A good start would be to actually read the legal documents behind the case instead of assuming a lot from someone's comments with cherrypicked facts.

http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/index.htm

I am still looking through these files, but everything that I have read points to insufficient, or zero notice having been given to the defendants prior to this order. For instance, the complaint itself...

http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Revised_Final%20No-IP%20...

...is dated June 19, 2014.

And from the order itself...

http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order...

...we see the following instruction:

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) that the Defendants shall appear before this Court on July 10, 2014, at 3:00 p.m., in LV Courtroom 7D to show cause, if there is any, why this Court should not enter a Preliminary Injunction, pending final ruling on the Complaint against the Defendants, enjoining them from the conduct temporarily restrained by the preceding provisions of this Order."

Of course, July 1 is tomorrow.

In this document, Microsoft seems to be requesting that all of this stuff be sealed until it is ready to disclose the existence of the lawsuit to the defendant, presumably after it has completed its seizure the domains:

http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Final%20Motion%20to%20Se...

The facts of this seem pretty clear from your link. What I am wondering is if there is any precedence for this, and if this is really considered due process?

You can make it sound like he has no idea what hes talking about, but theres no reason why microsoft is playing FBI.

Practically every instance of malware runs on Microsoft Windows.

If the stated goal is to defeat malware then windowsupdate.microsoft.com should be seized and routed to a non-interactive Windows Uninstaller.

Except all the malware on Android. But who's counting?

https://www.google.com/search?&q=android+malware&ie=UTF-8&oe...

I'm pretty sure virtually none of the spam mails in my spamfilter were sent from a phone. Nor do phones have the bandwidth to carry out DDoS attacks or host phishing sites. Nor do many people do onlinebanking on their phone (though that number is certainly on the rise).

So yes, while malware exists on android, I doubt the total damages caused by it are more than a drop in the bucket when compared to windows malware.

Your original statement was:

>Practically every instance of malware runs on Microsoft Windows.

Even according to Google, about 5 million Android devices are infected with malware. http://bgr.com/2014/06/26/google-on-android-malware-and-secu...

I would suppose that your statements aren't support by fact, but the HN downvotes have got me thinking.

Goole said "Well less than 0.5% have ever had a problem", you quote a blog that turns that into "up to five million have ever had malware" which shows some ignorance of statistics, and then you turn that into "about five million are infected with malware now".

The downvotes are because you're derailing the thread with something that is completely off-topic.

If "5 million" sounds like a large number to you then this may help to put it into perspective; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet#Historical_list_of_botne...

First, were you referring to instances of malware, not membership in botnets. Second, we disagree on the meaning of the phrase "practically every".

Instances of malware must necessarily be >= sizes of botnets.

Android botnets are very valuable because they use mobile network IPs that confuse fraud and login classifiers that use ASN or GeoIP.

Pretty much all botnets target consumer devices and thus have ip addresses that are common for consumer devices. I'm not sure I buy that a mobile IP is worth more than a Comcast one, especially factoring in the available bandwidth.

That is certainly true. But in terms of scale even a claimed 5 million compromised android phones just barely registers while desktop botnets of six times that size are discovered.

The bandwidth constraints imposed by most users draconic data plans and the realities of limited battery life further put a fairly low cap on what a mobile botnet can do in this day and age. (both of which admittedly will hopefully change sooner rather than later...)

Microsoft would respond. No-ip.com didn't respond.

>No-ip.com didn't respond. //

Presumably you have a link where we can see the notarised documentation and proof of delivery of that which was sent to No-IP that they failed to respond to?