Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Terrorists Used False DMCA Claims To Get Personal Data of Anti-Islamic Youtuber

Posted by samzenpus on from the names-please dept.

An anonymous reader writes German newspaper FAZ reports (google translated version) that, after facing false DMCA claims by "FirstCrist, Copyright" and threatened by YouTube with takedown, a youtuber running the German version of Islam-critic Al Hayat TV had to disclose their identity in order to get the channel back online. Later, the channel staff got a mail containing a death threat by "FirstCrist, Copyright", containing: "thank you for your personal data. [...] take care your house gets police protection!" Employee names are now on Al Qaeda black lists.

10 of 389 comments (clear)

  1. Trying to wrap my head around this by rebelwarlock · · Score: 5, Informative

    So someone submits a false DMCA, and Youtube accepted this without requiring any proof. They then forced the youtuber to provide proof that it wasn't a copyright violation. They then provided said youtuber's personal information to the person submitting a false DMCA.

    What in the actual fuck?

    1. Re:Trying to wrap my head around this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Youtube and other service providers have to accept it whenever they don't have proof if they want to be safe. I am pretty sure youtube actually did everything they were required to do by law here and nothing more.

      That assumes that there always is an option that doesn't violate any laws. Considering that Germany has pretty strict privacy laws I'm guessing that they are violating laws no matter what they do here.
      They decided to go with the variant where they screw over the little guy rather than show the finger to the copyright industry because it is the path of least resistance. As a result they provided Al Qaeda with a useful tool.

      There is of course a way to follow the laws. Instead of having an automated service they could do the work necessary to validate copyright claims. They chose not to because profits are more important than not hurting people or following the laws.

    2. Re:Trying to wrap my head around this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed, EU privacy laws make this kind of disclosure a very serious matter. At best they should be looking at a massive fine, at worst they could have their permission to store personal data revoked and be forced to delete all personal data held about Europeans.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Re:Typical muslims by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Okay. Anti-Balaka Chrstian militias in CAR.

    Those guys make IS look tame. French peacekeepers were talking about Christian mob going door to door and taking entire families apart with machetes until there were effectively almost no muslims left in the country. They either fled or were killed. They even forced Chad's peacekeepers of muslim faith to flee alongside other muslims.

    Hilariously, Anti-Balaka means "no sword" or "no machete".

  3. Re:Typical muslims by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now compare numbers, both raw and percentage to Islam. You are also conveniently ignoring both the fact that they aren't exclusively Christian (shooting your implication that it's a religious movement) and the reason they developed in the first place - Islamic take over of CAR and terrorism. The very first sentence on the Wiki page in the History section: "The anti-balaka militias originally formed in the 1990s as village self-defense forces."

  4. Re: Typical muslims by sociocapitalist · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, but this isn't really an isolated incident now is it? This shit happens all the time, and it's always Muslims.
    http://www.thereligionofpeace....

    It's a problem, and a big one. Can we please stop pretending otherwise?

    It is not always Muslims.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

    Etc.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  5. Re:Typical muslims by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2, Informative

    Opposing gays and abortions isn't quite the same as selling them as sex slaves or beheading them, is it?

    It is if you blow up abortion clinics.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  6. Re:I thought the DMCA is American Law by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google is your friend:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

    The DMCA is the US's implementation of the WIPO treaty. WIPO is the treaty that all signing parties agreed to, the DMCA is the law that enforces it in the US. Each signing party would have their own law to enforce the treaty. You'd have to look at individual laws in the member-states of the EU to know which particular law enforces the treaty there.

    And now you know... and knowing is half the battle!

  7. Re:Lol! by chihowa · · Score: 2, Informative

    You had me until this:

    Thanks, America ... this really is your fault.

    By blaming the malice or incompetence of the rest of the world's governments on the dirty stinking Americans, you absolve everybody else of responsibility for their actions. Bad American laws are internalized by other countries (especially OECD members) because their lawmakers have the same goals.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  8. Re:the problem is elsewhere by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

    The law itself ("safe harbor") isn't really a problem either.

    Actually the law is the problem here, USC 17512:

    (g)(3) Contents of counter-notification
    (D) The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, (...)

    combined with (g)(2)(B):

    (B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification

    There's no provision to keep your identity a secret, so anyone willing to commit DMCA fraud can reveal who their opponent is. Note that the DMCA only cares about the service provider's liability and their ability to recover costs from fraudulent notices. It it not a shield for the accuser, if you want to sue them for "filing a false statement" you can. But just like taking you to court and being wrong generally isn't a crime, neither is a wrongful DMCA notice unless you can prove it was deliberately false. At any rate it's unlikely it would help here, the courts would probably never manage to pursue it while they already got what they wanted.

    The purpose of providing this counter-notice is that you now have a dispute (claimant and counter-claimant) that the courts would like to see settled outside of court. That part should have been optional and shouldn't need to involve revealing your identity though. I think it's reasonable that your personal information is part of your counter notice and kept in escrow at the service provider to avoid "Mickey Mouse" filing counter notices, but you should get one of three choices when it comes to passing it on:

    a) Use your contact information as legal contact address, like today. Basically, you represent yourself.
    b) Provide a legal contact address, basically your lawyer and a case ID but which doesn't reveal who you are.
    c) Decline to provide a legal contact address, see you in court. They can subpoena your identity if they want.

    As it is though, the DMCA makes this form of abuse of process essentially required for the parties involved.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings