pyramids must have been breathtaking with their original sheathing.

</comment><comment><USER27> in actual fact internet hindus complain the asi spends too much money on this and not on actual archaeological research

my opinion this should be left to private muslim groups who might be interested in its preservation

hindus found out its history which was suppressed by marxists and are not likely to keep paying for it

cultural death by tourists of the kind seen in japan nowadays is not desirable either

<comment><USER28> > my opinion this should be left to private muslim groups who might be > interested in its preservation

What does it say about a country when a large number of its people don't want to maintain its most famous monument because it happens to have been built by a king of the minority religion?

What about other monuments - should the maintenance of India Gate be left to private Christian groups?

> hindus found out its history which was suppressed by marxists and are not > likely to keep paying for it

What was this history? I hope you are not referring to something like [https://www.booksfact.com/archeology/taj-mahal-original- name...](https://www.booksfact.com/archeology/taj-mahal-original-name-tejo- mahalaya-ancient-siva-temple-built-1155-ad.html) a theory being pushed by charlatan historians, and eagerly lapped up by internet hindus who suffer from a deep insecurity that India's most famous monument happens to be a "Muslim" monument.

<comment><USER27> it says that hindus dont want to pay to glorify islamic invasions which led to massive loot plunder and genocide of hindus

same for the european colonial loot and plunder

christians didnt even apologize for goa inquisition

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Though maintenance is an issue, I've been told another issue is craftsmanship. It was slapped together by slaves to serve as a tomb for the third wife of an emperor who had a harem of 2000 women yet saw it fit to drag his favorite into the battlefield for his comfort (she succumbed to complications bearing no. 14 in the 19th year of her marriage). They might as well let it crumble. It's a grotesque monument which tourists adore.

<comment><USER30> Shoddy construction or not, it is a beautiful design. Can you recommend a source for that? I can imagine that he was in a hurry to have it built before he died.

<comment><USER29> Not really. Just a comment by a visitor. It's said it took thousands of slaves about 20 years to build but aside from the architect they may not have had expertise.</comment></comment></comment>


Foreigner Not Taking Holidays - <AUTHOR> Hey, guys,<p>I would like your views on a situation that has been bothering me for some time.
I've been living in a foreign country for almost ten years now, and I've been working there for about six years. Since I came to this country, I have never returned to my home country. However, I get along well with my family who still live in my home country, and we are in regular contact by phone or internet. Since I started working here, I rarely take my holidays.  The few times I have taken time off, I didn't really know what else to do to keep myself busy, apart from sleeping, hanging out on the internet, playing video games... I have acquaintances here but I would hardly call them friends. I also don't have any close family or boyfriend here. And I'm fine with it. But usually, when my colleagues come back from holidays, they talk about their travels (which seems to be a habit for the middle class in this country) and activities they did. So now I don't take very long periods of time off to not be bothered telling what I did during my holidays. I just take two or three days, consecutive or not, just to rest a little bit. I have to say that not taking leave has also allowed me to negotiate pay raises a few times during my performance reviews, but I'm afraid that's not enough anymore, even if my boss are very satisfied with my job. That's the first problem I have. The second is the questions I may have from my colleagues or superiors. The questions that come up most often are: Why don't you take some time off? Why have you never returned to your home country? Don't you miss your family/country? What did you do during your holidays? Usually, I got through it by changing the subject as quickly as possible or by making a little joke. But I'm getting tired of it all and I'm running out of ideas too. I wish I didn't have to answer these questions anymore or answer them without being judged and without lying. For what it's worth, I'm a girl, although I doubt it matters. <comment><USER2> I've typically not been a fan of formal holidays, as being a founder of my own businesses means that I enjoy what I am doing and don't really want to stop (and have not always had the ability to take time away). These days, with children, and my company being larger, I am taking holidays, but still somewhat reluctantly! It is nice to have the option to take holidays, but they don't suit everyone, and I think that you should feel able to say that they just don't suit you much.

FWIW I am male.

Rgds

Damon

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your answer. As an employer, do you think it's justified to use this as an argument to negotiate a raise, knowing that even without it, my work satisfies my employer and that nothing prevents me from taking leave?

<comment><USER2> Are you asking if you can or should trade some holiday for more pay? Within whatever the legal bounds are, if any, I don't see why not. Note that local rules may require some minimum holiday, and some regulated professions (such as banking) may require time fully away from work to make hiding bad things harder!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Ah, the all important potlatch analog aspect, AKA bragging rights, show photos, hula skirts etc etc.- when I meet one of those idiots I tell them I go home every Thursday to my Swiss Villa for the long weekend...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch)

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting read indeed. I remember this time when I came back from a long vacation period during which I had not travelled. They were all disappointed to find out as if it was their problem, and they all gave me looks of sadness mixed with annoyance or disappointment. I was so embarrassed, and yet I had had a good holiday doing nothing.

<comment><USER3> I think you can buy a visible vacation online, to Las Vegas or ?? and you give them a few photos and they produce a set of vacation pix to die for, so you can hide at home and have a maximum brag. [https://www.google.com/search?q=fake+a+vacation+with+photos&...](https://www.google.com/search?q=fake+a+vacation+with+photos&oq=fake+a+vacation+with+photos&aqs=chrome..69i57.11686j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)</comment></comment></comment>


Caveat Emptor: Lovers of Latin Try to Sell a Dead Tongue - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303755504579207862529717146?mod=WSJ_hp_EditorsPicks <comment><USER2> The use of Latin would do great damage to the European dream of unity. There's already a great distance between those who (are suppose to) represent the European population and the European citizens themselves. If they started using their own language it'd be like the old days where one could only come close to god via the church because the bible was written in Latin, a language only the men of the church understood. Controlling the language meant great power (as Martin Luther found out when he translated the bible so common man could read it).

<comment><USER3> The bible wasn't originally written in Latin.

The Old Testament is mostly written in Classical Hebrew (source: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew#Classical_Hebrew](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew#Classical_Hebrew)), except for large sections of the books of Daniel and Esra - these are written in Aramaic (source: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic))

The New Testament is originally written in Koine Greek (source: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Greek#Biblical_Koine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Greek#Biblical_Koine)).

The Latin versions are just old translations.

<comment><USER4> The historical social relevance was most of the German peasantry couldn't read or listen to Aramaic at that time. Most of them couldn't understand written German but the stats for literacy were good enough that they'd understand someone reading it aloud.

Its also relevant because of lack of control and a rather concrete expression of rebellion. "We forbid you to do this" "Been there done that". Rabble rousing always happens and never amounted to much; publishing an illegal book was a substantial escalation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Certainly won't happen anytime soon. English is certainly the lingua-franca of the modern world and will probably stay that way for a while. While mastering English is hard, you can get quite far with a modicum of English.

Latin is an extremely important language and we should keep teaching it as a large portion of the grammar and vocabulary of Europe's languages derives from it, but it's fraught with complexities that make it really hard to master unless you really want to spend the time and energy to specialise in it; certainly a worthy goal in itself, but not what most people would aspire to.

<comment><USER6> I agree with your main point, but you're making an unfair comparison. If Latin _were_ an internationally popular language alive today, then I imagine you could also get quite far with bits of broken Latin.

Also, if you think English isn't "fraught with complexities that make it really hard to master", I know an entire nation made (mostly) of people who've been learning English since twelve and still failing miserably at basic reading comprehension...

<comment><USER7> I bet you mean Spain but it would be nice to know another example...

<comment><USER6> South Korea (shrug). From what I heard, China & Japan aren't much different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's a quixotic dream, but one I think is quite beautiful. In terms of 'revived' languages used today in everyday life, the most successful one that comes to mind is Hebrew (and there was a strong desire for national cohesion for a newly created state that in part drove its revival). I don't think anything remotely similar exists in Europe today to drive the widespread adoption of Latin, especially as the drive for further European integration in general has been battered in recent years.

<comment><USER9> Latin is still in daily/weekly use in those Catholic churches around the world that celebrate the traditional form of the Roman liturgy, or use the Latin edition of its modern form. Many clergy and laity alike study, learn and treasure the Latin readings, prayers, chants and hymns that form such an important part of the Western Church's heritage.

In Saint Louis, Missouri, USA we have a church where the traditional Latin Mass is celebrated daily, the Oratory of St. Francis de Sales[1].

If you're not familiar with how the traditional Roman liturgy looks and sounds, there are a number of video recordings online[2].

[1] [http://www.institute-christ-king.org/stlouis/](http://www.institute- christ-king.org/stlouis/)

[2] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c32brXXx5k8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c32brXXx5k8)

<comment><USER10> Actually, most Catholic churches now is celebrated in their region's language, after Jean Paul II's Second Vatican Council.

