[wildcard-comments] Sitefinder & Verisigns Methodology
To whom it may concern, I am deeply disturbed at the actions taken by VeriSign over the last few weeks, as are many other people throughout the world. Mr.. Sclavos said that the larger you are the more responsible you need to be; is he exempt? Why the hell is he trying to makes things worse? Surely at least someone in that organization has said "Don't you think the ads and commercialization of this 'public' domain is bad enough?" and then WHO say "No, lets make it worse!" Seriously, with slime ball's like Gator Corp. installing spyware left right and centre, and forcing 75 browser window's to appear when you try to Google some pr0n, and Microsoft who releases untested products with umpteen security patches a week; can it get much worse? I can remember the internet 10-15 years ago - it was MUCH better then. Come on, Stratton's not in that job because he's stupid, he knows how bad this is, that is why he gave NO ONE warning and is now getting angry the world is rejecting him; because he knows how much $ this can make him, and he's pissed its offline!!!. It's HUMAN NATURE. He is doing this for one reason, and for one reason alone. MONEY, just like every corporation in money-hungry-America. Now every time someone's pinky finger slips and they stupidly click on a SiteFinder link he makes MORE money? And if that isn't enough he wants to take the root servers away from the volunteers that currently operate and maintain them? He obviously doesn't give a rat's ass about the network he plans to pillage and plunder to buy his next mansion. At least he'll solve the SiteFinder problem when he manages to destroy the internet by allowing money greedy business' to get their mitts on it and ultimately destroy it. Then the geeks who all said "This is bad, don't do it!!!" will be called to build a new internet. But this time, with hindsight being 20/20, they'd build it without Verisign. Do you favour entropy? You maintain the biggest root server around - and you are showing us exactly WHY organizations like yours or any commercial entity should NOT be given the power you have. You were given a task to maintain the .com/.net TLD and instead you are trying to squeeze every last penny you can out of it. Thus far, the internet as a whole has been reliable, with few incidents (Windoze being one of them). There are inherent security holes in everything, nothing is 100% secure (Windoze comes to mind here also.), and you are using this as fear-leverage to convince the non-technical that this is a good thing. They don't understand that your wild cards will also mess with every other service in the void!!! You are using your position to manipulate the .com/.net TLD's at the heart of the source to ensure income to line your pockets a little more. Your new wildcard service will force software companies to re-write applications and cost MILLIONS to fix the services that have been running just fine until you pulled this stunt. Not to mention It's an invasion of our privacy and it must be stopped permanently. Wonder what the government and military think about Verisign having access to information about what they do online??? I truly hope someone out there stops you from what you plan to do. There must be some legal basis that can halt your plans. You do NOT own the internet, you are there to help protect it. You claim SiteFinder is a service - but I've never heard of a service that I *CANNOT* shut off - you are forcing this on MILLIONS of people. What gives you the right? Why don't you give people the option to modify their systems to use SiteFinder over a 404 (even Microsoft does!)? Oh right!!! Because that wouldn't be as lucrative would it? A legal note; couldn't other companies that are forced to use local software modification to accommodate the exact same process use the basis that Verisign is using one of it's entrusted responsibilities to gain an unfair advantage; and are being negligent by exploiting the object they have been contractually obligated to protect. It would be like me asking a friend to watch my dog while I went on vacation. Only to discover that he had enrolled my dog in a dog-fight while I was absent. Would I have legal grounds to sue if I didn't explicitly tell him NOT to enter my dog in this fight? What if he disguised his actions as a "service" for the greater good of the dog-fighting community - what would I have then? What if he said he thought he would just enter the dog into the fight, without warning/asking me, and see if the dog gets hurt? How about now? How does it go again, oh yes... "We are the borg. Resistance is futile. You will adapt to service us!" I applaud ICANN for taking a firm stance on halting the SiteFinder virus and I hope ICANN has the sense to forbid Verisign from ever turning it on again. Once that is done, it appears some new policy's and regulations need to be established, to pre-emptively stop further such exploitations with such blatant disregard for the consequences. Perhaps the ICANN needs to cancel your contract and remove your access to the root server - I'm sure there's a CompSci student that can maintain the system just as adequately without raping it like you intend to. Just because you can, doesn't always mean you should. Jiggs
_________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail |