Slashdot Mirror
US Telco Fined $3 Million in Domain Renewal Blunder (bleepingcomputer.com)
Catalin Cimpanu, writing for BleepingComputer: Sorenson Communications, a Utah-based telecommunications provider, received a whopping $3 million fine from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last week for failing to renew a crucial domain name used by a part of the local 911 emergency service. The affected service was the Video Relay System (VRS), a video calling service that telecommunication firms must provide to deaf people and others people with vocal disabilities so they can make video calls to 911 services and use sign language to notify operators of an emergency or crime. According to the FCC, on June 6, Sorenson failed to notice that the domain name on which the VRS 911 service ran had expired, leading to the entire system collapsing shortly after. Utah residents with disabilities were unable to reach 911 operators for almost three days, the FCC discovered. Sorensen noticed its blunder and renewed the domain three days later, on June 8.
It wasn't an unintended screw up. They have a responsibility to keep the service running. Not only did they fail to renew the domain registration, they failed to notice that the system was down for three days. Gross negligence is deliberate.
"on June 6, Sorenson failed to notice... Sorensen noticed its blunder and renewed the domain three days later, on June 8."
Uh, want to try that arithmetic again?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Word up, go find sources that aren't so biased.
Back at you.
All of that was what for a city with a population of just under 400,000. She was making a point that what was getting thru was paltry compared to the need, and that further help was needed.
Her standing in front of the pallets of aid was EXACTLY what she should have done. She was being transparent about the magnitude of the crisis versus the magnitude of what was getting thru.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/puerto-rico-crisis/san-juan-s-mayor-pleads-trump-you-are-killing-us-n806116
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
At this level of incompetence, whether or not it was deliberate becomes irrelevant, because the party at fault had a legal duty to be aware of what was going on. The legal boilerplate for this situation is "defendant knew or should have known"
Why is there no standardization? why does every telco has its own names registered for services like these? It is like allowing each telco to setup its own emergency number instead of the standardized 911.
Why not a single name, the same everywhere, that the telco can then maintain in there local DNS, and there DNS only?
It is a critical emergency service, right? Then it is worth doing it properly.
A) You've confused registrants with registrars. It's the registrant, Sorenson Communications, that's being held liable here, not a registrar like Google, so your comparisons to Google's situation fall apart right from the get-go.
B) Companies that provide 911 service agree to certain legal obligations. Failure to uphold those obligations results in hefty fines because lives are literally at risk. Registrars like Google are under no such obligations to IANA.
C) Speaking of IANA, it, rather than the US government, is the organization with the authority you're talking about. The USG gave it away in 1998 to ICANN, which is a nonprofit organization in the private sector. As such, none of their authority has stemmed from the USG in nearly 20 years.
D) Barring its obligations to IANA—which again, do NOT derive from government authority—Google can set whatever terms they want. If an applicant doesn't like them, they can simply take their business elsewhere.
E) Google's terms—which The Daily Stormer agreed to—make it clear that they can cancel registrations at their discretion, such as if a site is being used for unlawful activities. The courts have repeatedly ruled that inciting violence—which is what The Daily Stormer is accused of—is an unlawful form of speech, akin to shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. It is neither protected speech nor a civil right. Guess what Google cited as the reason for cancelling the registration?
All of which is to say, I'm fine with people pointing out that Nazis have rights too, and I'll stand by you in defending them (regardless of my utter and complete distaste for what they say), but don't you dare suggest that private entities are obligated to assist them in spreading their message, particularly for speech that not even the US government itself is obligated to protect.
-NPR
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Compare and contrast the slaps on the wrist that BIG companies get. The EU's approach of basing fines on a percentage of international turnover gets the attention of the monopolies of Silicon Valley...
The subject of the thread still lists hosters (of services) in addition to registrars.
"Hosters" (which I think is your incorrect way of referring to hosts) aren't being held liable either, so whether we're talking about registrars or hosts makes no difference. You're still conflating businesses with their clients and your comparison still falls apart right from the get-go. Same as before.
Whatever it is ostensibly, the governance of the Internet is still very much controlled by the US government [...] Many of the root DNS-servers are US-owned...
None of which matters to what you were claiming.
You were trying to argue that Google is obligated to uphold a higher standard because it derives its authority from the USG. That argument only holds water if the USG has "authority over the Internet" like you said it did. When I pointed out that you were incorrect about it having that legal authority (i.e. de jure control), you switched to arguing that the USG has de facto control of the Internet, but having de facto control is not the same as having authority you can delegate. As such, no, Google is not under any obligation of the sort you're suggesting.
Put differently, your current argument boils down to "Because the USG owns some infrastructure, Google is obligated to allow anything the USG allows". It's a non-sequitur. It's like arguing that because the USG owns a lot of land, I'm obligated to allow protesters on my private property. That's not how it works. It's a nonsensical argument, but you're so lost in the weeds that you don't even realize how irrational it is.