<comment><USER11> Jean Paul II did the Second Vatican Council? Right. And Linux Torvalds invented the C programming language.

<comment><USER12> Don't be silly, everyone knows Linus started the GNU movement, that's why he insisted it should be called GNU Linux ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Languages are living things. They morph and change, evolve and grow, and die. Latin lives on in English, French, Italian, Spanish and other languages. So in a sense it is not dead. Reading Beowulf (Old English) would not be much less intelligible to a modern audience than reading the Aeneid in Latin. Time changes all languages... and fugit interea, fugit irreparabile tempus, singula dum capti circumvectamur amore.

Edit: that is, "meanwhile it flees: time flees irretrievably, while we wander around, prisoners of our love of detail."

<comment><USER13> > Latin lives on in English

Only through borrowings. English is a Germanic language.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think it's fair to say that Latin lives on in English, although one might quibble over the definition of "lives on". Old English was derived from a number of closely related Germanic dialects. The English language, however, is a fusion. It was influenced by Old Norse, and borrows from many languages. It has a more-than-significant number of words with Latin roots, beyond, I think, merely borrowings. Latin is used particularly heavily in scientific and legal domains, but Latin roots permeate English vocabulary, and Latin phrases are peppered through common use in various forms -- e.g. "i.e" :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just a little remark:

>"Where is the liberty of the people?" Mr. Licoppe asked. "Because there are many who want to preserve the study of Latin."

Is it really necessary that I've got to explain that there are also people who don't want to preserve it? Do I have to explain how the idea marketplace, competence, academic freedom and other systems actually works?

The whole idea of embracing Latin for everything is dumb. If Latin were actually a lingua franca, then, like that school completely ignores, linguas francas (francae?) aren't there to replace the mother language (which includes all of the region's folklore), just to complement it when talking to an outsider (that school isn't, it is teaching reticulum interretiale only instead of internet first and then reticulum interretiale).

Also, from a pragmatist point of view, learning Latin today, and either using it as a lingua franca or not is pretty useless (there are exceptions, of course, like Philosophy, law, medicine, etc; but they aren't that important in a day-to-day context).

</comment><comment><USER14> For those who want to program in Latin, Perl has it covered [1].

[1] [http://search.cpan.org/~dconway/Lingua-Romana- Perligata-0.50...](http://search.cpan.org/~dconway/Lingua-Romana- Perligata-0.50/lib/Lingua/Romana/Perligata.pm)

</comment><comment><USER15> I am in favor of using Latin in some circumstances. People miss the fact that the great thing about a dead language is that it doesn't change. However, if you write about science in English, for example, you can guarantee that 50 years from now your text will feel dated -- just try to read papers from the beginning of the 20th century. On the other hand, we still can read the great works of antiquity (from 20 centuries ago) in Latin. Also, a lot of scientific works were written in Latin during the renascence, and they are still available to us. Sadly, what is written in English will hardly last for more than a few hundred years. The only saving grace is that future generations will have automatic translation systems that will solve a lot of these problems.

Another issue with English is that it is a very imprecise language. You have to be extremely careful to write precise sentences in it. Latin, because of its grammatical nature, is much easier to handle in this respect. This is the same reason why it is much easier to understand philosophical concepts in German than in English. Just because English is widely understood (due to the cultural dominance of English-speaking countries), it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to use a better language to express ourselves. Latin seems like a natural option due to its large impact on the western world.

<comment><USER16> > _" However, if you write about science in English, for example, you can > guarantee that 50 years from now your text will feel dated -- just try to > read papers from the beginning of the 20th century. On the other hand, we > still can read the great works of antiquity (from 20 centuries ago) in > Latin."_

Starting as somebody exposed to only modern english, getting off the ground with 17th or 18th century english is going to be _much_ easier than getting off the ground with _any_ latin.

Seriously, I'm not sure what english works you have been reading, but it really doesn't get bad until you get really get back into the mid-17th century or so. Even with 16th century stuff, I would say that most of the difficulty comes from antiquated idioms (and rarely vocabulary). Trouble you had with scientific papers from the early 20th century probably had more to do with your inexperience with the subject matter of the paper, not the language it was written in. Books written in the 19th century are still considered reasonable reading for children today (Twain, Carroll, Dickens, Thoreau, etc.)

<comment><USER4> I agree and provide some more popular examples:

Shakespeare from around 1600 is rewarding but pretty much needs a translator into English to be understood by moderns. On the other hand Gibbon writing around the American Revolution in 1776 is modern, and is a very easy read.

The biggest issue you'll find is a variation in what moderns would consider grade level. Modern journalism is not allowed to rise about 3rd grade level reading ability because of the "need" to maximize potential readers aka profit. Bad writing drives out good writing just like bad money drives out good, or some say bad code drives out good code. (or coders?)

Gibbon is at a higher grade level of reading ability than modern average, which is going to be intimidating. I'd say its around high school level. It IS harder than the average newspaper sports page. However its not harder than any modern high school level text. Compared to a college level physics textbook, Gibbon is a pretty easy read.

<comment><USER13> > Shakespeare from around 1600 is rewarding but pretty much needs a translator > into English to be understood by moderns.

Nobody in 1600s England spoke the way Shakespeare wrote. Shakespeare was writing poetry. His plays are famous for their use of iambic pentameter especially, which is beautiful to hear and read but not a natural part of English prose.

To pick another example more-or-less at random from the same era, the work of Thomas Hobbes is much less poetic and, therefore, substantially more readable. The major stylistic difference I can see is that they were absolutely addicted to what we'd now consider overlong, or even run-on, sentences.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes)

 _Leviathan_ : [http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3207](http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3207)

<comment><USER4> You make an excellent point, another poetic example is Jabberwocky is not a typical example of all late 1800s English literature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Trying to preserve a language by '...instead of using the modern Latin word for train (ferrivia), you must write something like vehiculum in binaris ferris currens: "vehicle running on two irons."' is an excellent way to ensure that the language stays dead, permanently.

If people want a 'lingua franca' not based on languages of large nations, then a quick googling seems to indicate that there are much more _esperanto_ speakers than fluent latin speakers...

</comment><comment><USER18> The EU is not going to add Latin as an official language, and it has nothing to do with financial difficulties; every official language of the EU has that status _because_ it is the national language of a member state. In general, the Union is a (con)federation of national states, and adding Latin as a Union-wide language wouldn't really be compatible with that.

</comment><comment><USER19> It's quite a romantic idea and somehow I like it, but it will not happen and should not happen.

There is one language that is understood/used much more in Europe than any others and that language is English, it's also the one language that is understood in most if not all civilised corners of the planet. The cognitive and all other efforts implied to change this would be just too big.

European nations hold dear to their languages, some more than others, but slowly and surely this grasp will weaken: your films are in English, your internet is in English, your smartphone defaults to English, your code comments are in English and so on.

For those who love Latin, English is not such a bad language to use; its lexicon is ~30% based on Latin.

<comment><USER3> What is criticised (especially from French or German native speakers) is that most European languages are more exact in their wording and grammar than English. Thus translating from English into such a language (French or especially German) often involves interpreting what the author probably meant and express it more exactly. This especially makes automatic English -> German translations particular dreaded for computer-generated translations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I can't imagine this growing beyond a fringe movement. Countries are pretty attached to their languages, I doubt it would accomplish more that aggravate eurosceptics: The european nationalism one of the quoted proponents dismisses is a pretty powerful force that hasn't exactly accepted the degree of integration these Latin-advocates envision.

Also, the history in this article is so atrocious I had to write a blog post about it.[1]

[1][http://sdpo.pe/2013/12/which-roman-empire/](http://sdpo.pe/2013/12/which- roman-empire/)

</comment><comment><USER21> Semper ubi sub ubi.

<comment><USER11> NO! You can't make a real sentence with nothing but adverbs and prepositions!!!

:b

<comment><USER22> "Always wear underwear" \- makes sense to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> ""We have a single money, the euro," Mr. Feye says. "We should have a single language, Latin.""

We do. Its called English.

<comment><USER24> Some of my countrymen feel it is a universal language -- just a matter of volume. If you yell English loudly enough, people will understand.

<comment><USER25> DO? YOU? SPEAK? ENGLISH?</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: We will run your product surveys for you - <AUTHOR> Will you use a service that runs surveys on behalf of your company? We typically target product usage and expansion surveys (like NPS, reliability, figuring out the next product and feature to build). Its a narrow niche but in our experience, the survey tools are easy (Google Form / Jotform / Qualtrics). Its the analysis thats time consuming and figuring out next steps can be tasking. We will offer a report, along with insights on qualitative data and next steps (follow up calls / isolating product reliability issues etc). We'll use any tool you have and are happy to analyze data from surveys past.<p>Any takers? <comment><USER2> Please add info about

1) How many people can you reach and get unbiased opinion? (This also depends on the product segment, still some info about numbers is helpful)

2) Cost of running a survey.</comment>


Why we're changing Flickr free accounts - <AUTHOR> http://blog.flickr.net/2018/11/01/changing-flickr-free-accounts-1000-photos/ <comment><USER2> Thankfully Flickr was dead long before this final nail.</comment>


The Girl with the Augmented Body and a DIY Manufacturing Habit - <AUTHOR> https://exolymph.news/2016/07/05/sexycyborg-shenzhen-3d-printing/ <comment><USER2> I'd seen the occasional bit about her on Reddit before, but I didn't know she was as deeply interested in technology. Her observations about the 'hacker scene' in China are really heart-breaking. So much potential, and it's all being largely ignored since it doesn't fit with the cultural expectations.

<comment><USER3> Hardware startup scene is doing well. Lots of Kickstarters here. But the idea we have Western style Makerspaces or Makers...no. Chinese are willing to invest a lot in education. But much less in a hobby. So the few real spaces are about classes for kids. But between classes you can go to TGN or Litchee Lab and use their laser cutter. Although I have not yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm sorry but, why should I care about this person? Is it because she reflects a growing trend or acceptance towards body modification and calls herself a transhumanist? Like, does she do anything interesting? A 3D printed model of her is... incredibly not very unique? Does she represent how diverse tech can be? Perhaps... but what's the point? "Sexy people can code too!" Yeah I realize. I'm sorry, I just don't see the point.

<comment><USER5> Sounds like you may be distracted by the body mod/sexy part. Other than the crazy ideas about body modification that I commented on elsewhere, I thought it was interesting that in China making original 3D-printed gifts was something she saw as advantageous -- you "get a lot of face." The discussion of maker culture in Shenzhen was also interesting, since it contrasts with the US scene.

Cultural differences in how we end up putting technology to use are very relevant to HN.

<comment><USER4> I got "distracted" by it because it's a huge part of the article! I would have been interested in an article purely about the differences in maker culture. But that wasn't the article.

<comment><USER6> God forfend she be proud, or even unashamed, of the body she's made for herself at considerable effort and expense.

<comment><USER4> I'm not suggesting she not be proud or for her to be ashamed about her body. I'm just saying that it's not interesting to learn about. There are literally 3.52 billion women who should be proud of their bodies, but I don't feel obligated to listen to any one of them be proud.

also I'm pretty sure you meant to say "unashamed, or even proud".

<comment><USER6> Well, then, don't! And kindly oblige the rest of us by declining to do so a little less loudly.

also i said exactly what i meant

<comment><USER7> Why are you so worked up about this? You're being extremely abrasive and combative here. Webkike didn't slut shame this woman or insult her. The question posed is literally "what's the point?" The article did a poor job of making this profile interesting. (Sorry, Sonya.)

There could have been an interesting article here about the maker scene in China, or the unhealthy way many westerners online attack this woman for her appearance, or how non-stereotypical people can end up interested in the maker scene, or maybe something else. Instead we got a title that promised body mods and diy manufacturing and an article that delivered little of either. There were literally two into paragraphs, mostly about her appearance, and then "Given all of this context, I reached out to SexyCyborg for an interview." What context? And now a question about 3D printing?

If I wrote an article containing two paragraphs about a guy called CyborgJim who wears Metallica T-shirts, 3D prints Star Wars figurines, and gets called a neckbeard online and then jumped into a Q&A with him, someone would rightly say "why should I care?" And I doubt you would defend my article so vigorously.

<comment><USER6> > There could have been an interesting article here about the maker scene in > China, or the unhealthy way many westerners online attack this woman for her > appearance, or how non-stereotypical people can end up interested in the > maker scene, or maybe something else.

And the article that actually was posted makes for a very workable entrée into all of the above, especially if you take the time to follow links from it or otherwise investigate.

> The article did a poor job of making this profile interesting.

You're right! But that's excused by the fact that it's an uninteresting article about an interesting person, who sheds light on an interesting culture, about whom and about which probably everyone who's commented in this thread previously knew nothing. In light of that, it strikes me as odd it'd be so divisive.

<comment><USER7> > _And the article that actually was posted makes for a very workable entrée > into all of the above, especially if you take the time to follow links from > it or otherwise investigate._

I would not consider the article a "workable entrée" into any of those topics. Yes, I could do my own investigation into each of those things, but this article doesn't help much with that, nor does it manage to make me interested in any of those things. You can't expect people to read a bad article and then say "well, that was boring, but I bet if I follow every link here I'll eventually find something worth my time".

> _You 're right! But that's excused by the fact that it's an uninteresting > article about an interesting person, who sheds light on an interesting > culture, about whom and about which probably everyone who's commented in > this thread previously knew nothing. In light of that, it strikes me as odd > it'd be so divisive._

I don't agree. A poor article is not excused by having an interesting subject. A poor article will make a subject seem uninteresting, which is what happened here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For people unable to read all the way through the title, it _does_ say "...and a DIY Manufacturing Habit". </sarcasm>

Seriously, her comments about how "hobbies" like DIY manufacturing and Makerspaces are seen in China were eye-opening to me and definitely worth a read.

</comment><comment><USER5> Magnetic implants. I have to say, I don't think about wearables or augmentation much -- I'm pretty old-fashioned although I read my early Neal Stephenson etc.

On the one hand, magnetic body armor. On the other hand, do we really have a good understanding of the electrical nature of the body? We've got some rudimentary understanding of the electromagnetic nature of the brain; we figured out we have iron deposits in our noses; we know a tiny bit about MRIs and their effects. You can induce vertigo with an MRI, for instance. But how would continuous low-level magnetic exposure affect everyday bioelectromagnetics?

<comment><USER7> > _But how would continuous low-level magnetic exposure affect everyday > bioelectromagnetics?_

I'd wager not at all. There are plenty of people who wear magnetic bracelets, believing they provide some sort of health benefits. All the evidence says they do nothing at all. I'd expect the same for magnetic implants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Glad to see more diverse people are interested.

</comment><comment><USER10> Many people on Reddit are convinced she is a he.

<comment><USER3> >Many people on Reddit are convinced she is a he.

Not sure where I would hide a penis in that bikini. Makes sense though. Tinkercad and RGB LEDs, tough stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > I have a better firewall than most people, though. None of it is in my > mother tongue, so it does not really run on bare metal, as it were.

> Fortunately my English is okay and [...]</comment>


Discover hidden endpoints in websites/APIs with pure python - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/avilum/smart-url-fuzzer <comment><USER2> ...and then get arrested like weev or this boy: [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/freedom-of- inform...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/freedom-of-information- request-privacy-breach-teen-speaks-out-1.4621970)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's like nmap's HTTP module, but without any dependencies.</comment>


When someone blocks ad's what really happens? - <AUTHOR>

If I have an ad blocker, does the website selling as space or the advertiser know? Page views are usually what is used to charge for ads so if I visit the page and the ad is blocked via my browser, it seems to me that people are still paying for ad's that do not reach the user.<p>Am I missing something? <comment><USER2> I've noticed a few websites begging me to turn off adblock, I'm not sure how they detected it though. I think adblock removes the ads entirely from the DOM so perhaps they're just checking if their elements still exist with some JavaScript.

</comment><comment><USER3> If the Publisher ( Website Owner ) is selling directly ( No Middle Men / Network ) to the Advertiser and hes transparent , he will use a way to track "real" impressions. Ads that aren't shown to the visitors won't count. ( This is only for CPM based ads ) Publishers know that people use adblocker and can easily detect it , it's not uncommon to replace the blocked ads by an internal image / message asking you to disable it on their website.

But yes , if you buy advertising on some websites , you may pay for impressions that never happened.

Feel free to ask more questions on the subject.

</comment><comment><USER4> From my experience, the ad blocker is actually blocking the ad coming from the incoming server, so no impression is counted.

If you are using something that replaces the ad with another image (Add-Art for example), the underlying ad is likely being served.

The latter is good for the publisher, good for the user, not so good for the ad network or the brand / utility purchasing the ad space.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'd imagine that you can create a script that would run always that alerts the provider that the user is blocking ads. Then to eliminate false positives you inject some code in your ad script that disables the other script from running. That's probably just one of many possible approaches.</comment>