Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

en.mercopress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 169 posts

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#151

Post by paxys »

masswerk wrote: post #89
codezero wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They reversed it because it was an honest mistake and most people like to know that if they make the same mistake it can be undone.

It may be worth noting that in most countries a contract essentially is established by the consensus of wills by the parties involved. An error in objecto ("I didn't mean the thing I accidentally said or listed") is a legitimate excuse and nullifies a contract. (The consensus didn't exist and thus the contract had never been established in the first place). (This is also a reason why marketplaces, where things "just…

So many people think that the world runs algorithmically, like the code on their computer. Society is built upon interactions between real people. Everyone exercises a massive amount of judgement in whatever they do, for better or worse. And this is true for the legal system as well. Your "well technically I'm correct" arguments aren't going to work in front of a judge and jury the way they do on the internet.

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#152

Post by stevekemp »

jb775 wrote: post #146
yosito wrote: post #51

Meanwhile, I can't even figure out how to buy domains with my name in them from people who just buy them and sit on them.

I'm also curious how people actually go about purchasing domains immediately after expiring. Like for example when Trump bought jebbush.com during primary season because it happened to expire then (and he temporarily re-routed it to his own site lol)...They must have done something more technical to lock it in, does anyone know?

Some registrars do offer the ability to "pre-order", waiting until a domain has expired and then snapping it up.

I own steve.org.uk, and after moving to Finland I noticed steve.fi was going to expire in the near-future. So I setup a cron-job that would text me the moment it became free.

First of all it went from registered to being in the redemption state, then it became generally available. I managed to register it once I'd woken up - though competition was less than I'd otherwise expect because at the time you needed to have a Finnish identity-number to register Finnish domains. I suspect that is no longer true.

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#153

Post by ehsankia »

emmelaich wrote: post #95
packetslave wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, MarkMonitor is not going to have a good time on this one (they're the company Google, and a bunch of other high-profile companies) use for domain management and tracking. They're supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

It's not known whether Google or the AR NIC made the mistake.

If the expiration was in July, how could it possibly have been Google's mistake that it got sold months before it expired?

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#154

Post by girvo »

paxys wrote: post #151
masswerk wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be worth noting that in most countries a contract essentially is established by the consensus of wills by the parties involved. An error in objecto ("I didn't mean the thing I accidentally said or listed") is a legitimate excuse and nullifies a contract. (The consensus didn't exist and thus the contract had never been established in the first place). (This is also a reason why marketplaces, where things "just…

So many people think that the world runs algorithmically, like the code on their computer. Society is built upon interactions between real people. Everyone exercises a massive amount of judgement in whatever they do, for better or worse. And this is true for the legal system as well. Your "well technically I'm correct" arguments aren't going to work in front of a judge and jury the way they do on the internet.

This is one of the reasons I dislike the "literalist" judges and their "interpretations". It goes against what the law _is_, in my opinion.

Note: I have a law degree, but am not a lawyer

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#155

Post by ryandrake »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #147
codezero wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You selling your low value domain and asking for a refund is not the same as the owner of ua accidentally selling ua.com UA is likely a LARGE customer of the domain service you use and pay multiple thousands of dollars more for managed services and support than you do. They will get special treatment because it's in THEIR contract, just not yours. Try reaching out to them and ask what kind of contract you need to sig…

The law doesn’t care about the value of a contract, it’s enforceable or it’s not, and I don’t think you have the slightest clue how damaging it would be if I were to sue (again I never I would) and it to come out in discovery that the marketplace reversed the transaction I was the buyer and refused to reverse the transaction I was the seller because the seller the supported pays them more than I do and as a result re…

This example doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the law. If you’re a big and important customer, you get more leeway to make mistakes and get them reversed. If you are small potatoes you don’t get to reverse mistakes. Go rack up a $1000 phone bill by mistake and see how difficult it is to fight. Then, go be a Fortune 500 company and see how easy it is to get a mistaken corp phone bill fixed. It’s not fair but it’s reality.

