Uh, No-IP has a pool of domains which are specifically for paying customers only (which were unaffected, as malware isn't hosted off the paid domains). Why were you not using one of those instead of the free pool?

Actually, they don't. Malware authors use No-IP because all you need to sign up is an email. Registering a domain with Godaddy, Enom, NetSol, etc requires you to hand over to that company your name, address, phone number, credit card details... hardly anonymous. The problem with No-IP is it's anonymous, so malware authors use it.

Why? AWS hosts far more malicious stuff than Azure does (probably because AWS has a free tier, and Azure does not).

Their corporate domains (no-ip.com and noip.com) were not seized. Their NS records still point to ns1.no-ip.com etc.

http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com...

There you go, the evidence Microsoft presented.

That probably should have been linked in the article.

Oh. Wait. Slashdot.

Those aren't the domains Microsoft seized. APK merely listed No-IPs ccTLDs, which is wrong. Microsoft seized all the domains associated with all the No-IP subdomains listed in http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com... - all the documentation can be read at http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com....

Uh no, because Microsoft's security team don't give a shit about copyright infringement. That's another division's problem. I don't think you understand how big companies actually work. Hint: very dysfunctionally.

Of course, you'd never believe that, because your vision is too clouded by your blind hatred of Microsoft.

We grant them that immunity simply because it's the only way to ensure their impartiality and unbiasedness. You start making them liable (beyond what can already happen should they be found to be perverting the course of justice, an actual criminal offense) and you eliminate that impartiality. That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

How is it damaging their business? No-IPs paying customers are unaffected, because they use their own domain names with the No-IP infrastructure, and only the free domains were seized.

And if you actually read the notice of the lawsuit (which is publicly posted) you can see that Microsoft were actually quite explicit in the fact that they mean in 93% of cases where this malware was present, No-IP domains are used. They also point to Youtube videos where malware/RAT authors say "get a No-IP domain" (which No-IP has done nothing about, despite the fact that they should be very loudly decrying criminals pointing to their service). They also point to Cisco/OpenDNS/Symantec and others making the same complaints about No-IP for years and nothing being done.

No, it's pretty damn hard to fault Microsoft for their actions in this.

What business? No-IP's paying customers are unaffected, as they use their own domain names on No-IP's platform. Microsoft only had No-IP's free dynamic DNS domains handed over.

Which by the sound of what dnavid said, would require a constitutional amendment to achieve. Those are pretty rare, are they not?

Do you actually know how chemotherapy works? It doesn't "bombard the human body with radiation". The accelerator is calibrated and targeted to fire a very specific amount of radiation directly at an area only slightly larger than the tumour. Because cells are at their weakest during division, and cancer cells divide at an exponentially higher rate than regular cells, they are far more vulnerable than the healthy non-tumour area around them. Which means the healthy cells are largely unaffected by the radiation, while the cancer cells are killed because they are weaker.

If it's product samples for the purpose of research then yes, it does require informed consent. Same for blind taste tests.

The difference is the purpose of the research. Facebook was not attempting to gain commercial insight, they were attempting to modify and monitor psychological behaviours, to gain generalised insight. This is not market research.

What you're referring to is nothing like what happened here. What they did was generalised psychological research. It was not commercial research, where the sole purpose is to test the commercial viability of a product or gain other commercial insights. What they did requires informed consent, which demands that they make all participants aware of the researchers, the nature of the study, the purpose of the study, and get explicit authorisation to include them.

Facebook broke the law. Period.