Irish Judge Orders 'The Internet' To Delete Video

Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 04:38 · Score: 5, Funny

Stupid judge, you can't order that, you ignorant ninny...

By the powers vested in me, by myself, I hereby order you (the ninny) to stop breathing now and forever. You may be using oxygen I'll need later in my life.
It's only wasted on you.

Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-05-16 04:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google and them do a lot of business through Ireland, it might not be so easy for them to just ignore an order from an Irish judge.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 04:56 · Score: 2, Funny

Now if that judge was located in the US, then he could have had it deleted from the entire Internet.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by serviscope_minor · 2013-05-16 04:58 · Score: 1

Stupid judge, you can't order that, you ignorant ninny...
Well, actually given that he's Irish and all the tax dodging companies seem to like residing in Ireland (don't you know, google doesn't actually do any business in England!), he actually has a measure of power over a considerable number of large companies.
Well, that'll serve them right.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by Sir_Sri · 2013-05-16 05:08 · Score: 2

Any company that does business in europe would have to try and find a way to comply though.
And the thing is, if most instances of 'the video' are actually links to a small number of hosted copies of the video on say google and facebook servers then it may not actually be that hard to hunt down on the big companies servers.
One of the things Megaupload did was it ran some sort of a hash on uploaded files, and if they already had the file they just created a new symbolic link to the same file. I would not be surprised if google and facebook have similar technology. Sure you can re-encode it or modify the file and have a different hash, so there will be several versions of the same basic file. But it's not going to do google or facebook or yahoo any harm to try and figure out if they actually can be rid of it.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by asmkm22 · 2013-05-16 05:19 · Score: 2

I doubt Google is concerned about any political fallout in Ireland, even after than stop laughing at this request. Ireland has a crappy enough job market as it is, without punishing the companies who are there for something like this. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by gstoddart · 2013-05-16 05:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google threatening to relocate its business to a friendlier European state is probably enough to make Irish politicians crap themselves and change the law to suit Google.
Except Google uses Ireland as a tax haven, so first they'd need to find another jurisdiction in which it would be beneficial for them. And I'm not sure they'll easily find one.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-05-16 05:35 · Score: 1

Meh, this affair doesn't hold a candle to the billions they save and make through Ireland, it wouldn't make financial sense. And even if they did I'm fairly sure the order would hold throughout the entire EU, at least if it went to the European courts, and it most assuredly would.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by SecurityGuy · 2013-05-16 05:36 · Score: 2

It's not about Google ignoring the order. Google could diligently remove all copies of the video from their servers. They can't remove it from mine, or yours. For that, the judge would have to order me and you to remove it, and not being under his jurisdiction, I expect I could ignore him with impunity (as long as I don't travel to .ie ever).
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by OakDragon · 2013-05-16 05:36 · Score: 4, Funny

... Ireland has a crappy enough job market as it is, without punishing the companies who are there for something like this...
Clearly - people can't even afford to pay their taxi fares.

--
Dark Reflection
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by hairyfeet · 2013-05-16 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Google like many others were using Ireland as a tax dodge and as we have seen in the USA what happens when you put the corps in the driver seat now Ireland has a collapsing economy and companies like Google are slowly but surely bailing like rats from a sinking ship.
This is of course the reason why free trade and globalism will cause a worldwide economic collapse, it forces every country on the planet to be as weak and powerless as the most broken third world country because thanks to the ability to send a trillion dollars around the world in seconds there really is no loyalty to ones home anymore.
Our founding fathers saw this coming all those years ago, too bad we didn't listen. Thomas Jefferson: "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by Hatta · 2013-05-16 05:49 · Score: 1

"Google and them" is not "the internet".

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by sheehaje · 2013-05-16 05:51 · Score: 2

You know, maybe Google should offer this guy a job to delete the video himself AND he will be able to afford cab fare. Kill 2 birds with one blarney stone.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 05:51 · Score: 2, Informative

Google threatening to relocate its business to a friendlier European state is probably enough to make Irish politicians crap themselves and change the law to suit Google.
You're kidding, right? There are no friendlier states.
Ireland does have low corporate tax rates, but that isn't enough for Google and other large companies (for example, my company's VMware purchases are bought on paper from an Irish subsidiary).
There's a technique called the double Irish Dutch sandwich which lets you create corporate structures resident in Ireland but Ireland considers them non-resident for tax purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by Jahta · 2013-05-16 05:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Stupid judge, you can't order that, you ignorant ninny...
Sadly this is not that uncommon. In the UK last year there was a spate of so-called "super injunctions" being issued to various celebs; these were meant to not only prohibit publishing details of the subject under injunction but also any reporting of the mere fact that an injunction had been granted.
At one stage the High Court granted a permanent injunction against the "whole world" to prevent details of a married celebrity’s affair from being revealed (Super injunctions and the law). Much hilarity ensued.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by ArcadeMan · 2013-05-16 05:56 · Score: 5, Funny

I also don't plan on ever traveling to Internet Explorer.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-05-16 06:03 · Score: 2

Really? The IT sector is booming in Ireland, along with numerous other sectors like pharma and agriculture. Most of the unemployment is in the construction and related sectors, like furniture shops, and they should never have been allowed to balloon to the prominence they reached, the banking regulator authorising mortgages was imo deliberately asleep at the wheel. And even with all that mess the country would still be in great shape right now if the minister for finance at the time (now dead) hadn't issue a blanket guarantee to the banks making private debts public.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by BigFire · 2013-05-16 06:03 · Score: 2

Google threatening to relocate its business to a friendlier European state is probably enough to make Irish politicians crap themselves and change the law to suit Google.
You're kidding, right? There are no friendlier states.
Ireland does have low corporate tax rates, but that isn't enough for Google and other large companies (for example, my company's VMware purchases are bought on paper from an Irish subsidiary).
There's a technique called the double Irish Dutch sandwich which lets you create corporate structures resident in Ireland but Ireland considers them non-resident for tax purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
And this is perfectly legal. The European Union's tax code is specifically designed to foster competition between tax jurisdiction. You want business, lower your tax.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by EdZ · 2013-05-16 06:03 · Score: 2

Luxembourg? Works for Amazon.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 06:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Easy.
The Netherlands.
Biggest tax-haven of Europe, at least if you are big corporation.
If you are a normal citizen or a small company the Dutch tax department will suck you dry.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by jd2112 · 2013-05-16 06:18 · Score: 4, Funny

Perhaps they could search for one on Bing?

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by DragonTHC · 2013-05-16 06:22 · Score: 2

Here's the real problem though: The Internet is sovereign. Granted parts of it are controlled by certain governments. The DNS roots are controlled by the U.S. But The Internet, as a whole, is sovereign. It is the manifestation of the democratic will of the people of planet Earth. And One does not simply delete something from the Internet. The Internet is a self-healing, electric hydra. Once you upload something, It's there forever. Ireland does not have jurisdiction over the Internet any more than the U.S. does. Google doesn't control the Internet. The best they could hope for is to actively block its indexing. Though even that's going to be hard with the Streisand Effect, it's an ugly form of censorship.

