Web Hosting Talk : Other Forums : Web Hosting Lounge : My site has been banned by the government!

[Xshare]

Link to the DOT and FAA Site
Earlier today, as I made a google search for my name I uncovered something interesting: Xshare.org is banned from the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and DOT (Department of Transportation) networks. Upon investigation, it seems they think that Xshare.org is a P2P application, perhaps because in the past (~2001) the site was a review site that reviewed some P2P apps, without any download links or anything. Under that logic, they should ban CNN, Cnet, ZDNet, PC World, PC Magazine, and just about everything else, but no, they think that Xshare.org is a P2P application. So of course, I decided to write them a letter, and am asking for your input. Perhaps someone can help me out here with the wording, what to include, what not to include, etc. Without further ado, here it is:

Dear Mr. Lee,
My site is listed as a File Sharing Protocol that is banned by the FAA, on the FAA CIO Website. This, however, is not the case. My name is Royi Hagigi, and I run a logo design service at Xshare.org. A search for my domain on a variety of search engines yields results by the FAA and DOT that say that my site is a P2P protocol banned by the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration as a result of US Senate Directive S10-030624-002, dated Jun 20, 2003. While it is true that during portions of 2001 my site was a review site for a variety of Peer To Peer programs, this hasn't been the case in over 2 years (This document was drafted in 2003). Even if it was the case, the senate directive banned P2P applications, and Xshare.org is listed as a commonly used P2P application. This, however, was NEVER the case. Xshare.org has never offered or facilitated any usage of illegal software. Even during the short time that Xshare.org offered reviews of P2P programs, never did we ever host said programs on our servers. By that logic, you would be right to ban PC Magazine, PC World, CNet, and a host of other computer oriented mediums which have ever reviewed a P2P application. I digress though, and the issue at hand is that my site is not (and has not been in over 2 years) a P2P application. Its inclusion on the list of banned applications (by the government, no less) has the potential to negatively impact my sales and credibility as a logo design service. I strongly request that Xshare.org be removed from the list of "better-known P2P applications" available at http://www.faa.gov/aio/common/documents.htm#ais-docs.

Thank you for your cooperation,
Royi <<snipped>>
Xshare.org

So... ideas, comments, suggestions?

[Artashes]

Well, I just hope your letter to them works out, Royi. Good luck.

[ilyash]

yup good luck, its these foolish officials banning sites left and right.
I wonder if they even went to your site before.

[JayC]

So... ideas, comments, suggestions?

Well... I had a hard time reading through it. My basic suggestion would be to break that into three or four paragraphs.

Once you do that, I'll be able to read it and possibly give some more detailed feedback.

[Xshare]

Well, I can't edit (it's been 15 mins, so here's a revised edition for you, Jay.

Dear Mr. Lee,
My site is listed as a File Sharing Protocol that is banned by the FAA, on the FAA CIO Website. This, however, is not the case.

My name is Royi Hagigi, and I run a logo design service at Xshare.org. A search for my domain on a variety of search engines yields results by the FAA and DOT that say that my site is a P2P protocol banned by the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration as a result of US Senate Directive S10-030624-002, dated Jun 20, 2003.

While it is true that during portions of 2001 my site was a review site for a variety of Peer To Peer programs, this hasn't been the case in over 2 years (This document was drafted in 2003). Even if it was the case, the senate directive banned P2P applications, and Xshare.org is listed as a commonly used P2P application. This, however, was NEVER the case. Xshare.org has never offered or facilitated any usage of illegal software. Even during the short time that Xshare.org offered reviews of P2P programs, never did we ever host said programs on our servers. By that logic, you would be right to ban PC Magazine, PC World, CNet, and a host of other computer oriented mediums which have ever reviewed a P2P application.

I digress though, and the issue at hand is that Xshare.org is not (and has not been in over 2 years) a P2P application. Its inclusion on the list of banned applications (by the government, no less) has the potential to negatively impact my sales and credibility as a logo design service. I strongly request that Xshare.org be removed from the list of "better-known P2P applications" available at http://www.faa.gov/aio/common/documents.htm#ais-docs.

Thank you for your cooperation,
Royi <<snipped>>
Xshare.org

Better?

