ICANN Can't Find Evidence Of Domain Front Running

from the still-looking... dept

There have been plenty of stories over the years of domain name registrars "front running" domain names, whereby they take domains that people do a search on, and then register themselves, hoping to sell it to the person who searched later for a higher price. Network Solutions, for example, was accused of this practice, though it insisted that it was only "protecting" the domain from others who might snatch it. ICANN was eventually sued for letting this happen. It appears that ICANN also hired Ben Edelman to look into the problem, and his research has apparently turned up no evidence of such domain front-running anywhere. He notes that this doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but he tested it all over and was unable to find it happening. Considering the vast number of reports and complaints about it happening in the past, does this mean that registrars have cleaned up? Or did Edelman miss something?

Filed Under: ben edelman, domain front running, domains
Companies: icann

Is Google Liable For Typosquatting Domains That Use AdSense?

from the seems-like-a-stretch dept

While I have tremendous respect for the ongoing work that Ben Edelman has done over the years exposing many of the dirty tricks used by spyware and adware vendors, I tend to disagree with his view on trademark law. In the past, Edelman sided with websites that sued early spyware vendors for putting up competing pop up ads, but that was missing the point. The real problem there was the fact that spyware was surreptitiously installed. If people wanted to see competitive ads, that should be their choice, and not a trademark issue. There's nothing wrong with competitors trying to get your attention if they know you're looking for a competitor's product. That's not a trademark law, so long as there's no attempt to confuse users into thinking that one product was made by someone else.

Edelman, however, disagrees. And, now, he's actually suing Google for allowing AdSense ads to be placed on "typosquatter" domains. This lawsuit seems like a longshot. As has been seen in numerous lawsuits over AdSense and trademarks, suing Google is trying to put liability on the wrong party. You could potentially sue the owner of the domain, but even that seems like a stretch. It's unlikely that anyone arriving at the typosquatted domain will be "confused" into believing they're at the correct site. They'll either quickly retype the URL properly, or they'll click on a link on the site that takes them to the proper site. There's no actual "confusion" here and it's difficult to see how there's any consumer harm. The fact that Google makes money off the practice shouldn't be seen as illegal at all.

Filed Under: ben edelman, lawsuits, trademark, typosquatting

On Top Of Spying On Its Users, Sears Reveals Your Shopping Data To Anyone Who Wants It

from the well,-that's-useful dept

Weren't we just discussing the idea of criminal liability for egregious security problems with data? And... weren't we also just discussing Sears' offering to install spyware on your computer without much notice and all in the name of community? Well, let's combine those two stories. Ben Edelman has been doing some more digging on the Sears website and discovered a rather massive security hole allowing you to look up the purchases at Sears of just about anyone so long as you know their name, address and telephone number. As Edelman notes, this appears to be in direct violation of Sears' own privacy policy (and, well, common sense, but that's a different story...). So, now, Sears.com is spying on users without making it all that clear and revealing all customer purchase data with poorly implemented security. It's not a particularly comforting picture.

Filed Under: ben edelman, privacy, security, shopping data
Companies: sears