--
They're using their grammar skills there.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by St.Creed · 2013-05-16 07:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

Thomas Jefferson was wrong, in this case, as several economists argued later. Merchants without a country tend to fare really bad when the merchants that do have ties with the rulers (or are directly in control of) another country make laws banning the first group from doing business in the country of the second group. If the first group of homeless merchants don't have strong ties with rulers somewhere they're up shit creek without a paddle.
While multinationals often have their "head office" in a tax haven for tax reasons, the *real* headquarters is always located in a spot close to political power, where the owners of said company have cultural, personal and financial ties with the people having political power.

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by Opportunist · 2013-05-16 08:31 · Score: 1

Well, what do you expect when you let corporations write your laws?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by mjwalshe · 2013-05-16 08:36 · Score: 1

aprt from the 30% rebate for skilled workers is not to shabby for those willing to work in holland and the extremely generous tax breaks on your mortgages.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by rsborg · 2013-05-16 09:14 · Score: 1

One of the things Megaupload did was it ran some sort of a hash on uploaded files, and if they already had the file they just created a new symbolic link to the same file.
Dropbox certainly does this - you think that 2 or 5 GB you have allocated is actually physically consumed/set aside? It was also one of the big privacy concerns for using Dropbox a couple of years ago. Not sure if any of this has changed.

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by kheldan · 2013-05-16 09:59 · Score: 1

Up next: Irish judge finds the Internet in contempt of court for not complying with his orders to remove video, orders the Internet be arrested and jailed until such time as it apologizes, complies with his original order.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by cusco · 2013-05-16 11:29 · Score: 1

Counties in Michigan started doing that in the 1970s, giving property tax breaks and free infrastructure to "attract jobs", with the result that Kalkaska County was the first school district in North America to declare bankruptcy.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by cusco · 2013-05-16 12:24 · Score: 3

Er, no. The Internet actually belongs to a bunch of companies that very few people have ever heard of, like Alter.net, Level13, Akamai and the like, who own the backbone that all your data flows through. It's a nice fantasy, though.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by mjwx · 2013-05-16 12:54 · Score: 1

Google and them do a lot of business through Ireland, it might not be so easy for them to just ignore an order from an Irish judge.
With the way the Irish economy is going, the judge could probably be bought off with a bottle of whiskey.

But something tells me Google would comply with this request regardless and remove this video from youtube. The Video erroneously identified the miscreant as the defendant.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by mjwx · 2013-05-16 13:02 · Score: 1

Here's the real problem though: The Internet is sovereign
The internet is a concept. Not anything physical. The copper and glass is physical. The corporations, organisations and individuals connected to it are physical but the internet itself is an idea.

But the rest of your post is a bit out of context considering the title of the summary is erroneous, the judge did not order the removal of the video from "the internets", he's ordered internet companies (I.E. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft) to remove the video. Which they'll have to comply to or stop using Ireland as a tax haven. The judge most certainly has jurisdiction over companies operating in Ireland.

Yes, I broke the cardinal /. rule and RTFA'd

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by cyachallenge · 2013-05-16 13:06 · Score: 1

That's really interesting. I appreciate this post.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by animaal · 2013-05-16 21:52 · Score: 1

Google threatening to relocate its business to a friendlier European state is probably enough to make Irish politicians crap themselves and change the law to suit Google.
Except that in Ireland, the Judiciary is entirely independent of the government. One cannot interfere with the other. Erm, unless they happen to meet at one of those Bunga Bunga parties.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by Xest · 2013-05-16 22:08 · Score: 1

It's the same with the Jamie Bulger killers, there's an injunction on identifying them, and in fact, claiming a picture of some random person of them is them is a breach of the injunction. Theoretically I believe even if you draw a stick man and name it as Jamie Bulger's killer then you're breaching the injunction it's that stupid.
Recently two people in the UK broke the injunction and the judge felt the need to remind us that there's a global injunction on identifying them.
I'm just waiting for someone overseas to make a complete and utter mockery of that arrogant suggestion that the judge has the power to enforce such an injunction worldwide.
Re:Overstepping your jurisdiction much? by GLMDesigns · 2013-05-17 00:27 · Score: 1

This is why simple tax codes are the best. The problem is not only how onerous the tax rate is but the complexity in complying with it.

--
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond

Quick! by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2013-05-16 04:38 · Score: 5, Funny

If you've got a Microsoft Surface, download the video from YouTube - pronto!

--
#DeleteChrome

Re:Quick! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 04:43 · Score: 5, Funny

If you've got a Microsoft Surface, download the video from YouTube - pronto!
only one man is our last hope then
Re:Quick! by RoboRay · 2013-05-16 05:04 · Score: 4, Funny

(sound of crickets)
Re:Quick! by X0563511 · 2013-05-16 05:23 · Score: 1

... or just use keepvid instead. Cheaper!

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Quick! by Austerity+Empowers · 2013-05-16 05:43 · Score: 1

No, not even crickets would touch that.
Re:Quick! by EdZ · 2013-05-16 06:04 · Score: 1

Or any of the numerous userscripts that don't require you to go via some shady and superfluous website.
Re:Quick! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2013-05-16 06:39 · Score: 1

Please also download the picture of the judge Tebowing with Angelina Jolie's leg, while Clint Eastwood lectures him in a chair, in the middle of Prince Harry's strip billiard party, while an enraged taxi driver pounds on the door demanding his fare, at a Japanese spanking schoolgirl enema nurse clinic on the back of a turtle, with . . .
Reality. It's shopped photos, all the way down . . .

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Re:Quick! by camperdave · 2013-05-16 08:31 · Score: 1

I'm not clicking any link on this story. This is a perfect opportunity for RickRolling Slashdot.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Quick! by X0563511 · 2013-05-16 08:47 · Score: 1

Your loss. It's not like a glimpse or Rick causes brain cancer or something.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · 2013-05-16 04:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

3...2...1...

Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by i+kan+reed · 2013-05-16 04:47 · Score: 1

But why? It's not like it's some celebrity using the judicial system as a bully. And there's not really any amusing or interesting content to the video. Is it just cause we don't like judicial orders here?
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by Anon,+Not+Coward+D · 2013-05-16 04:52 · Score: 1

I can see many parodies coming... f.i. action movies with explosions escenes. The man in the video will be remembered forever

--
Sometimes it's better not having signature
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-05-16 04:54 · Score: 5, Informative

Also a testament to the stupidity of mob justice. Before it emerged that this guy had been wrongly identified, you had people posting his home address on busily trafficked sites, his phone number, metaphorically throwing nooses over lamp posts, the works. Afterwards, the same people were still trying to pin something on him somehow because he had the temerity to make them look like trigger happy vigilante clowns without a clue, which is what they are.
I don't blame him for trying to strike back through the legal system but since the video doesn't in fact identify him I'm not sure why he wants it pulled down. Renamed maybe might be a better option.
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by Jawnn · 2013-05-16 05:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

But why? It's not like it's some celebrity using the judicial system as a bully. And there's not really any amusing or interesting content to the video. Is it just cause we don't like judicial orders here?
True, but there's no denying that that video will be viewed a few more times than it would have been before the poor lad went to court to bitch about it. What he should have done is fire back on Facebook, Twitter, and various other social media. You know where all the people who care about useless shit like this will see it and know he's innocent.
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by ZombieBraintrust · 2013-05-16 05:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Except he is innocent. So the Streisand effect is a good thing for him if it gets the word out that it wasn't him in the video.
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 05:04 · Score: 1

Jesus, man, do you really want to give a judge from any random country authority over what videos can be posted on YouTube?
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 05:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sounds like they should go after these vigilantes instead. That's one area where I'd fully support "making strong examples of." Internet vigilantism has only started to make an impact but will get tragically big real quick, it needs to get nipped in the bud asap.
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by Rhacman · 2013-05-16 05:29 · Score: 1

Actually, I think it is brilliant to try to get the video pulled down. The fact that the ruling is absurd only brings more attention to the fact that he was wrongly accused.

--
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by ultranova · 2013-05-16 05:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Internet vigilantism has only started to make an impact but will get tragically big real quick, it needs to get nipped in the bud asap.

Internet vigilantism can't be nipped as long as "tough on crime" remains popular, since it's the same thing in different guise: people like letting their sadistic impulses out every now and then, and if they can pretend they're doing it for the sake of justice it's all the more enjoyable.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by i+kan+reed · 2013-05-16 06:31 · Score: 1

I don't want to give them that power, but they already have it. International injunctions go like this: you can ignore them, but then you face the full legal authority of the issuing nation against all your interests in said country.
Don't like the legal system of a country? Don't operate there.
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 06:44 · Score: 1

From the Wikipedia:

The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.
It has nothing to do with whether the person is a celebrity or they're acting as a bully. It's not a question of whether the video is interesting. The point is that, in trying to have the video removed, it has in fact drawn more attention to the video. In this case, I hadn't heard anything about this video until just now, and my first instinct was to find a copy so I could see what the whole story is about.
Now in this guy's case, the Streisand effect might be a good thing. If the idea is to clear his name, then he doesn't necessarily need to hide/censor the original accusation that he skipped out on the taxi fare. He just needs to have the story of his vindication publicized *more* than the original accusation.
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by dywolf · 2013-05-16 08:07 · Score: 1

there's a bit of a difference beween stealing food because you're desperate and starving, and stealing a car or tv.
though it should be pointed out that no church or soup kitchen i've -ever- seen or heard of would -ever- turn away someone who wants to eat, and i've never found a town without either one yet.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by Opportunist · 2013-05-16 08:39 · Score: 1

Enjoy playing whack-a-mole a lot? Because that's what it would be if you really wanted to execute that injunction. There's literally millions of computers participating here, and every single one thereof might contain a copy of that video. Not to mention all the media that were connected to the internet when the video was reproduced and are no longer connected. But may be so in the future. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe next year. Or in 10.
You can order whatever you want, there are simply things the precious law can't order. Well, it can order, but likewise, the people can tell it to go fuck itself, and with impunity. It's not like there is any chance in hell to find out who has the video, who publishes it and where. Unless you're willing to spend a vastly disproportional amount of resources.
Do you REALLY think any country on this whole planet would go out of its way to execute such an injunction? If anything, countries will pay lip service to it, if it's not forwarded to officer /dev/null altogether.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by i+kan+reed · 2013-05-16 08:53 · Score: 1

Failing to submit to an injunction is a serious crime that has recurring penalties. The countries have an interest in maintaining the rule of law, even for bad decisions. I'm not endorsing the judge's decision.
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by david_thornley · 2013-05-16 09:22 · Score: 2

In a more rational world, we'd try to find ways to get low crime rates without spending too much. Imprisoning people is expensive. Other countries seem to get low crime rates while imprisoning many fewer people.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by Raenex · 2013-05-16 10:20 · Score: 1

In a more rational world, we'd try to find ways to get low crime rates without spending too much.
I'm all for it, if it actually lowers costs. But do note that other countries put their people in prison for stealing.
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by DNS-and-BIND · 2013-05-16 11:06 · Score: 1

Sadistic impulses? Criminals are flat-out evil. By definition. It's no more sadistic to hate criminals than it is to hate homophobes, conservatives or Christians. All of them fall under the same category.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by cusco · 2013-05-16 12:30 · Score: 1

put their people in prison for stealing less than $100 million.

FTFY.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by Raenex · 2013-05-16 12:41 · Score: 1

less than $100 million.

Bernie Madoff

FTFY
Fuck off.
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by mjwx · 2013-05-16 13:05 · Score: 1

Here the Streisand effect may actually be helpful. This case has highlighted that Eoin McKeogh was wrongly identified as a fare-jumper.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by mjwx · 2013-05-16 13:07 · Score: 1

In a more rational world, we'd try to find ways to get low crime rates without spending too much. Imprisoning people is expensive. Other countries seem to get low crime rates while imprisoning many fewer people.
Yes, other nations recognise that rehabilitation is better than just punishment.

Also locking up potheads help no-one. Potheads are the least disruptive of all drug users and most tend to hold jobs (maybe not glamorous jobs, but jobs never the less).

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by cusco · 2013-05-16 14:11 · Score: 2

Madoff only went to jail because he ripped off rich people. The ones that stole so much they crashed the worldwide economy got bonuses.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by Raenex · 2013-05-16 14:29 · Score: 1

Madoff only went to jail because he ripped off rich people.
Now you're moving the goalposts.

The ones that stole so much they crashed the worldwide economy got bonuses.
You seem to think it was just a few people that "stole". In actuality, it was a giant culture of greed, from little people to people at the top. People buying houses they couldn't afford, people selling houses to people who couldn't afford them, incompetent finance guys who believed in formulas over good business sense, and sellers of repackaged shit like Goldman who sold to the greedy finance guys.
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by cusco · 2013-05-17 01:20 · Score: 1

People bought houses they couldn't afford because the people who were supposed to be "experts" told them they actually could afford the payments. I doubt anyone thought, "I know we can't make these payments for more than a few months, but lets throw all that money down the toilet anyway." The family across the street were told by two different banks and multiple realtors that they could afford that house, that it was entirely within their means, and that lots of other people even less qualified then them were buying houses. No one learns how to make a budget any more, and schools long ago gave up teaching financial literacy, I only blame them for being gullible. Now it belongs to the bank and sits empty.

Other than that, I pretty much agree. No, it wasn't "just a few people", there were thousands involved, a very large percentage of which knowingly and willingly broke laws in order to enrich themselves. Almost none of them are going to jail.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by ultranova · 2013-05-17 01:31 · Score: 1

Criminals are flat-out evil. By definition.

No, that's not the definition of criminal.

It's no more sadistic to hate criminals than it is to hate homophobes, conservatives or Christians.

What if the homophobe lives in Iran? There, homosexuality is a crime, so according to you homosexuals must be evil, thus the homophobe is hating evil people which, again according to you, is okay.
For that matter, what about a state that has anti-sodomy laws in books but then removes them? Are all the homosexuals instantly de-evilized when the law is struck down? And what if an Iranian homosexual and an Iranian homophobe leave Iran and enter USA? The homosexual is no longer a criminal, thus not necessarily evil, thus the homophobes justifications fall flat.
My, it is a weird world authoritarians live in.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Cue the Streisand effect in ..... by Raenex · 2013-05-17 01:46 · Score: 1

People bought houses they couldn't afford because the people who were supposed to be "experts" told them they actually could afford the payments.
They also bought them because they were greedy, when even a little bit of common sense would tell them that they couldn't afford the house.

I doubt anyone thought, "I know we can't make these payments for more than a few months, but lets throw all that money down the toilet anyway."
They paid what they were willing to pay a month. If the money became too much (perhaps due to an adjustable rate mortgage), they just bailed. And as housing prices skyrocketed, people who were prudent decided to wait to buy a house, while people who decided they wanted a McMansion, too, jumped in. Greed, greed, greed, all around.

I only blame them for being gullible.
Personal responsibility has to count for something. You can't just give people a free pass to act like a greedy moron and then foot the bill.

I... um. Ok. by i+kan+reed · 2013-05-16 04:39 · Score: 2

Judges can order this sort of thing. It's effectiveness will come down to whether anyone cares enough to re-upload it multiple times in multiple places. The judge is in the wrong for misunderstanding the source of the slander, but I'm not sure what that means for "my rights online"

Re:I... um. Ok. by i+kan+reed · 2013-05-16 04:45 · Score: 1

And your motive in doing so was what? I'm not sure what principle you're taking a stand on, but I guess as long as you think you're doing the right thing?
Re:I... um. Ok. by almitydave · 2013-05-16 04:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Taking a stand against ridiculous court orders. Civil disobedience to promote awareness and justice. Defiance of an illegitimate order from a lawful authority.
Basically, to point out the futility of what is frankly an idiotic order. The experts ought to tell the judge that once it's on the internet, it's there for all time.

--
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Re:I... um. Ok. by pla · 2013-05-16 04:54 · Score: 2

O'm not sure what that means for "my rights online"

It means that we have yet another shining example of the last bastion of justice in a 1st-world legal system demonstrating their complete incompetence when it comes to making decisions about the most powerful tool ever devised by humans.

Not only does it show an outright scary lack of understanding of how the internet works (in the organizational sense), but it also proves him as so out of touch with the reality of the modern world that he doesn't even recognize the sort of memes we pretty much take for granted - In this case, the "Streisand effect".

/ I've got my copy, and you have no jurisdiction over me, Mr. Peart. Your move.
Re:I... um. Ok. by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-05-16 05:02 · Score: 1

I wish that were the case, I went looking for a blog I used to enjoy last week and it was nowhere to be found. It went tits up in 2011 it seems and even the usual archives haven't got more than a few pages of it.
Re:I... um. Ok. by AJH16 · 2013-05-16 05:24 · Score: 1

Just because you can't find it doesn't mean someone, somewhere doesn't have a copy posted.

--
AJ Henderson
Re:I... um. Ok. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 05:26 · Score: 1

an order that is both idiotic and futile is not necessarily illegitimate and an injustice. It's just dumb. if you've been libeled and the judge orders the libel removed it's not injustice if it's impossible to actually remove the libel. it's just not possible (and in this case it's not). I'm not sure how many other ways I can put this. It's not justice making sure slander cannot be removed upon order. The guy didn't do it. So you're saying it's a corruption of justice if we can't see a video and comments that finger him as the perpetrator? That's justice to you? It isn't to me, but you've got your own style, I guess.
Re:I... um. Ok. by almitydave · 2013-05-16 05:28 · Score: 1

Well, that's true - but I wasn't talking about literally everything. But viral videos, or other popular content tends to stick around. The internet has this potential: if people want it, it will be available. Hence the utter failure of DRM and copy protection. So stuff can be removed, or just drop off, but no one can guarantee permanent removal of anything.

--
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Re:I... um. Ok. by Muros · 2013-05-16 05:55 · Score: 1

Sshhhhh. Go away with your common sense, the trolls want to burn the old man judge who doesn't understand the internet.
Re:I... um. Ok. by almitydave · 2013-05-16 06:03 · Score: 1

an order that is both idiotic and futile is not necessarily illegitimate and an injustice. It's just dumb. if you've been libeled and the judge orders the libel removed it's not injustice if it's impossible to actually remove the libel. it's just not possible (and in this case it's not).
I don't necessarily disagree...

I'm not sure how many other ways I can put this. It's not justice making sure slander cannot be removed upon order. The guy didn't do it. So you're saying it's a corruption of justice if we can't see a video and comments that finger him as the perpetrator? That's justice to you? It isn't to me, but you've got your own style, I guess.
If ordering the removal of the video infringes on YouTube's, Facebooks, and whoever else's rights, then yes, it's unjust. I totally understand the libel/slander issue here - but the focus should then be on those doing the libeling/slandering, not YouTube/Facebook/etc. I wasn't there for the hearing, and I don't know Irish laws, so there may be no equivalent of DMCA safe-harbor provision, but I don't see any rational way that merely focusing on the hosting of the video addresses these issues. It is, however, an easier target for the plaintiff to sue the sites, rather than each individual making nasty comments.
I don't actually think we disagree all that much - but I'm making a crucial distinction between the video and the comments.

--
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Re:I... um. Ok. by Muros · 2013-05-16 06:04 · Score: 1

Not only does it show an outright scary lack of understanding of how the internet works (in the organizational sense), but it also proves him as so out of touch with the reality of the modern world that he doesn't even recognize the sort of memes we pretty much take for granted - In this case, the "Streisand effect".
Thats a bit unfair really. A lot of older people will have no idea about recent memes on the internet, despite being quite knowledgeable about computers. I know people who have worked in IT since they started out repairing mechanical counting machines, and if I ever need help with a tits-up RS-6000 I'll go straight to them for help. I doubt they'd know what the Streisand effect refers to. Why should a judge?
Re:I... um. Ok. by SonnyDog09 · 2013-05-16 06:55 · Score: 1

The correct response is: "He has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" -- Andrew Jackson
See Worchester v. Georgia

--
Your "fair share" is NOT in my wallet.
Re:I... um. Ok. by Soluzar · 2013-05-16 06:57 · Score: 1

He doesn't need to know it by name, or anything about the incident that gave it that name. It might be enlightening for him if he understood the underlying principle, though.
Re:I... um. Ok. by i+kan+reed · 2013-05-16 07:48 · Score: 2

Believe it or not, google(in Dublin) has assets that the Irish government can act on as a means of enforcing their laws. Facebook doubtless has bank accounts for deals with advertisers based in Ireland too.
There's no international immunity when you act within the nation giving the ruling. They'd probably have a harder time going after vimeo or pirate bay, which are both out of their jurisdiction.
Re:I... um. Ok. by Blrfl · 2013-05-16 09:33 · Score: 1

Google can comply, but if I put a copy of it up on my web server in the U.S. and refuse to remove it, how are the courts in Ireland going to force me to take them down if I have no interests there?
Re:I... um. Ok. by Surgepoint · 2013-05-16 11:39 · Score: 1

Where did you get it? I can't find the vid.
Re:I... um. Ok. by cusco · 2013-05-16 14:17 · Score: 1

YouTube's, Facebooks, and whoever else's rights

Human beings have rights. Corporations don't have rights, they have legal permissions and obligations.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:I... um. Ok. by i+kan+reed · 2013-05-17 01:47 · Score: 1

They aren't, more than likely. But it will lack the built in sharability that most-used video sites have. Sometimes enforcement is about doing well-enough.
Re:I... um. Ok. by Blrfl · 2013-05-17 01:57 · Score: 1

'Cept that the order is "worldwide."

Good luck with that... by jwthompson2 · 2013-05-16 04:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

At least the court has asked it it's even technically feasible; good luck with that.

--
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

Re:Good luck with that... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-05-16 08:19 · Score: 1

Of course it's technically feasible. Migrate a delete command through their system woth the video ID, CRC signature, whatever.
Also the taxi driver is still looking for his deadbeat.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Eoin McKeugh just became immortal. . . . by Salgak1 · 2013-05-16 04:40 · Score: 3, Funny

. . . . .by GUARANTEEING that the video in question will be mirrored, and parodied, etc.

Somebody obviously knows NOTHING about how the 'net works.. . This is, after all. . . . serious business..

Re:Eoin McKeugh just became immortal. . . . by MachineShedFred · 2013-05-16 05:06 · Score: 1

1. The movie industry is constantly getting their stuff taken down, but at a rate that is slower than it gets put back up. That's clearly working very well for them.
2. It's not likely they would file a DMCA notice this is an Irish citizen and an Irish judge in an Irish court, and the DMCA is a US law. Also, it's a copyright law, and this isn't a copyright action. The judge could attempt a restraining order, but those need to be targeted; and good luck with that on the Internet where jurisdiction can change faster than most people change their socks.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:Eoin McKeugh just became immortal. . . . by mattventura · 2013-05-16 07:11 · Score: 1

That's not how the DMCA works. Under the safe harbor provision, if they comply with the takedown notice, you can't sue them for it. The only time he would be able to sue people is if they refuse to take the video down.
For that matter, why would the DMCA even apply here? This is an issue of libel, not copyright.
Re:Eoin McKeugh just became immortal. . . . by gl4ss · 2013-05-16 19:00 · Score: 1

maybe he knows.
now his side of the story gets the streisand effect you see. it's beneficial for him that people read this story, since it puts the video in the right context.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

Imprecise. by nospam007 · 2013-05-16 04:40 · Score: 1

Which one of the Internets does he mean?

learning time.. by zome · 2013-05-16 04:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

in two weeks, they will learn two things: 1) how internet works, 2) what streisand effect is.

Re:learning time.. by kimvette · 2013-05-16 06:05 · Score: 1

I think Streisand Effect is the innocent man's intent.

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Re:learning time.. by anonymov · 2013-05-16 07:25 · Score: 1

Given how Internet rumours work, he's just as likely to end up with "OMG this guy ditched taxi fare and and asshole bribed judge demands The Internet to censor this douchebag's name!!!11 Heres the video, share, like and comment if your not like him!"

With no power comes no responsiblity by Anita+Coney · 2013-05-16 04:42 · Score: 4, Informative

By the power invested by my lion tamer hat, I order unicorns to stop farting rainbows.

--
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.

Re:With no power comes no responsiblity by msauve · 2013-05-16 04:59 · Score: 2

If you stop rainbows from farting, where will Skittles come from?

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:With no power comes no responsiblity by internerdj · 2013-05-16 05:04 · Score: 1

Dude. He is trying to save the Irish economy. With no rainbows to hide those pots of gold, the Irish government can finally get their share from those dirty tax-dodging leprechauns.
Re:With no power comes no responsiblity by xevioso · 2013-05-16 05:22 · Score: 1

Rainbows don't fart. Unicorns fart rainbows. Read the post again, please.
Re:With no power comes no responsiblity by msauve · 2013-05-16 05:37 · Score: 1

Whoosh.

It's ambiguous. I choose to read it as the unicorns are ordered to stop the farting rainbows. Rainbows do fart, just watch a Skittles ad.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:With no power comes no responsiblity by Scarletdown · 2013-05-16 05:37 · Score: 1

By the power invested by my lion tamer hat, I order unicorns to stop farting rainbows.
That would at least make sense, as that is a serious public safety issue.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Re:With no power comes no responsiblity by ArsonSmith · 2013-05-16 06:01 · Score: 1

Ok, re-read, got the message that the unicorns need to stop the farting rainbows.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:With no power comes no responsiblity by xevioso · 2013-05-16 06:38 · Score: 1

Look, this is a silly, unenforcable order. How the hell is a unicorn going to stop a rainbow from farting? The unicorn most likely has control over it's own flatellic power, so it probably can stop itself from issuing iridescent crescented flatellae.
Re:With no power comes no responsiblity by MiSaunaSnob · 2013-05-17 05:29 · Score: 1

if one were interested in a lion tamer hat where would one find one. Also is the power inherent in the hat, or do I need to take a class or how does this work?

Ha ha.. Lucky for us by fustakrakich · 2013-05-16 04:43 · Score: 1

The "Internet" is too big to jail... But since there really is only one ISP, it might not be so difficult..

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

clueless judge by Dorianny · 2013-05-16 04:48 · Score: 1

There should really be a authority that can remove clueless, bonehead judges from the "entire internet".

Re:clueless judge by Shimbo · 2013-05-16 05:15 · Score: 5, Funny

There should be an authority that can prevent Slashdot from being trolled by a summary that seems to have no basis in the original story. We could call this hypothetical super-being an editor.

A different perspective by Sarten-X · 2013-05-16 04:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sure, the obvious spin the summary evokes is that the judge is one of those numbskull government bureaucrats, who thinks the Internet has a central authority that can respond to such requests. Let's all laugh at the silly judge and reinforce our anti-government hivemind.

On the other hand, the judge likely ordered that the video be taken down, knowing perfectly well that it's impossible to be removed completely. However, those big companies make up the majority of the video's audience, so if they take down the video (and its associated accusation of Mr. McKeogh), the effect is to substantially reduce the harm to Mr. McKeogh's reputation... which is exactly the goal. Since the ruling is in Ireland, where those companies keep their double-Irish tax avoidance entities, the companies will of course want to stay in the good grace of the Irish courts.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.

Re:A different perspective by almitydave · 2013-05-16 05:02 · Score: 4, Informative

Except that even if it's completely removed once, it will resurface widely and immediately. If reducing the harm to Mr. McKeogh's reputation is the priority, they should leave all known copies up, but add a note that the person is NOT Mr. McKeogh, possibly with a link to this case.
I'm sure the judge is not a numbskull, but the whole problem is not the video, but the misinformation accompanying the video.

--
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Re:A different perspective by drinkypoo · 2013-05-16 05:09 · Score: 1

I'm sure the judge is not a numbskull, but the whole problem is not the video, but the misinformation accompanying the video.
If the judge knew that the misinformation was the problem, and he ordered the video taken down, then he is either a numbskull or evil, in that he is abusing his power to attempt to unnecessarily suppress information that does not belong to him. There's no third way.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:A different perspective by Sarten-X · 2013-05-16 05:20 · Score: 2

How well would that work, though? By now, the comments on the videos apparently have McKeogh's home address, phone number, and other personal details. A small note of sanity won't stop the self-righteous asshats of the Internet from making this man's life hell. Even through this discussion, there's already many commentors promising to perpetuate the man's suffering, just out of spite for being told that not to libel others.
The problem is the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Someone's personal life has been severely harmed by the information these companies continue to publish. When they're asked to stop publishing such lies, the schmucks crawl out to protest this affront to their ability to screw up others' lives, and they promise to just screw up the man's life even worse than before.
This is not civilization. This is unbridled sadism masquerading as vigilantism.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:A different perspective by Sarten-X · 2013-05-16 05:28 · Score: 1

...Or he's perfectly correct.
Since the defendants in the suit (the big companies hosting the video and comments) are operating in his court's jurisdiction, he has the legal right to order them to remove the lies and obviously-false information linking McKeogh to the crime he didn't commit. Since those lies and false accusations are causing unjust harm to McKeogh, the judge has the moral right to order them removed, as well.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:A different perspective by almitydave · 2013-05-16 06:14 · Score: 1

How well would that work, though? By now, the comments on the videos apparently have McKeogh's home address, phone number, and other personal details. A small note of sanity won't stop the self-righteous asshats of the Internet from making this man's life hell. Even through this discussion, there's already many commentors promising to perpetuate the man's suffering, just out of spite for being told that not to libel others.
And these people would then be liable for whatever legal recourse there is for online stalking/harassment, and deleting the video probably wouldn't curb that much anyway.

The problem is the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Someone's personal life has been severely harmed by the information these companies continue to publish. When they're asked to stop publishing such lies, the schmucks crawl out to protest this affront to their ability to screw up others' lives, and they promise to just screw up the man's life even worse than before.
This is not civilization. This is unbridled sadism masquerading as vigilantism.
And by "shmucks" are you referring to Google/Facebook/et al., or the people actually doing the harassing? I just don't think there's a feasible way, nor should there be, to prevent all future potential harassment. The GIFT (ironic, heh) is an unfortunate but necessary by-product of a free internet.

--
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Re:A different perspective by Muros · 2013-05-16 06:32 · Score: 1

If the judge knew that the misinformation was the problem, and he ordered the video taken down, then he is either a numbskull or evil, in that he is abusing his power to attempt to unnecessarily suppress information that does not belong to him. There's no third way.
Misinformation is quite obviously not the only problem. This was a video posted asking for someone to be blamed, and someone maliciously pointed a finger at someone who was close to being on the opposite side of the world at the time. If the malicious comment is removed but the video remains, someone else will be blamed. Leaving aside the whole issue of the futility of removing an object from the internet, the judge was correct in ascertaining that the problem was indeed the video, as it was an invitation to accuse, rather than serving any real purpose of justice. Everyone has been stiffed at some point, if some cabbie wants to make sure it doesn't happen again he should just spend some time showing the video to his colleagues. But the cabbies here are all probably too busy trying to get laws passed banning foreign drivers. Couldn't find a reference, but there was recently legislation here to affirm your right to skip taxis in a queue to find one that is to your liking, obviously because of cleanliness standards, or because you're a snob who insists on a Merc. Nothing to do with the fact the first guy in the queue was from Uganda, no sir, nothing like that at all.
Re:A different perspective by Sarten-X · 2013-05-16 09:12 · Score: 1

And these people would then be liable for whatever legal recourse there is for online stalking/harassment, and deleting the video probably wouldn't curb that much anyway.
Yes, let's require the victim to file a few thousand individual lawsuits against anonymous defendants who posted offensive YouTube comments... then we can also disparage him for engaging in a mass lawsuit campaign like the RIAA.
Or we can just remove the biggest offenders in continuing the libel. Get rid of YouTube, Facebook, and Google listings connecting his name to the video, and the most reputable sites left in search results will be the news articles explaining that he's innocent. Potential employers won't be nearly as discouraged from hiring him, and he doesn't have to worry nearly as much about being the punching bag of the Internet. There will still be libelous statements out there, but the damage won't be as substantial. It's not perfect, but it's as close to justice as we can get.

I just don't think there's a feasible way, nor should there be, to prevent all future potential harassment. The GIFT is an unfortunate but necessary by-product of a free internet.
Further analysis of the theory by the author suggests a feasible mechanism for curbing such abuse. All we need to do is add consequences. Unfortunately, requiring the victim to file separate lawsuits for each libelous commenter is unjust in itself. Google could simply release the personal profiles of such posters, but that runs afoul of people's sense of privacy. This raises an interesting dilemma: Why should Mr. McKeough lose his privacy for having done nothing wrong, but we protect the privacy of stalkers?
The GIFT is not a by-product of a free Internet. Indeed, examples of similar behavior have been noted back to ancient Greece. What's apparent is that when people have no concern for consequences, they are abusive, but the consequences don't need to be as severe as legal punishment. We can still have an Internet full of free expression, but with restrained offense. Consider this conversation, for instance. You and I have diametrically opposed viewpoints, yet can still respectfully express our arguments. The only consequence for us launching into a tirade of profanity-filled ad-hominem attacks is that we lose respect among our peers, but that's enough.
Perhaps a better solution to this problem is for Google, et al. to replace the video with a nice montage illustrating the harm that's come from Internet vigilantism. Show the financial damage of a DDoS, show the death threats, and show the victims of harassment who committed suicide. Let's add some consequences.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.

By commenting I can delete videos? Cool! by Aristos+Mazer · 2013-05-16 04:49 · Score: 4, Informative

So, if there's some video I don't like on the Internet, I just go there and add a comment saying that it is this Irish dude doing whatever it is that is in the video? I can think of lots of embarrassing videos that various celebrities would like to see go away. Just add "Hey! That's Eoin McKeogh!" to the video and then sue in Ireland.

This is just one of many problems I see with this ruling. It just was the most interesting one.

Re:By commenting I can delete videos? Cool! by PPH · 2013-05-16 16:23 · Score: 1

We apologize again for the fault in the Internet. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

It's a complicated thing, but by fisted · 2013-05-16 04:53 · Score: 4, Funny

technically it's not that difficult. There are engineers who know which screws to remove, where the hooks and claws sit, etc, in order to disassemble the Internet and pull out that video. It's a matter of cost, mainly, and while it is a daunting task already to dismantle the machine, it's even more difficult to properly put it back together in the end.
I wouldn't be the one to risk that, tbh. What if you, say, forget a gear, or mismatch the pressure release valve?

--
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!

Re:It's a complicated thing, but by Amouth · 2013-05-16 05:04 · Score: 1

It's simple just screw up the global BGP tables and no one will be able to access it. no where did is see where the order required zero impact to anything else.

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:It's a complicated thing, but by gman003 · 2013-05-16 05:13 · Score: 1

Better solution: Disconnect the internet connections of anyone involved in the case, *including* the judge. As far as they'll be able to tell, the video was removed.
Re:It's a complicated thing, but by Solandri · 2013-05-16 05:30 · Score: 2

No, no, no. You know the joke about asking a mathematician to corral a dozen sheep inside a hula hoop? The mathematician thinks about it for a minute, then steps inside the hula hoop and declares that his side is the outside. That's what we need to do here. Just cut off the guy's Internet access forever. Then he won't know that this is going on, and everything will be just fine.
Re:It's a complicated thing, but by jittles · 2013-05-16 05:35 · Score: 1

What if you, say, forget a gear, or mismatch the pressure release valve?
I'm pretty sure there is content on the internet that is specifically geared towards pressure release valves that go both ways...
Re:It's a complicated thing, but by MMC+Monster · 2013-05-16 06:55 · Score: 1

technically it's not that difficult.
It actually is simple. All you need to do is destroy the planet. And I don't mean just kill all life on the planet. I mean make it so that the planet Earth no longer exists. (see here: http://qntm.org/destroy )

--
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Re:It's a complicated thing, but by PPH · 2013-05-16 16:18 · Score: 1

Every time we take it apart, we end up with spare parts when we reassemble it.
If we keep this up, pretty soon we'll have enough to build another Internet.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Lets share it! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 04:53 · Score: 1

I suggest we handle this the slashdot way. One person upload a copy, I will make a torrent. Lets see some judge remove a video "entirely from the internet".

Re:Lets share it! by fisted · 2013-05-16 06:25 · Score: 1

Cool, Mum's-Basement-to-Mum's-Basement protocol?

--
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!

And The Answer Is: by ewhac · 2013-05-16 04:54 · Score: 4, Funny

Experts from Google, Youtube, Facebook, and others must tell the court in two weeks if this is technically possible.

No.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions: Simpleton Edition.

Schwab

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions

A big opportunity by gmuslera · 2013-05-16 05:00 · Score: 2

As that judge seem to be stranded in 1990 or so, we can use him to send messages to the past and avoid a lot of catastrophes.

Just thinking here... by gr8_phk · 2013-05-16 05:00 · Score: 1

Suppose the judge ordered the OWNER of the video to remove it from the internet. Now that poor chump would have to run around sending takedown notices for those violating his copyright. See see see? Now he's not outside his jurisdiction and can plausibly get it removed from the major portions of the net by offloading the pain onto the video owner.

In a related case, by Snufu · 2013-05-16 05:02 · Score: 1

the same judge ordered water to stop being wet.

Confucius says... by WaffleMonster · 2013-05-16 05:06 · Score: 1

Irish judge thinking he can censor whole Internet spend too much time in Irish pub.

Hmmm ... by gstoddart · 2013-05-16 05:07 · Score: 1

Methinks the judge may have little understanding of both how the internet works, and what his jurisdiction actually is.

If a judge in Ireland believes he somehow has the authority (let alone the technical ability) to order this, he's grossly mis-informed.

He can make rulings on what happens in Ireland, but for the rest of the world ... well, Iran can make all of the demands they want about taking stuff off the internet too, but nobody will care either.

This basically demonstrates he doesn't understand either the internet, or the application of law as it pertains to the rest of the world.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:Hmmm ... by gstoddart · 2013-05-16 05:49 · Score: 1

I think you should read more than the subject before commenting and claiming someone else is ignorant
I did read it. And while he can legally put pressure on Google et al to remove it in Ireland, if someone has put it on any server outside of Ireland (which by now I'm sure they have out of sheer spite), then there is nothing at all this judge will be able to do about that.
Trying to take stuff down from the internet tends to be a losing battle, because people then immediately start sharing copies of it.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Hmmm ... by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-05-16 06:20 · Score: 1

And while he can legally put pressure on Google et al to remove it in Ireland, if someone has put it on any server outside of Ireland (which by now I'm sure they have out of sheer spite)
So, why do you seem to believe that Google's servers are in Ireland? Last I checked, Google had servers on every continent but Africa and Australia...

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Hmmm ... by gstoddart · 2013-05-16 06:29 · Score: 1

Which, oddly enough, was my entire point ... the Irish judge can make judgements about what they have to do on the servers located in Ireland. And all of those servers not in Ireland are, unsurprisingly, not under the jurisdiction of an Irish court.
Why do you seem to believe that I believe all Google servers are in Ireland? Because I sure as hell never suggested that.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Hmmm ... by HiThere · 2013-05-16 08:30 · Score: 1

If I read it (the summary) correctly he ordered Google, etc. to tell him whether it was possible to remove the video from the internet.
This is a much more reasonable request. If I were to trust the summary, it wouldn't even be a request for Google to stop returning the video as the result of a search in Ireland. Or to do any particular thing other than sending him a report.
FWIW, it's probably possible, at the cost of perhaps doubling the traffic on the internet. (You need to remove prior copies that resurface, versions compressed with a standard compression package, etc..) And it's certainly possible at the cost of removing all video transmissions. (I think e-mail without attachments could be preserved, but probably not web pages, and even transmission of compressed files is questionable if you want a high degree of certainty.) Of course, real certainlty would require shutting down the internet.
Note that none of this addresses the question of whether Google has the capability of performing the action. But they are clearly actions that would yield the outcome in question.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Streisand streisand! by Silpher · 2013-05-16 05:08 · Score: 1

You dear man, just made yourself immortal on the Internet.

Or perhaps the Judge has a sense of humor by thinktech · 2013-05-16 05:10 · Score: 1

I'm going to make the much more enjoyable assumption that the judge heard this guys request...rolled his eyes... and with an ironic look of imperialism slammed his gavel to the desk and declared that THIS VIDEO MUST BE DELETED FROM ALL THE INTERNETS! ... I'm also going to assume that he was forced to demand order in the court from all the clapping and that he had to summon medics because 2 teenage girls swooned.

--
What's up with this box everyone has to think inside of or outside of? Why does there have to be a box?

suitable punishment by ei4anb · 2013-05-16 05:11 · Score: 1

The judge knows that it's impossible to remove all copies from the Internet but he has ordered Google etc to work on the problem and demonstrate that they have spent some effort in trying as punishment for not being helpful earlier when the plaintiff asked them to clear his name.

Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 05:13 · Score: 1

1. Create a link to the youtube video on the Desktop.
2. Bring a laptop before the judge.
3. Move the link to the recycle bin.
4. Claim that the video has been deleted from the Internet.

Inother news by dmomo · 2013-05-16 05:13 · Score: 1

People of Earth, who by their access to the Internet are arguably connected to the internet are served with a court order to forget this information.

Re:WHERE'S THE VID?! by bobthesungeek76036 · 2013-05-16 05:15 · Score: 1

The DailyMail has a still shot from the video: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090070/Eoin-McKeogh-falsely-branded-thief-worlds-biggest-websites.html Quick YouTube search didn't come up with anything for me. Maybe "The Internet" already did it's job....

--
Karma: Bad

A good way to defend his own name by edanto · 2013-05-16 05:21 · Score: 2

I think that the judge is perfectly conscious of the impossibility of removing all copies of the video from the internet, but the young man made the request knowing that it would get all this attention, and help him to clear his name.

When this incident happened, it was a huge new story (in Ireland at least) and a fair few people that I know were unaware that his name was cleared, when the dust settled. This, to me, seems like an effective use of a modified Striesand effect.

Is the judge a descendent of ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2013-05-16 05:30 · Score: 1

... King Canute?

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact

Re:Is the judge a descendent of ... by deadweight · 2013-05-16 06:25 · Score: 1

I think King Canute - IIRC - was demonsrating to his advisors the limits of his power and knew full well he wasn't going to order the tide to go in or out ;)

Where's the popcorn by evilviper · 2013-05-16 05:48 · Score: 1

This could get interesting... With some 3rd-world nothing of a country, they'd just be adversarial and pull out of the country if things got bad.

But since Ireland is the EU tax haven for these companies, how far are they willing to go to humor the Irish courts and keep their billions of dollars each year safely out of the hands of the governments they rightly belong to?

I'm betting Google is only too happy to be incredibly evil, to keep their tax haven happy with them...

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Comments owned by the poster. by Dareth · 2013-05-16 05:52 · Score: 2

Let the poster explain to the judge that he "owns" the comment, but doesn't have a delete or edit button.

Judge might rule Slashdot be taken off the internet.

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling

Re:Comments owned by the poster. by kimvette · 2013-05-16 06:08 · Score: 1

It can't be that hard - the Internet is right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50

ALL YOUR INTERNETS ARE BELONG TO US by mareksokal · 2013-05-16 05:56 · Score: 1

I wonder if the Judge realizes that my local area network is "on the internet" as are all of your computers... With that said I think we should all setup web servers and host the video. This reminds me of the Kevin Mitnick trial... "When armed with a keyboard" comes to mind. You might also want to ask the people at Way Back Machine to delete it too.

Re:Ask Al Gore by Tablizer · 2013-05-16 05:59 · Score: 1

He he. Let's see if the judge makes Mr. Gore testify.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Impossible by kimvette · 2013-05-16 06:14 · Score: 1

It's quite impossible to delete anything from the Internet. Once it is uploaded, it is there forever. I read that on the Internet, so it must be true.

One possibility exists though: all you need to do is intentionally clog things up, or maybe install a couple of clamps. That way, you can isolate the video and it will not be able to flow anywhere.

After all, the Internet is just a series of tubes, right?

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50

streisand effect punks please handle properly by iggymanz · 2013-05-16 06:14 · Score: 1

Now that this video will uploaded to youtube, usenet, bittorrent, file hosting until the end of time, please ensure to label and put the incorrect name "Eoin McKeogh " in all filenames, labels and descriptions. Also address each post to the attention of Mr Justice Michael Peart. thank you.

It makes backwards-compatability sense? by Rastl · 2013-05-16 06:45 · Score: 1

Sadly this is more of a commentary on the fact that legal professionals have not caught up to current technology. They don't understand that there is no single source for anything (unless it's behind a paywall and then there's only a chance that it's a single source point). It makes legal sense to require it be removed but there is no practical way to do this.

The best scenario I can come up with is that he ~meant~ for it to be removed from the major sources that can be identified as hosts and then the wrongly accused could work on a site-by-site basis to have the stragglers removed. That puts a huge burden on him after the initial purge but it does give him immediate legal authority to demand it be done.

Better to leave it up by pseudorand · 2013-05-16 06:49 · Score: 1

Seems better for the 'victim' to leave it up. He can then claim slander and sue whoever posted it AND anyone who reposts it elsewhere. The burden will then be on those douches to have those companies remove the video. Net effect: People will learn to be more careful when posting untrue stuff about others and the Internet will be transformed into a bastion of truth.

Possibly I'm a bit over-optimistic.

Re:Better to leave it up by eyenot · 2013-05-16 07:28 · Score: 1

I think you're right. It's just logistically a huge hell-hole to get into trying to sue people in all of these different countries in their national versions of civil court, when he could just sue the few companies that play catalyst to his calumny.

--
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee

what's powdering that wig, judge? by swschrad · 2013-05-16 07:22 · Score: 2

the Webizens hereby order The Law to get a clue, cease and desist from idiocy. if we hold you in contempt, your face will be pasted on millions of cat pictures. woot.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?

You got the title wrong by eyenot · 2013-05-16 07:27 · Score: 2

Should be titled:

"Decent Man vs. The Douchebag Mouthbreathing Adult Children Of the Internet And Their Coddling Surrogate-Parent Corporate 1% Elite"

--
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee

Fine by Greyfox · 2013-05-16 13:44 · Score: 1

I'll get right on that...

AWW! I accidentally COPIED it! God damn it! Hang on...

AWW! Now there are FOUR copies! And one of them's on xtube! Oh well, at least all the waving penises in the ads will distract you from the content of the video. What kind of idiot tries to DELETE things from the INTERNET anyway? Every time you try, THIS is what happens!

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Low-tax jurisdictional arbitrage for Google etc. by billstewart · 2013-05-16 17:31 · Score: 2

Lots of big corporations have more complicated tax liabilities that can't be handled by being registered in just one company. It's not uncommon to have multiple layers of corporate shells, with different layers being the ones that officially do some part of the business in that country so as to minimize overall taxes. One such approach is the Double Irish Arrangement often with a "Dutch Sandwich" in between, and Wikipedia identifies Google as one of a number of well-known large companies doing things like this.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

I hereby by azav · 2013-05-17 04:19 · Score: 1

order "the Irish" to stop drinking.

I'm sure this will be a task of commensurate feasibility.

--
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...

Slashdot Mirror

Irish Judge Orders 'The Internet' To Delete Video

165 of 243 comments (clear)