Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Censoring The Net With A Hotmail Account

Posted by timothy on from the itchy-trigger-fingers dept.

Alex Bradbury writes "Members of the Bits of Freedom group conducted a test to see how much it would take for a service provider to take down a website hosting public domain material, and have published their results. They signed up with 10 providers and put online a work by Dutch author Multatuli, who died over 100 years ago. They stated that the work was in the public domain, and that it was written in 1871. They then set up a fake society to claim to be the copyright holders of the work. From a Hotmail address, they sent out complaints to all 10 of the providers. 7 out of 10 complied and removed the site, one within just 3 hours. Only one ISP actually pointed out that the copyright on the work expired many years ago. The conclusion of the investigation is definitely worth reading. The three providers who didn't take down the material are XS4ALL, UPC and Freeler. The company that came out the worst was iFast, who forwarded all the personal details of the site owner to the sender of the fake takedown notice without even being asked to do so."

15 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. It shouldn't be that easy by erick99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am amazed that an ISP wouldn't have some process in place to at least check the validity of a party making that request and check the validity of the copyright as well. It wouldn't take much to put such a process in place.

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:It shouldn't be that easy by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Can they afford to lose a client so easily?

      Let's see - $30/mo or a liability in the six figures. That's a tough call.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:It shouldn't be that easy by bbc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      " The problem with this is that court is so expensive that the mere threat of lawsuit, however unlikely, is usually enough to get yourself taken down and banned."

      In the USA.

      There's a reason why the European branch of the RIAA is settling their lawsuits against consumers for way less than 2000 dollars; if they asked that much, the accused might as well take it to court, and at least have a chance of winning. (And, IIRC, some are indeed waiting for the court case. Which will presumably never happen, in case European judges would declare file-sharing legal, like a Canadian judge did.)

  2. Re:I would say by rpdillon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What should be illegal? Testing ISPs, or handing out information on your customers to whoever asks (or doesn't ask) for it?

    I don't know how representative this would be of US ISPs, as all the ISPs mentioned in the article are .nl (Netherlands). The US may have laws that affect this.

  3. Now that's interesting by mcc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The company that came out the worst was iFast, who forwarded all the personal details of the site owner to the sender of the fake takedown notice without even being asked to do so."

    I can't help but wonder, is this consistent with iFast's user privacy policy? I can't tell, I don't speak Dutch...

    --
    Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
  4. Sadly, had to request a takedown once by MaineCoon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had some source code to a game I was working on, and had licensed the code to a friend (it was for a MUD, and I had years of work invested). After an altercation, he violated the agreement we had and decided to release his copy to the world to spite me. Fortunately the code was several years old from my current work, but UNfortunately what he released contained player files with plain text passwords, and some of the players had played on both of the games with the same password.

    Within 20 minutes of his posting it, I politely asked the ISP to take it down (was about midnight), and they had it taken down by morning. Someone obviously got hold of it and hacked a few of our players' accounts, but the source+assets itself never resurfaced.

    --
    Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
  5. Not the same thing... by mOoZik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But when I was new to PayPal, I and some friends of mine receive spoof emails. I thought to make it known that such a thing was going around (again, I was a newb.) I removed the offending part from the email (the form submit), added a giant notice indicating it was an example or a phish scam, and put on my site. I forwarded the site to my friends.

    The next day, my site was taken offline. PayPal didn't even look at the content: they chose to contact my ISP, which didn't even put up a fight, and to put a hold on my account, without any sort of consent on my part.

    --
    A blog like any other.
  6. About XS4ALL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not surprised at all at XS4ALL's behavior. This is the same ISP that went to court to defend one of their customer's rights to host the Fishman Affidavit (a collection of high-level Scientologist documents).

    I'm glad that there are companies out there who are willing to stand up for their users when they are right, going so far as to take the heat in court. XS4ALL won the case, too, and the Fishman Affidavit is still hosted there for all to see.

  7. Re:Censorship, or just cautious commercial entitie by LetterJ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Exactly. I run www.mncriminals.com, which publishes the MN criminal conviction data. We get the data directly from the state. We frequently get letters from people demanding that we "expunge" their record because "the state cleared their name". We pretty much just ask that they fax a copy of the state's paperwork removing the conviction from their record. We've only ever heard further from one person. Even then, she hadn't really had it expunged. Rather, she'd had the remainder of her sentence, including parole, etc. commuted. A lot of people make demands and I'm perfectly willing to follow through, but you're going to at least provide a piece of paper proving it needs to happen. The BSA can come into my offices only if there's a warrant in their hand, etc.

    --

    The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
  8. Could this be used AGAINST the DMCA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Consider this possibility:

    A bunch of motivated slashdotters all go to their local libraries (or anywhere else they can gain anonymous internet access) and create hotmail or yahoo email accounts. Then, they send copyright violation notifications to various ISP's across America, so that a huge number of legitamite sites get taken down.

    The resultant customer rage would get media attention, and the ISP's would mention the DMCA as they speak in their own defense. This would bring the harmful effects of the DMCA into the public eye.

    Of course, I am not advocating any such thing. Just reflecting on the possibilities.

    --AC (emphasis on the C in my case)

  9. DIY by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This is one of the many reasons I host my own sites, and how I got into the business of hosting sites for friends who want a person they can trust doing it. I didn't like the one-sided contract terms and the poor service I was getting from hosting providers, so I set up my own shop. A little Apache, some Postfix, and a dash of BIND in a Linux stew, and I was cooking for myself. So now if someone sends a take-down notice to the company hosting my web site... it'll come to me.

    Granted, I'm still dependent on someone else for connectivity itself, but I found a pretty good DSL provider with terms I can live with, so as long as I keep my systems are zombie free and I don't do anything stupid enough to get an actual court order sent to my DSL provider, I'm pretty safe from this kind of crap (at least more than I was before). And I got broadband service to my house in the process.

    I realise it's not an option for a lot of people, but if you want something done right...

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  10. Re:Texan-style! by chgros · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Living in Texas, I'm not sure what constitutes `Texan-style private ISP justice'.
    It probably means "hang first, ask questions later", as in cheesy western movies.

  11. It's not worth it for the ISPs. by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A potential legal battle is never profitable for an ISP. Why even take the risk?

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  12. Can You Blame Them? by superultra · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Say you're the ISP in this situation. It makes more sense to take it down than it does to leave it up. What do you gain for just leaving it up after receiving a dispute? Nothing, really. What do you have to lose if you continue host something that is truly under copyright? A lot more. The potential for more work is there by leaving it up than there is for merely taking it down.

    Now, I'm not saying this is right. But there has to be a better incentive than "the good of all humanity" to protect fair use.

  13. Isn't that what they are supposed to do? by cybrangl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not sure this is a fair test. Under the DMCA, the ISP must take down the material within (I think) 72 hours to maintain immunity. The site owner can respond in 10 days to deny the charges and the ISP can put it back up with immunity. Now I'm not saying that the DMCA is the correct way to do things, and I really don't condone the idea of handing out personal information without a court order, but this "test" doesn't tell us anything except that ISPs don't want to get into legal trouble. Surprise, surprise.