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#156

Post by girvo »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #132
codezero wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't know that the person who listed it doesn't have a special MSA (service agreement) with their vendor that gives them premium support and or protections not offered to "normal" end-users, and you seem to believe there is some sort of clear black and white with how business may make decisions when there are incidents on their platforms. As a person who misses a lot of flights, I can tell you that they can alwa…

Sorry you miss your flights a lot, but if I may, imagine you showed up on time and: A) the plane was gone and they explained you bought a ticket with an error in the flight time; or b) they informed you they cancelled your ticket and your couldn’t fly because the price of your ticket had an error. Remember that recent viral video/news story of the Guy being dragged off a plane kicking and screaming because the airlin…

> imagine you showed up on time and: A) the plane was gone and they explained you bought a ticket with an error in the flight time; or b) they informed you they cancelled your ticket and your couldn’t fly because the price of your ticket had an error.

With respect: those two points _do_ happen? So I must be misunderstanding your overarching point with them

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#157

Post by codezero »

ryandrake wrote: post #155
throwaway_kufu wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law doesn’t care about the value of a contract, it’s enforceable or it’s not, and I don’t think you have the slightest clue how damaging it would be if I were to sue (again I never I would) and it to come out in discovery that the marketplace reversed the transaction I was the buyer and refused to reverse the transaction I was the seller because the seller the supported pays them more than I do and as a result re…

This example doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the law. If you’re a big and important customer, you get more leeway to make mistakes and get them reversed. If you are small potatoes you don’t get to reverse mistakes. Go rack up a $1000 phone bill by mistake and see how difficult it is to fight. Then, go be a Fortune 500 company and see how easy it is to get a mistaken corp phone bill fixed. It’s not fair but i…

I realized, and I might be wrong, but this person almost certainly accidentally sold their domain at a low price and wants a refund. The example about them buying ua may or may not have happened but the point is they are mad that they didn’t get special treatment and I think that’s their general grievance. A grievance I can understand and agree with, but for which we should admit there’s not much we can do about it, and deflecting to a megacorporation won’t make it right.

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#158

Post by masswerk »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #100
masswerk wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be worth noting that in most countries a contract essentially is established by the consensus of wills by the parties involved. An error in objecto ("I didn't mean the thing I accidentally said or listed") is a legitimate excuse and nullifies a contract. (The consensus didn't exist and thus the contract had never been established in the first place). (This is also a reason why marketplaces, where things "just…

It can be a defense in the US but not likely the case here, the remedy wouldn’t be specific performance (ie give me the domain) but damages for a fair market value of what I paid for, specific performance is very rare in the US. There would also be claims against the marketplace (despite their terms of service indemnifying them) other laws apply that can’t be waived under both federal and state law such as fair trade…

Yes, the US does handle this a bit differently. However, this is handled stricter in countries with a stronger tradition in Roman law. (E.g., "by breaking this seal you consent to the EULA found inside the box" is invalid in Europe, since there isn't really any object, which a consensus could be formed on, at the given time.) – And, of course, you would have do provide proof for having been in error, or the error has to be obvious beyond reasonable doubt. (In this very case, raising the minimum price for similar offerings immediately after the error was detected, may hint at not having intentionally offered this at an unreasonably low price at fractions of the market value.)

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#160

Post by paxys »

cube00 wrote: post #126
_acco wrote: post #75

Among other exploits, you could generate an SSL cert and harvest cookies. All visitors would have to do is load your site in their browser. Right?

Google is pretty good about pinning their certificates so it's unlikely this would work, especially in Chrome where it's locked down even further.

Certificate pinning has already been deprecated as a standard, and no browser supports it anymore. Google may be doing something else for their own properties on Chrome, but that is unlikely and definitely not widely known.

Edit: After a few minutes of internet searching it turns out that while HPKP is deprecated Google does statically pin a set of certs into the Chrome build itself, their own sites presumably included.

Post reply on HN