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

Never buy a .online domain

0xsid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 513 posts

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#471

Post by 63stack »

akoboldfrying wrote: post #422
MereInterest wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh man. The infinite loops of impossible verification by large companies that should know better are massive pain peeve of mine. I got hit by this from google. 1. Gmail added requirement for 2FA on my primary email address. Since I had no phone number on file, it instead used my recovery email address. Thankfully, I still had the password for my recovery email address, and could continue to (2). 2. Gmail added requ…

> Fundamentally, this was google's fault for misusing a recovery email for 2FA. While this would absolutely suck and I sympathise with anyone getting hit by this out of the blue, it's pretty clearly your fault, not Google's. What should they have done? Just permit everyone to avoid upgrading to 2FA indefinitely? That would result in relatively more account hacks overall, for which they would inevitably be roasted in…

I doubt anyone would blame google for not forcibly enabling 2fa.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#472

Post by greatgib »

halapro wrote: post #445
greatgib wrote: post #409

> Not adding the domain to Google Search Console immediately. I don't need their analytics and wasn't really planning on having any content on the domain, so I thought, why bother? Big, big mistake. That should be enough to trigger an antitrust case against Google and a split of its activities. When despite unrelated, it becomes the gatekeeper of your presence in internet.

A registrar using Google's signal to deactivate your service isn't Google's fault. Safe Browsing itself has an appeal process so I think legally they're covered. Users and governments surely appreciate someone filtering bad actors online, even if casualties don't.

It is the moment like that where it looks obvious for third parties to use it and only it to vet customers. To the point where you are forced to deal with Google because parties "can't do anything about it".

The moment that 80%+ users go to internet through their browser but at the same time control which we site can be accessed with their safe list.

The moment that you need to create an account and start using their services and accept their terms and conditions to be removed from wrongfully added "list" impacting someone.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#473

Post by otterley »

rtsam wrote: post #428
otterley wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not the same in the U.S. (And, to be honest, I'm quite doubtful this is true in Canada, though I could be persuaded through legal citations that it is.)

"Under the Criminal Code of Canada (Section 21), you can be charged as a "party" to an offence if you were involved in planning, "encouraging", or aiding in its commission" Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) "21(1) Parties to Offence: Anyone who actually commits the offense, aids in committing it, or abets (encourages) someone in committing it is a party to the offense." I work in a law firm but NAL. I could proba…

Whom are you quoting here? Looks a lot like LLM slop.

I’m not sure you got the law right. “Abetting” does not mean encouragement. And the code itself does not have “(encourages)” in parentheses in it. The text of the code is right here: https://www.statutes.ca/r-s-c-1985-c-c-46/21

Since you work in a law firm, maybe you should ask your colleagues.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#474

Post by otterley »

donmcronald wrote: post #415
otterley wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now, any damages are completely speculative at this point. I would suspect in this case, the damages are minimal, and taken in the broader context, the good outweighs the harm. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

The good outweighs the harm until it happens to you. The problem is that even if the failure rate is low, the failure can be catastrophic for the people suffering from it. I use Ubiquiti as an example for an update they pushed to their UniFi systems a long time ago (5+ years). Some people were configuring their devices to use an https URL to connect to a management console when it was supposed to be http. Before the…

“Ruined your life” sounds a little overdramatic when there are people being falsely accused and convicted of crimes and being thrown in jail for life (or worse).

I don’t mean to say your experience isn’t real and that you didn’t suffer some inconveniences. But come on, have some perspective.

And what did you do to get put on that blacklist, anyway?

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#475

Post by otterley »

pocksuppet wrote: post #395
otterley wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s nothing wrong with your dislike of Google. No matter how much you dislike them, though, the word “libel” has a meaning that should be respected. To opine that a site is unsafe is simply not libelous.

It's libelous in Germany unless you can prove it's true. In fact people regularly get punished in Germany for things like calling politicians idiots, because they can't prove they are idiots. https://www.ft.com/content/27626fa8-3379-4b69-891d-379401675...

The article headline says “investigated,” not “punished.”

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#476

Post by rtsam »

otterley wrote: post #473
rtsam wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Under the Criminal Code of Canada (Section 21), you can be charged as a "party" to an offence if you were involved in planning, "encouraging", or aiding in its commission" Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) "21(1) Parties to Offence: Anyone who actually commits the offense, aids in committing it, or abets (encourages) someone in committing it is a party to the offense." I work in a law firm but NAL. I could proba…

Whom are you quoting here? Looks a lot like LLM slop. I’m not sure you got the law right. “Abetting” does not mean encouragement. And the code itself does not have “(encourages)” in parentheses in it. The text of the code is right here: https://www.statutes.ca/r-s-c-1985-c-c-46/21 Since you work in a law firm, maybe you should ask your colleagues.

I added the quotes, it clearly was not taken directly word for word and it was written in plain English for clarity.

Perhaps spend less time picking apart comments and trolling on the internet if you do not know the definitions of words?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abet

1 : to actively second and encourage (something, such as an activity or plan) abet the commission of a crime 2 : to assist or support (someone) in the achievement of a purpose The singer was abetted by a skillful accompanist. especially : to assist, encourage, instigate, or support with criminal intent in attempting or carrying out a crime —often used in the phrase aid and abet accused of aiding and abetting a criminal

abet implies both assisting and encouraging.

And further,

https://nprobinson.com/blog/parties-to-an-offence-in-crimina...

Who Is Considered a Party to an Offence? Under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code, you may be considered a party to an offence if you:

Section 21(1)(a) Committed the crime yourself (the principal); Section 21(1)(b) Assisted someone else in committing it (aided); Section 21(1)(c) Encouraged or promoted its commission (abetted).

I won't put quotes around the words this time.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#477

Post by otterley »

rtsam wrote: post #476
otterley wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whom are you quoting here? Looks a lot like LLM slop. I’m not sure you got the law right. “Abetting” does not mean encouragement. And the code itself does not have “(encourages)” in parentheses in it. The text of the code is right here: https://www.statutes.ca/r-s-c-1985-c-c-46/21 Since you work in a law firm, maybe you should ask your colleagues.

I added the quotes, it clearly was not taken directly word for word and it was written in plain English for clarity. Perhaps spend less time picking apart comments and trolling on the internet if you do not know the definitions of words? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abet 1 : to actively second and encourage (something, such as an activity or plan) abet the commission of a crime 2 : to assist or support…

> I added the quotes, it clearly was not taken directly word for word and it was written in plain English for clarity.

You mean you had an LLM write it. This is the second time you’ve done that in this conversation. Please stop. It’s giving you incorrect or misleading information. Bona fide lawyers are finding themselves subject to disciplinary action for relying on LLMs, which have been found to falsify law and cases: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-appeals-court-or...

Please, I beg you, go talk to your colleagues instead of armchair lawyering here. The law does not always adhere to dictionary definitions. It has been interpreted over the centuries and courts follow those interpretations. Besides, “Encourages” is a different word than “abets,” and merely offering support in the verbal or spiritual sense is very unlikely to lead to prosecution and conviction. If you can find a single case in Canada where this has happened, show us the proof.

I’m not “trolling,” I am a lawyer myself with 3 years of formal training, a Bar license, and decades of continuing education.

If you give me the number of your law firm, I will gladly call them myself.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#479

Post by pocksuppet »

otterley wrote: post #475
pocksuppet wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's libelous in Germany unless you can prove it's true. In fact people regularly get punished in Germany for things like calling politicians idiots, because they can't prove they are idiots. https://www.ft.com/content/27626fa8-3379-4b69-891d-379401675...

The article headline says “investigated,” not “punished.”

The investigation consisted of the police busting into their house and stealing all of their electronic devices, which is a punishment.

Re: Never buy a .online domain

#480

Post by red-iron-pine »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #215
delecti wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried sending them emails asking/telling them to stop?

That may be what they're hoping for, using a similar modus operandi as those WhatsApp/IM messages from strangers who text you with things in the vein of ‘Hey, it was great meeting you at the conference’ or ‘Did Martha like your flowers?’ etc. They may well be looking for targets.

yeah this was my thinking, too

great way to phish people without looking like a malicious, obvious actor

instead they look like idiots or rubes and you get a little too curious, and in ways that might be considered malicious (and potentially illegal).

Post reply on HN