|
Somebody appears to be playing games
Tuesday, Mar 7, 2023 - Posted by Rich Miller * Doesn’t appear likely…
Somebody is indeed anonymously registering lots of domain names, including several domains named for Chuy Garcia’s chief of staff Patty Garcia. I was able to reach Sen. Villanueva, Commissioner Anaya and Ms. Garcia today. All of them flatly denied having registered their names and all said they didn’t know who did. At least one pointed a finger at Ald. Sigcho-Lopez, but he hasn’t responded to my inquiry as of yet. Maybe he will now. Or not. As I told someone earlier on Twitter, it’s kinda silly to think that, absent any credible Chuy Garcia retirement rumors, all these people are simultaneously and anonymously rushing to reserve website domains. More likely, somebody is playing a little game and then convinced someone else to fall for it. “Chuy’s my congressman until Chuy doesn’t want to be in Congress,” said Sen. Villanueva, who claimed that the person doing the registering “was absolutely not me.” …Adding… Ald. Byron Sigcho-Lopez just reached out to say he didn’t register any of those domain names “and I do not know who did it.”
|
 |
|
|
- TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Mar 7, 23 @ 10:38 am:
Under U.S. law 15 § U.S.C. 1129, it is unlawful to register a domain name that consists of, or is similar to, the name of another living person without their consent (note there are few exceptions).
- vern - Tuesday, Mar 7, 23 @ 10:41 am:
Ah yes of course, that “business of politics” we all know and love: spending $20 on domain names to manufacture a fake story for no reason. We don’t want no beanbags that nobody sent, or something.
- JoanP - Tuesday, Mar 7, 23 @ 10:59 am:
@ TheInvisibleMan,
Your statement is not entirely accurate. In order for the registration to be unlawful, you must have the “specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain to that person or any third party”.
- Here for the laughs - Tuesday, Mar 7, 23 @ 11:00 am:
Internecine disputes and jostling amongst Latinonpoliticians on opposite sides. The latest salvo. Nothing extraordinary (unless possibly illegal).
- Anon324 - Tuesday, Mar 7, 23 @ 11:02 am:
15 § U.S.C. 1129 is an anti-cybersquatting law with a narrow specific intent clause. If the name wasn’t registered for purposes of turning around and selling it for profit to the similarly named individual, it doesn’t apply.
- Amalia - Tuesday, Mar 7, 23 @ 11:23 am:
who benefits from making Chuy look weak? as in right now?
- TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Mar 7, 23 @ 11:31 am:
–In order for the registration to be unlawful–
There are a few other ways, beyond the single one you listed, for it to run afoul of the law.
Unless of course it’s a ‘gripe site’, which I’m sure would be amusing.
Having flashbacks to the late 90s now. After all, Panavision Int’l L.P. v. Toeppen took place right here in Illinois. But that was handled under the similar 1125 law(ACPA).
- H-W - Tuesday, Mar 7, 23 @ 11:36 am:
Alternatively, it could be some entrepreneurial young person hoping to sell domain names down the road. If Joan is correct, then that person will not be guilty until they actually attempt to sell the name, right?
But who knows. It could be anything at this point. But since it seems childish, I would guess a child.
- Oh Boy - Tuesday, Mar 7, 23 @ 11:51 am:
H-W is onto it. Lots of people pay attention to potential candidates and scoop up relevant domains for cheap to try to sell to candidates/campaigns down the road to make a profit.
- Just Me 2 - Tuesday, Mar 7, 23 @ 12:30 pm:
Maybe it’s the same person managing social media for Vallas?
- JoanP - Tuesday, Mar 7, 23 @ 12:43 pm:
= There are a few other ways, beyond the single one you listed, for it to run afoul of the law. =
Not under the section you’ve cited (which is now actually 15 USC 8131): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:8131%20edition:2021)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-2021-title15-section8131)&f=treesort&num=0&edition=2021
= If Joan is correct, then that person will not be guilty until they actually attempt to sell the name, right? =
No, because there are other ways to prove intent.
- Hannibal Lecter - Tuesday, Mar 7, 23 @ 12:49 pm:
Could this have been done prior to the City election where there was a possibility that Chuy would give up his congressional seat to become Mayor? Probably far fetched considering that none of them seem to know about it, but its the only rational explanation that I could think of.
- Socially DIstant Watcher - Tuesday, Mar 7, 23 @ 12:53 pm:
The issue here is that someone reported that three different people did this one same thing and by talking with those three different people, Rich confirmed that none of them did the one same thing.
Thanks, Rich, for taking the time to get the story right. I wonder how much effort the original reporter put into confirming the story. Even to include the denials in their piece would have been better reporting.