[Sasan]

Much better Xshare.

[The Dude]

Good Luck X!!!!

The Dude

[JayC]

Originally posted by Xshare
Better?

Seems pretty clear.

I'd consider removing the "By that logic..." sentence; either completely or by replacing it with something like "Many well-known computer-oriented media sites have, as xshare.org once did, offer consumer reviews of P2P applications. That alone does not constitute cause for banning a site."

Also...

"Xshare.org has never offered or facilitated any usage of illegal software. Even during the short time that Xshare.org offered reviews of P2P programs, never did we [you have an extra "ever" right here]host said programs on our servers.

I'd also drop the "I digress..." statement and the "by the government, no less," perhaps going simply with a direct:

"Xshare.org is not (and has never been) a P2P application. Its inclusion on the list of banned applications has the potential to negatively impact my sales and credibility as a logo design service. I strongly request that Xshare.org be removed from the list of "better-known P2P applications" available at http://www.faa.gov/aio/common/documents.htm#ais-docs"

[stripeyteapot]

May I suggest requesting or even demanding compensation? This is definately bound to effect your sales, like you said.

The government and these stupid officials that think they know everything, but obviously know nothing about anything, and probably didn't even visit your site should learn to investigate before banning your site.

Good luck, I hope it all works out for you.

Regards,
Paul B. Riddick

[Xshare]

Originally posted by 4 Degrees
May I suggest requesting or even demanding compensation?

And waste more taxpayer money than the Bush administration already did? I think not.

[7de5igns]

I agree with 4 degrees, hell if some 15 year old punk kid can sue microsoft and get a free domain, xbox, microsoft software bundle, even a job for having their name, think of the number you could do on the government!

[Xshare]

Originally posted by 7de5igns
I agree with 4 degrees, hell if some 15 year old punk kid can sue microsoft and get a free domain, xbox, microsoft software bundle, even a job for having their name, think of the number you could do on the government!

Too bad I am a 15 year old punk kid.

[stripeyteapot]

I have yet to come across a good government. I am abit of an anarchist, I like to keep out of everything to do with the government, including police, all authority and so on.

It's obviously entirely upto you what you do, but I know for a fact if my site was banned, I would sue them.

The 'law' works both ways, make them a victim of their own system!!

Regards,
Paul B. Riddick

[Xshare]

Revised as per JayC's ideas:

Dear Mr. Lee,
My site is listed as a File Sharing Protocol that is banned by the FAA, on the FAA CIO Website. This, however, is not the case.

My name is Royi Hagigi, and I run a logo design service at Xshare.org. A search for my domain on a variety of search engines yields results by the FAA and DOT that say that my site is a P2P protocol banned by the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration as a result of US Senate Directive S10-030624-002, dated Jun 20, 2003.

While it is true that during portions of 2001 my site was a review site for a variety of Peer To Peer programs, this hasn't been the case in over 2 years (This document was drafted in 2003). Even if it was the case, the senate directive banned P2P applications, and Xshare.org is listed as a commonly used P2P application. This, however, was NEVER the case. Xshare.org has never offered or facilitated any usage of illegal software. Even during the short time that Xshare.org offered reviews of P2P programs, never did we host said programs on our servers. Many well-known computer-oriented media sites have, as xshare.org once did, offer consumer reviews of P2P applications. That alone does not constitute cause for banning a site.

Xshare.org is not (and has not been in over 2 years) a P2P application. Its inclusion on the list of banned applications (by the government, no less) has the potential to negatively impact my sales and credibility as a logo design service. I strongly request that Xshare.org be removed from the list of "better-known P2P applications" available at http://www.faa.gov/aio/common/documents.htm#ais-docs.

Thank you for your cooperation,
Royi <<snipped>>
Xshare.org

Anyone else have ideas? I have obtained the number I can call, or I can email it. Which one do you all recommend?

[stripeyteapot]

I have been talking to a colleuge of mine, and he seems to think that this will go a lot further if you get a legal aid or something like it behind you.

He said that if you submit the letter to your local MP first, and other MP's, that this will most likely go a lot further. You being a sole trader, they most likely will just ignore the letter.

Regards,
Paul B. Riddick