FSC Says: DirectNic Violating Privacy Laws, Requests Are Illegal
 

Excellent reporting here by Steve Javors:

http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=18587

That's good news. :)

of course all ex-oprano ass kissers are gonna skip this fact.

What info are they requesting?

i thought they were stand up guys?

FSC has never lied to us either.

FSC Says DirectNic are not the Internets Police:

really? for the first time, a legal analysis was offered explaining the liability issues. if DirectNIC was wrong... then they are wrong. Just because a band of idiots that didn't like something got together to express thier displeasure without addressing the relevant facts, doesn't mean they were right at that moment either.

Best said here:

Well said!! :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

Got to draw the drama out. The charity sig work is slow this month.

Jesus that was fast

Didn't take much genius to see that they were overstepping thier bounds in the first place. The problem is that people like us HAVE to band together to keep people like YOU from running everybody else over with your own holier than thou brand of 'officious, meddling' morality. And we shouldn't have to.

ya keep pushing the beast.

Soon enough youre gonna wish it was still up to the registars

Don't be an idiot, his charity work isn't an issue to this discussion.

the FCS is not really doing a good job here.....

Im always an idiot.

always make sure people think they need you to save their ass...

I see it is working great for you.

thanks to the boyalleys of the past, looks where we are now :Oh crap

people like me?? you are absolutely, completely and totally out of your fucking mind. i dont give a fuck about anyones site content. i really don't. i never said i did. the issue was about the law and what people kept referring to as "their rights" and what "rights" they do or dont have. it all boils down to very simple legal questions that were never answered until right now.

Can you get that through your thick fucking head?

but then again... what could we expect from a poly-sci major from Berkley whos simplistic world view has broken everything down into black and white... "white" being "liberal democrat" and "black" being "evil conservatives"

jesus christ. you need to get out of the fucking compound more.

i like you in a non-gay way and it totally pisses me off.

dont it make you feel right at home ?? :Graucho

What I find funny, is that in their attempt at avoiding liability, they stepped right into it. :1orglaugh

Dont mind me. Im imploding.

yeah and while they are doing that they are also trying to protect the ones that actually don't run a honest business

Julius, you are on GFY, not Oprano. :1orglaugh

Your a top notch guy... bring me a drink will you?

Sorry, is that the mating call of the Loser I'm hearing?

As has already been pointed out...common sense played hugely in understanding the issues going on.

Just be a man, and say..."I'm sorry BoyAlley, I was wrong, you were right."

No its your leasing agent.

With, or without umbrella??:drinkup

this policy would only make me use directnic more.. i have ZERO problem with it.

No idea what you are talking about, I don't lease a car or home.

Have you found a car you can fit into yet?

Ooops, almost missed this, sorry bout that.

The nice thing about what was Oprano was that facts never got skipped, if people were wrong, they ponied on up and said "I was wrong".

In this case, I don't happen to agree with the FSC lawyer and I have a lawyer friend of mine checking things out to give me his opinion before I pony up. If Jim agrees with the FSC, then I will say I was wrong, but so far he is telling me that DN can ask for anything they fucking please and are not in violation of the law by doing so. Whether Slick has to comply is another story alltogether.


.

yeah people like you. EVERY time an issue comes up regarding someone's "rights" - your quote, and isn't that telling - you're on the bandwagon, pounding the drums, being as LOUD as you possibly fucking can about how stupid we are for thinking we as individuals even have any "rights". You're basically an evil person, and someone needs to make sure you know this. You're the bad guy. You're the bookburner, the brownshirt, the censor, the bigot. Everything I hate.

Now fuck off.

Plus we can take Mr. Douglas's comments and put it with the "no 2257 inspections" protection that FSC promised and file it under "good intentions".

Mr Douglas does not address the ToS from Directnic, the terms under which the domain was leased. The only ones who can determine Directnic's liability in the issue would be in a court of law, and any action does to mitigate that liability would work in their favor at a future point.

Mr Douglas may be correct, but it isn't his business and his personal pocketbook on the line. If he was working for Directnic, was licensed to practice law in that state, and was privy to the information that Directnic is faced with, I suspect his opinion might be somewhat different.

Im looking at a Camero in Charlotte. I have a great idea for a custom tag for it.

Thanks for asking!

Why? its not an issue of common sense. its a simple issue of the policy of a private company, where those policies are within the law and whether or not their request and action was a lawful request/action.

has nothing at all to do with common sense.

supporting it or not supporting it might. but the question was never "do you agree with this". i dont think anyone in their right mind would agree that a registrar should be able to lock your domain for any reason that is not related to its transfer and any issue that might arise during transfer.

in that respect, of course i agree with BoyAlley. but "rights" and "legal" and "illegal" are not subjective ideas. they are codified in law.