New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
What we're doing isn't unique to just us. Larger companies such as Njalla and OrangeWebsite are the leaders in 'privacy' hosting. Like them, we do not require personal information to order services.
Perhaps it's because they're registered in different countries. Perhaps I should look into an Estonian E-Residency for business purposes, or seek registration outside of the United States. But as of right now, based on everything I've reviewed, the concerns expressed seem to simply be unfounded.
There isn't anything wrong with wanting privacy. The fact that it seems every other month there is some data leak from large companies like T-Mobile, Twitch, etc should be enough for common people to say, "Man, what a headache. I wish I didn't have to always supply personal details everywhere I go online." and based on the behavior of web hosts in this marketplace people should be very cautious in providing details to providers where it can be accessed by whoever has access to their helpdesks. Sure, there are some permission rules that can be set in WHMCS and similar software to limit the exposure to non-critical staff, but is your web hosting provider doing that? Is the outsourced support company they employ looking at your personal data, collecting it for some nefarious reason? ( I mean, they have access to many other provider's back-ends, there could be a malicious incentive there)
While some see privacy as a potential negative, I see it as a security feature that benefits those who matters: The customer.
I'll repeat what I already said several times: If the customer is doing something dumb or illegal, or prohibited by our upstreams or law, we do what any other provider will do and show them the door.
I just want privacy normalized. There isn't any shame in seeking it and privacy is just as much for regular people as it is anyone else. There is no law against NOT blocking VPN traffic, Tor Exits, etc. I'll reach out and campaign heavily to the Tor Project, EFF and other organizations if anyone ever wishes to try to make a case that it is.
You bring up some very good examples.
Njal.la and OrangeWebsite.com are de facto leaders in anonymous domains.
First one is officially registered in Saint Kitts and Nevis, but its actual operating, day-to-day company is in Finland, and they are their own registrar now (Sarek.fi, albeit without the .COM, etc due to the owner being a convict and therefore being unable to pass the ICANN accreditation requirements), although the vast majority of their domains is registered through Tucows in Canada.
As you may know yourself, they accept crypto currencies and PayPal. There's a reason why they don't (and can't) process credit cards.
If we're being honest, they will very likely lose PayPal. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
OrangeWebsite.com is 100% Icelandic, and they support a vast array of domains, but they don't really have a lot of issues (or notoriety for that matter).
I don't believe either consulted a multi-national law firm regarding their businesses, mainly due to taking on 100% of the liability and the overwhelming % of the bad clientele.
Taking no personal information whatsoever simply isn't something that's possible if you want to use traditional payment methods.
As far as the Estonian e-Residency program goes: you would need to provide invoices for every single sale (through Xolo.io).
Just because someone is paying by Bitcoin doesn't mean that you're not supposed to take their personal information.
It just means that there is a smaller fraud-related concern, and that you don't have to be worried about it yielding any chargebacks. But otherwise, it's completely same as any other payment method in the eyes of the law.
You speak from the heart, and you're 100% right; morally.
But it's not much of an argument, legally speaking... Those companies are generally unsafe due to how they care for the data of their customers, their hiring policies, underpaying their critical employees, etc. Nine times out of ten, it's an inside job... and they would just turn it against you and say: so why didn't you take their personal information, and protected it yourself? Because it's far more likely that you're going to be able to do it properly, than someone where 1,000+ people have access to people's data. It's just a tough argument to sell... privacy is a basic human right. No denying that... but it largely favors the miscreants, and because of them... Joe Shmoe is considered a criminal just because of the company he keeps (other registered domains, etc).
There is a big difference between how law can be interpreted and what someone chooses to do.
Also, you can be sued for almost any invented reason in most countries - if someone seriously comes after you for copyright, founded or not, you still end up in court paying legal fees. I wouldn’t spend my life worrying about the small things we can’t control and trying to worry about a judges interpretation.
We’ve seen some pretty dumb rulings lately, I don’t think anything we do really matters anymore to any meaningful degree.
Must suck to actually live at 123 Main St. Every town has a Main St.
It's a bit more complicated than that, I am afraid.
Our network censorship agency (I am a Russian Federation citizen) is ill-famed for its unreasonable blocking (when they were fighting Telegram, they did block entire /8 /16 etc ranges - with obvious consequences for innocent IPs contained in the above), and the Duma (parliament) is famous for trying to control everything in Russian section of Internet, issuing more restrictive/surveillance laws on weekly basis.
When hosted on datacenters inside Russia, one should take into the account the above. It's also extremely easy to get labeled as "foreign agent", with even more restrictions/surveillance applied.
You can be sued for anything, but it doesn't mean that it will go to trial, however.
You only pay legal fees if you lose, and that's true in every country that I know of.
I will just say that neither of the things I mentioned are small concerns, and you have to collect invoices from your customers. For them to be valid, they need to have a name and an address.
Otherwise, you will have to stick to crypto, but your accountant might not want to take you on if your customers don't have a name and an address.
You can still be laundering money if your clients have a name and an address, but you're most definitely laundering money if all you have for a client is an email address. That's basically what they will think is going on, and is not speculation.
I hope that clears things up.
No, and speaking from experience here. You specifically would need to counter sue for the costs (and win), which are typically kicked out of court and typically only happens if you can prove the lawsuit was completely unwarranted. The first two things most judges will kick out is counter suits for legal fees, and counter suits for mental damages. Someone hosting copy written materials on your site, no matter how you tackle it or enforce it, would be considered warranted, you aren’t getting your legal fees back on this subject no matter the result.
You also don’t need names and addresses for to collect payments on invoices in any place I know of. Although it is quite beneficial from a tax and tax credit perspective in most places and necessary for legal enforcement should you need to.
I disagree here, I think it’s nit picky for the sake of being nit picky. This wouldn’t reach trial on any level - it’s almost always going to be settled out of court for less than the cost of legal costs on both sides - regardless of how ‘loud’ you’ve been about not collecting user information.
why did it go to court in the first place?
The same reason a kid got taken to court for defending himself.
Francisco
I know there are websites hosted with us which are a little bit controversial.
Amsterdam location is perfect - https://www.hosterplan.com/dmca-ignored-hosting.php
Show me the country where politsters and government agencies do not try to control everything and do not make decisions that often look quite arbitrary ...
Oh and re. the Telegram case, kindly show me the country that just bends over and takes it when some group basically declares war on them and obviously, even ostentatively sh_t on the laws.
No provider tag and no WHMCS license.
The end is nigh.
Naaah winter hosts not welcomed. And without valid license of whmcs.
Never.
Sorry for this issue. It's mainly WHMCS license checking problem. If we forced to update license from our end then automatically fixed the issue.
Don't think we are using unlicensed WHMCS. Thanks for noticed the issue.
yeah, right.
Sorry for this issue. It's mainly WHMCS license checking problem. If we forced to update license from our end then automatically fixed the issue.
Don't think we are using unlicensed WHMCS. Thanks for noticed the issue.
Where's the meme of the laughing guy? That's a hilarious thought.
Let me guess, you've never paid a lawyer before?
Presumably for damages and impact on his quality of life from years of being made fun of and his fans taking things too far. You can read news stories about it if you want.
You misunderstood me. Please try to read between the lines. What I was saying is that, if you're 100% certain in your case (and if there is actual evidence), and you know that you're in the right morally as well (so the defense can't play the copyright troll card). Then you will have your legal costs paid (one way or another).
I'm not sure what's so confusing about this.
How hard of a time do you think one would have proving that a hosting company that doesn't verify its clients, and that advises its clients on how to evade KYC policies (which are the norm now to prevent terrorists, sanctioned individuals, etc) isn't a criminal organization?
You would be right both morally and legally, if you argued that the person was not only morally in the wrong, but also legally. Because they chose not to care, and chose to provide their services to them, and catered to people like that.
Furthermore, you would only need to perform one simple IP scan range to locate the majority of their customers, and see what's hosted. If the percentage of seemingly illegal websites is higher than 50%, then you're most definitely going to win if you go after the hosting company for ignoring DMCA complaints, for example.
Ignoring DMCA complaints is still illegal, even if it's not sent as an EUCD, because it was sent in good faith, and copyright infringement is copyright infringement. Regardless of the format of the notice itself.
If you want to do business legally, you need a little bit more than an email address from your customers. Privacy and similar arguments won't fly.
You wouldn't survive one audit. Be it tax from a tax authority, or something worse.
Don't collect customer information, tell them that you ignore DMCA complaints (publicly, in an official manner) and don't police your IP ranges, and see how far you will get. Cleaning up your act later on won't do much...
You chose to react too quickly, without filling in the blanks where necessary.
This topic isn't about me, so it's irrelevant whether or not I had to retain services from a sole practitioner, or a law firm.
What we were discussing here is whether or not a hosting company would lose a case if it was brought up that:
1) They don't do KYC
2) Advise their potential customers and existing customers that they can ignore DMCA complaints using their services
3) Scan of their IP ranges showed nearly nothing legal and/or of having any redeeming qualities
4) Allow payment methods like Western Union, MoneyGram (how can you tax that, for one?)
I can confidently say that you would lose the case if it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you didn't verify your clients, that they're using your services to ignore DMCA complaints (and the reason why you didn't act upon them was because you officially wrote on your website that you ignore them) and that you would let them pay in any and every way possible, even if you're having some random person accepting the payments on your behalf.
You're mistaken. What you believe is easily false, hence why I questioned whether you've actually went through something with lawyers or you just assume shit you saw on TV.
Which countries would that be of?
I will try to be more clear with you: in (practically) every common law country, if you sue someone, and you win. The legal costs which you incurred can be returned either through the losing party having to pay them by default, making a motion for them to be awarded to you, or through you being awarded damages (along with the legal costs incurred, if it's for example, like the US). More often than not, it depends on what the defendant has. If they're judgment proof, then even though you technically did get something, it may never materialize. But generally, at least when film production companies do it, for example. They always recoup their costs from the people they go after, either through being awarded damages or settling.
Did you just google that, because that does not agree with "You only pay legal fees if you lose"?
(And preceding comments.)
I just want to point out that this is a bit paradoxical/hypocritical for those who don't get vaccinated. Whilst vaccination won't prevent one from getting Coivid-19, it has been shown (if not proven, to be pedantic) that it does decrease the severity of infection. This in turn frees off the pressure on medical facilities.
Whilst I detest injections - I decline to take them for dentistry where possible and 'flue' prevention - I recognise that in taking "the jab", I'm doing my bit for society as a whole - not that many deserve it!
If I should die through Covid-19, then so be it, at least I've done my part.
Well, that's an acceptable point of view, but it isn't mine. But anyway, my main point is that everyone may have his opinions but nobody is entitled to force their point of view upon others.
If you read the statement in a literal sense, completely lacking the context. Then absolutely, you could claim that I was wrong.
If you read it in the sense of: you will only incur actual cost if you lose the case, but you're going to recoup the incurred legal costs otherwise (one way or another), then what I said would be correct, and is correct.
There's some good US based provider for this for sure.
As long as it's legal, it should be fine. Until they get a court order most providers ignore any DMCA takedowns.
In my opinion if a Hosting with supports Freedom of Speech doesn't allow Vaccines opinions, theorys is not a freedom speech hosting! Never will be.
We need to have the right to express what we think or not above the vax! Who doesn't support that are just a bunch of fools saying that they are freedom of speech supporter, like Flokinet.