Fwd: [#MRO-489-36585]: com-give.com scam site

Wow. Rare to get hypocrisy (or lies) in writing, but sometimes it happens. If you ever wondered if NameCheap stands by the public claims they make in places like https://blog.namecheap.com/how-to-report-a-fraudulent-website-to-a-registrar/ here's proof in black-and-white that they don't:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Nataly Bondarenko <abuse@namecheap.com>
Date: April 29, 2016 at 1:37:03 PM CDT
To: <emlarson@...>
Subject: [#MRO-489-36585]: com-give.com scam site
Reply-To: <abuse@namecheap.com>

Hello,

Thank you for your email regarding the domain name com-give.com. While the domain name does have Namecheap.com as the registrar, we cannot oversee the data being transmitted through its website. We do not own the domain name mentioned in your complaint, we are simply the company the domain name was purchased from.

The issue would need to be addressed through the hosting provider to see if their terms of service are violated and would need to be addressed through the domain registrant as they should be the individual that controls the particular content being exchanged. We have no way to police such issues as we do not control the hosting company in this instance.

While we understand the inquiry, we are not in a position to determine the validity of your statements. If you believe you are a victim of an internet crime, or if you are aware of an attempted crime, you can file a complaint through Internet Crime Complaint Center at https://complaint.ic3.gov. In case we receive a request form a law enforcement authority of the United States we will assist them in their investigation.

> The site "com-give.com" is cleverly using sub-domains to scam people. See:
>
> http://marlboro.com-give.com
>
> Obviously registered with the intent of scamming people in giveaways. Will you bother to shut it down?
>
>


____________
Regards,
Nataly Bondarenko
Legal & Abuse Department
Namecheap.com

Ticket Details
Ticket ID: MRO-489-36585
Department: Domains -- Legal and Abuse
Type: Issue
Status: Awaiting Client Response
Priority: High

Helpdesk: https://support.namecheap.com/index.php?/default_import


Hmmm... From their blog:

NameCheap takes fraud very seriously.  We do everything we can to keep the internet safe for everyone.  If you find out a website is fake, just follow these directions:

1.) Go to Domain Tools located here and type in the domain.
2.) Find out who the domain is registered with.
3.) Write a formal complaint in an email.
4.) Send it to the registrar’s abuse department. NameCheap’s abuse department can be reached at abuse(at)namecheap(dot)com. If we find the charge valid, we will suspend the domain.

Please keep the internet safe for everyone. Report fraud whenever you see it!



Comments

emlarson said…
Since my comment is "awaiting moderation," let's see if NameCheap posts my response to the new conversation on the 7-year-old post that I referenced:

That sounds great, Jackie, but they won't do anything about a fraudulent domain. Period. How do I know? There's a clever spammer/hacker/fraudster using subdomains at the website "com-give.com" which is registered through NameCheap. I documented my contact with NameCheap's abuse department in April on my own blog at http://blog.emlarson.com/2016/04/fwd-mro-489-36585-com-givecom-scam-site.html -- they said, "While the domain name does have Namecheap.com as the registrar, we cannot oversee the data being transmitted through its website." Thanks to their indifference, an unknown number of people got scammed in August with a fake Aldi site of "aldi.com-give.com" (see https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acom-give.com for a record of that) and who knows how many more sites will pop up before the domain expires next year. I'd chalk it up to a true hands-off attitude, if NameCheap weren't here bragging that they care about fraud while refusing to deal with a domain that's fraudulent in-and-of-itself regardless of the scam that might run on a given day. Talk is cheap. Opening refusing to act on a public promise is surprising, but it says a lot about the value of NameCheap's word.
September 23, 2016 at 11:37 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Commercial comments (Blogging from Word!)

Ironically, I’ve got two commercial-related things going on in my mind right now. On the Ericast, I’ve been discussing how commercials are going to get more and more imbedded into content; I think we’re going to drift away from “spot radio” or “spot television”, and even drift away from traditional “product placement”, and move toward a picture-in-picture or screen crawl or other “embedded advertising”.  That way, you’ll be unable to avoid the advertisement… and you’ll want to see it, because skipping it would mean that you’d miss out on the content.  (Imagine, for example, a HGTV demo on sponge-painting that takes up the top 2/3rds of the screen, with the bottom 1/3rd showing things like “BEHR Paint on sale at Home Depot!  20% off!”.) I might hate living in a world filled with television that looks like that… but it probably would be effective. But, speaking of, I’ve found a program that removes commercials from MPG files!  And it really works!  I’ll blog it next, from the site. Why n
Read more

Passing on Panel Discussions?

In his latest podcast ( Blogarithms IT Conversations News: August 14, 2005 ), Doug Kaye mentioned an interesting anecdotal tidbit: People seem less interested in panel discussions at conferences than they do in single speakers. The panel discussions get lower ratings at ITConversations.com, and... there was some other reason he mentioned it, too. (Okay, so I don't remember. Sorry!) As I was listening to one of their panel discussions this morning, I had a thought: It was really hard to follow. It takes a lot of mental energy to keep up with who's-saying-what. And I don't even particular care about the who's-who; it would be even worse if I really need to know which person was making a particular point. Could that be what people are reacting to when they rate panel discussions lower than single-speaker talks?
Read more

Trooper Carrie Rindal

UPDATE: 03.20.2009 Carrie Rindal has been reprimanded! The KARE-11 story disabled comments after at least 62 came in (according to the homepage), so let's see if we can get a conversation going here. Longtime readers of my blog know that I have a passion for pointing out police incompetence, arrogance and abuse of power -- not because I hate police, but because I have so much respect for them and their jobs (having both friends and relatives on the force) and I can't stand it when a few bad apples freak out and do something stupid that gives their uniform a bad name. Carrie Rindal is one such "peace" officer. When driving his kids home on New Year's Eve (as I was doing with Ruth and our girls a month ago), Sam Salter made one mistake: He followed the same instructions I've read dozens of places. If you're hit with lights and sirens from a squad car, you to find a safe place to pull off the road and should get off on the nearest exit if you can. (An
Read more