Likewise, your argument that they are government-like holds no water, since government-like != government. Everything from Facebook to Sam's Club to my local library requires that I register before I use their service. That doesn't make them government-like, and even if it did, that still wouldn't matter.
You aren't offering any citations
I didn't realize I needed to cite the link that you provided. I figured you read your own link and would recognize that's where I pulled most of my information.
how is mere accusation of inciting violence sufficient [...]?
Irrelevant question. We're talking about a private company cancelling the service of a customer who broke rules that the customer agreed to. Simple as that. And to answer your later question, of course I have no problem with a private service provider terminating the service of a customer who broke the terms of service that the customer freely agreed to. Why do you? Do you think civil liberties are being trampled upon every time a message board bans a user who violates their rules?
Notary Publics are private too
No, notary publics aren't private, actually. They're public officers appointed by the government. You're correct that they (in most cases) can choose whom they serve, but they are legally bound to act in their capacity as a public officer whenever they do serve.
and for 3 days of non service for this one thing the fine is pretty high for a company their size. Of course they could have grown more but not with the way the FCC was scaling back..
Also, with most of their devel app guys I'm surprised it only took them 3 days to realize and fix it. "What do you mean you're having performance issues on the server, it worked fine on my laptop"
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
You are hairsplitting.
If you’re making an argument that Google derives its authority from the USG, it’s not hairsplitting to point out that the USG doesn’t have that authority to delegate in the first place.
Are you really comfortable with domain-registrars being in a position to decide, who gets to speak?
Nope, but I recognize that what I’m comfortable with is thankfully not the basis for law in this country. You’d do well to realize the same.
I'd like you to confirm or deny this stance...
You set up a false dichotomy, so I won’t be taking either of your canned responses, but I will answer the underlying questions.
1) If a domain registrar has a policy against inciting violence, I believe it should be applied consistently, though I recognize that they may not have a legal obligation to do so. If a registrar has no such policy, they should not be forced to adopt one.
2) I didn’t even know what Antifa was until you linked me (I had heard of them, but I find I’m happier when I stay out of the day-to-day political news, so I honestly thought it was some sort of Islamic group in the US), but from the sound of things, they’re way off-base too.
had you really been as adamant about free speech as you claim to be, you would've been outraged about Google playing the lawmaker, the prosecution, and the judge all at once and applying their own "laws" so capriciously.
No, because I believe that our rights become less meaningful to us when we confuse them with privileges. Using private services is a privilege, not a right. You’re not entitled to use their service according to your own terms, so if you don’t like their terms, don’t agree to them. Instead, vote with your wallet and go elsewhere, same as any other business. Likewise, recognize that if you sign up for an account with them, you’re bound by their policies. And if you think I like Google, think again. I migrated away from Google products years ago after finding their policies abhorrent.
That said, I only start to become concerned about this sort of stuff when regional or national monopolies mean that there are no alternatives, since that’s when the government may need to get involved in a regulatory fashion.
Yes, they are — they are private in the sense they are offering their services on the free market, free to refuse any customer and/or charge whatever they please. But, once they certify a signature, they can not revoke the certification simply because they don't like the customer.
No, they aren’t. Participating in the free market doesn’t mean you’re private. Unlike Google, they’re appointed by the government, receive their authority from the government, and have to play within special rules set by the government. That makes them public. They aren’t allowed to revoke their seals because doing so is beyond their authority as a public officer.
Then so — de facto — are the registrars. Their function is purely to register a domain-name.
Again, no. That they serve a (questionably) similar purpose has no bearing on if they’re public or private. That they aren’t government owned means they’re private, and as a private entity operating under the authority granted to them by another private entity, they get to set whatever rules they want, including cancelling an account at their sole discretion. You may not like it, but that doesn’t change that they are allowed to do so.
The designer and their managers who allowed a critical emergency service to be dependent on an internet domain registration should be jailed for gross negligence.
When failure of a service would mean lives are at risk DO NOT make that service dependent upon resources from 3rd parties that can be terminated at will or that are subject to natural disruptions with no consequences for the 3rd parties (Or agreement with them that the services are used for functions critical to life).
A DNS domain registration can be terminated or suspended at will at the decision of a domain registrar or registry for any number of potential reasons
(although it is rare; a domain can even be terminated by mistake or hijacked by a malicious adversary in some cases), or DNS servers connected to the internet can be nuked by evil folks in a DDoS attack, or temporarily suspended by various service providers for network maintenance; Or various situations on the internet under 3rd party control and no SLA can cause temporary outages of access to the DNS.
In other words, you want government control over private enterprise, and you don't believe in contracts. Either that, or you're just a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes