As an Innovation, it's right up there with Hijacking, Computer Viruses and Identity Theft.
In Internet Explorer, I don't like the "search from address bar". I don't want MSN to review every URL mistake I make. So I turn it off! I also have the option to change search engine, I think. Address bar search is on by default and it invokes MSN by default. I guess the developer of the Greatest Web Browser in the World, the People's Choice, deserves that perk. I'm not screaming murder about it because I can turn off "search from address bar" on every computer I use. (Though I feel bad about the exploitation of the simple users who trust the address-bar search to help them, even as it exploits them.)
But HOW DO I TURN OFF SITE FINDER? I can't turn it off. That is why I find SiteFinder BEYOND UNACCEPTABLE. Verisign has made itself the enemy. I will block and oppose SiteFinder every way I can, and so will everyone else. On my firewalls I will block their IP addresses. The more traffic I block from accessing this unfair fraudulent contract-breaching SiteFinder, the better. The SiteFinder Innovation is so well-loved that ISPs blocked it. They know it's wrong.
It's bad enough that Verisign always sees every errant domain name that gets passed to DNS lookup. With SiteFinder they get to see the entire URL as well. (Bad requests for.html.htm.asp etc. brought up the SiteFinder. Bad requests for.jpg.jpeg.gif etc. got back 404 pages, from domains that don't exist.)
By what right does Verisign's paid advertising server get traffic from every unregistered domain? Why Verisign? Why not somewhere else? Verisign has the ability to grab that traffic. Very sad that they chose to do it. It was a power play, a money grab pure and simple. Verisign manages a database. That is their job. If there is to be some kind of helper for resolving errant domain names, it should be agreed upon IN ADVANCE. It should have fairness or equal access or nearly-equal access. (Not so clear how to do that. A browser configuration is the only precedent. (And that product placement was Grabbed as well...))
SiteFinder is really just typo-squatting in the extreme. Effectively Verisign bulk-registered 36^20= 1.3*10^31 names to themselves. At $6 a year, who gets the 8.0*10^31 DOLLARS for these registrations? I guess Verisign could just write themselves a check for $80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 every year. Then there would zero domain names available -- Verisign could then ration out domain names any way they see fit -- they can auction each name to the highest bidder. A whole new kind of scalping -- since, after all, they OWN the database.
Everyone who owns a website has an objection to SiteFinder. Verisign is squatting on EVERY un-registered variation of EVERY domain name. So the Verisign typo-squatting encourages companies to try to register all their typos to prevent Site Finder bypasses -- more direct money for Verisign.
Domain names are an addressing scheme. SiteFinder is an abuse of that scheme. Everyone who understands what Verisign has done (us vocal minority) knows that SiteFinder is a violation of a trust.
McLaughlin sidesteps all of the real issues and raises a smokescreen of non-issues. I'm not opposing innovation. I'm not opposing commercial use of the Internet. Verisign has no right to do what they did. Their Innovation inspires ISPs to innovate ways of blocking it out. Verisign's ability to impose itself does not give it the right to impose. DNS is a monopoly and also the foundation of the WWW. SiteFinder was always possible. If implemented it is a new monopoly. Don't confuse Amazon's success, due to millions of people typing in A-M-A-Z-O-N one letter at a time and clicking links that uniquely address that corner of the WWW, with the imposed monopoly of SiteFinder. No one will ever type in SiteFinder or ever
You have definitely another Great Idea for a Helpful New Service, according to Verisign's logic.
The phone company, for example Verizon, OWNS all of the phone numbers in all of its area codes, right? So naturally Verizon has the right to answer every single wrong-number call! Never again will Inexperienced Users get that awful "dead end" error message telling them that they dialed a number that is "not in service". You'll have the "benefit" that every phone number will be "in service"!! You'll always get through, even if you don't want to. You'll have no way of turning it off -- why would you want to? FCC approval - why even ask? Verizon owns the circuits. Every phone number answers with a recorded announcement, or even a "Hello" and tries to "help" you, by trying to guess who you might have wanted to call, or who among their competition you might want to call. Think of all the business they could get. They could quickly rise to number one in plumbing, illegal drug dealing, any business they want to enter.
The Post Office could get in on this approach too. The Post Office OWNS every postal address, right? So any mail that is addressed to an "unregistered" postal address, is thus really addressed to the Post Office. So, they can open it and do with it anything they want. They can sort it by categories and sell it to the highest bidder. Why get a boring returned letter "undeliverable as addressed", when instead you can get "help" from a competitor of the company you wanted to reach, a psychiatrist or psychic or psychopath to help you with your relationships, or a subscription offer related to the content of your letter! They'd laugh at UPS and FedEx for not offering similar "services". And naturally they'd make fun of a "vocal minority" who companied about the free service.
Think of the money they could raise with these "services" and just how much we'd all appreciate it!
Domain names are an addressing scheme. SiteFinder is an abuse of that scheme. Everyone who understands what Verizon has done (us vocal minority) knows that SiteFinder is a violation of a trust.
Slashdot Mirror
In Internet Explorer, I don't like the "search from address bar". I don't want MSN to review every URL mistake I make. So I turn it off! I also have the option to change search engine, I think. Address bar search is on by default and it invokes MSN by default. I guess the developer of the Greatest Web Browser in the World, the People's Choice, deserves that perk. I'm not screaming murder about it because I can turn off "search from address bar" on every computer I use. (Though I feel bad about the exploitation of the simple users who trust the address-bar search to help them, even as it exploits them.)
But HOW DO I TURN OFF SITE FINDER? I can't turn it off. That is why I find SiteFinder BEYOND UNACCEPTABLE. Verisign has made itself the enemy. I will block and oppose SiteFinder every way I can, and so will everyone else. On my firewalls I will block their IP addresses. The more traffic I block from accessing this unfair fraudulent contract-breaching SiteFinder, the better. The SiteFinder Innovation is so well-loved that ISPs blocked it. They know it's wrong.
It's bad enough that Verisign always sees every errant domain name that gets passed to DNS lookup. With SiteFinder they get to see the entire URL as well. (Bad requests for .html .htm .asp etc. brought up the SiteFinder. Bad requests for .jpg .jpeg .gif etc. got back 404 pages, from domains that don't exist.)
By what right does Verisign's paid advertising server get traffic from every unregistered domain? Why Verisign? Why not somewhere else? Verisign has the ability to grab that traffic. Very sad that they chose to do it. It was a power play, a money grab pure and simple. Verisign manages a database. That is their job. If there is to be some kind of helper for resolving errant domain names, it should be agreed upon IN ADVANCE. It should have fairness or equal access or nearly-equal access. (Not so clear how to do that. A browser configuration is the only precedent. (And that product placement was Grabbed as well...))
SiteFinder is really just typo-squatting in the extreme. Effectively Verisign bulk-registered 36^20= 1.3*10^31 names to themselves. At $6 a year, who gets the 8.0*10^31 DOLLARS for these registrations? I guess Verisign could just write themselves a check for $80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 every year. Then there would zero domain names available -- Verisign could then ration out domain names any way they see fit -- they can auction each name to the highest bidder. A whole new kind of scalping -- since, after all, they OWN the database.
Everyone who owns a website has an objection to SiteFinder. Verisign is squatting on EVERY un-registered variation of EVERY domain name. So the Verisign typo-squatting encourages companies to try to register all their typos to prevent Site Finder bypasses -- more direct money for Verisign.
Domain names are an addressing scheme. SiteFinder is an abuse of that scheme. Everyone who understands what Verisign has done (us vocal minority) knows that SiteFinder is a violation of a trust.
McLaughlin sidesteps all of the real issues and raises a smokescreen of non-issues. I'm not opposing innovation. I'm not opposing commercial use of the Internet. Verisign has no right to do what they did. Their Innovation inspires ISPs to innovate ways of blocking it out. Verisign's ability to impose itself does not give it the right to impose. DNS is a monopoly and also the foundation of the WWW. SiteFinder was always possible. If implemented it is a new monopoly. Don't confuse Amazon's success, due to millions of people typing in A-M-A-Z-O-N one letter at a time and clicking links that uniquely address that corner of the WWW, with the imposed monopoly of SiteFinder. No one will ever type in SiteFinder or ever
You have definitely another Great Idea for a Helpful New Service, according to Verisign's logic.
The phone company, for example Verizon, OWNS all of the phone numbers in all of its area codes, right? So naturally Verizon has the right to answer every single wrong-number call! Never again will Inexperienced Users get that awful "dead end" error message telling them that they dialed a number that is "not in service". You'll have the "benefit" that every phone number will be "in service"!! You'll always get through, even if you don't want to. You'll have no way of turning it off -- why would you want to? FCC approval - why even ask? Verizon owns the circuits. Every phone number answers with a recorded announcement, or even a "Hello" and tries to "help" you, by trying to guess who you might have wanted to call, or who among their competition you might want to call. Think of all the business they could get. They could quickly rise to number one in plumbing, illegal drug dealing, any business they want to enter.
The Post Office could get in on this approach too. The Post Office OWNS every postal address, right? So any mail that is addressed to an "unregistered" postal address, is thus really addressed to the Post Office. So, they can open it and do with it anything they want. They can sort it by categories and sell it to the highest bidder. Why get a boring returned letter "undeliverable as addressed", when instead you can get "help" from a competitor of the company you wanted to reach, a psychiatrist or psychic or psychopath to help you with your relationships, or a subscription offer related to the content of your letter! They'd laugh at UPS and FedEx for not offering similar "services". And naturally they'd make fun of a "vocal minority" who companied about the free service.
Think of the money they could raise with these "services" and just how much we'd all appreciate it!
Domain names are an addressing scheme. SiteFinder is an abuse of that scheme. Everyone who understands what Verizon has done (us vocal minority) knows that SiteFinder is a violation of a trust.