Kesseki

So: this is spam. You're selling spam.

We do say it. That's what the "Incident Status" field is there for.

Let's Encrypt is operating normally. If you're having trouble, please post the details on the community forum so that folks can help you out. There is external monitoring in place.

The banner's colour is based on the "Incident Status;" it's green because services are currently operational. It would be yellow or red if the impact were more severe.

That’s unexpected. Please post details on the “Help” topic of the Let’s Encrypt community forum so that folks can take a look.

Although I only post here personally, I work for Let’s Encrypt.

To be clear, “Degraded Performance” means just that, not “down.” Let’s Encrypt’s issuance is mostly working fine.

No. Absolutely not. The vast majority of such "debt relief" or "debt settlement" offerings are scams, including several of the ones this article promotes. If you're looking at a debt relief plan, you should only consult a licensed non-profit that's a member of a credible organization like the Financial Counseling Association of America or the National Foundation for Credit Counseling.

This is, in turn, making the world of comment and forum spam much worse. Site operators could tag all user-submitted links as "nofollow," making their sites useless for SEO spammers. But spammers have learned that most LLM content scraper bots don't care about "nofollow," so they're back to spamming everywhere.

What are you doing to prevent phishing scammers from using your service to create fake login pages en masse? This has plagued similar services to yours.

How can brand owners opt out of your service's infringing their intellectual property rights in their logos?

This is permitted: https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/blob/main/docs/BR.md#...

But it hasn't really caught on; a lot of registrars don't seem to want the complexity of being (or integrating with) a CA, and vice versa.

Cloudflare offers at least two options that don’t require them to proxy TLS: Spectrum and Magic Transit.

That's an interesting point about the disincentive. I fear, though, that rules around this wouldn't be feasible to administer; it could open a whole new world of hiding assets, which is already pretty easy to do.

Yes, there is usually a floor value. Most states enumerate some types and amounts of property, and some amounts of income, that are exempt from civil judgment collection. It's the same thing for bankruptcy: there are exemptions that allow you to keep a certain amount.

A bankruptcy discharge does usually ensure a clean slate for new ventures. However, some types of debt are "nondischargeable" and can survive a bankruptcy. That includes "intentional torts" like these instances of defamation. So, it's likely that these plaintiffs/creditors will be able to go after his new ventures.

The full list of affected certificates and domains is now available: https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/170449/

It is unfortunate. It's required: https://github.com/cabforum/servercert/blob/main/docs/BR.md#...

There's a plan to make this information available to clients in the future: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-aaron-acme-ari/

No. Absolutely do not act as your own patent lawyer - ever - especially in litigation. It is correctly considered an arcane and difficult field even by other lawyers.

Rules vary from state to state, and even court to court. It sounds like your experience happened in a jurisdiction with rules that are unusually protective of debtors' rights. Maybe this was New York City?

The vast majority of jurisdictions do not require creditors to provide this information in most cases.

NYC's rules came into place within the last decade, after patterns of serious abuses by creditors.

That only applies to certain types of contracts and/or in certain states. Please don't dispense legal advice when you're not qualified, you're not certain, or your advice is about specific facts and could be misconstrued as more general. You could lead people into making expensive mistakes.

That's because it was originally filed when Bush was in office. When you sue a government official in his or her official capacity, the caption (sometimes, but especially on appeal) gets updated when the office changes hands.