Slashdot Mirror
Terrorists Used False DMCA Claims To Get Personal Data of Anti-Islamic Youtuber
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.
The species and its imaginary friends are full of entertainment.
There must be some massive cognitive dissonance going on in media circles at the moment..
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
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?
I'm sure you get this all the time, but really: there's no call for the generalisation.
Thank you for demonstrating your blatant racism and ignorance.
You do realize that there is 1.6 billion of people that are muslims in the world, spread out over the most of the globe? Your comment is like saying that we should ban all Christians from having human rights, because they are Bible thumping bigots opposing gays and abortions.
Please, do educate yourself before you open your mouth next time.
The solution is to require anyone that wishes to submit DMCA requests has to have a DMCA license number and be registered with the country that the company resides in for the lawful take down.
That way youtube can confirm that the email address and license number match the organization that is requesting the DMCA.
To confirm the validity of the email, a random string is sent back and needs to be replied, or a link sent to the email that they have to click on to complete the DMCA.
Make it cost prohibitive to get a license so that only proper organizations can do this. If people monkey around, they get their license revoked and have to re-apply and risk being banned from receiving a license.
Problem solved, DMCA requests become more sane.
Opposing gays and abortions isn't quite the same as selling them as sex slaves or beheading them, is it?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
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.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm
It's a problem, and a big one. Can we please stop pretending otherwise?
How does American Law apply to Europeans and people in Germany --- or do US companies carry the American flag with them when they provide services in Europe and such?
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
They are so frightened of the truth, or the freedom to spread information, that they have to scare people into not doing it.
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".
I wonder if there will be push back against the DMCA system now that it helped terrorists. Like there has been push back against encryption.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
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."
need I go on?
Yes please do, because if you want a numbers game I think you know that by far Islam is massively guilty here, So I'll be waiting.
The crusades were a reaction to the atrocities that Islam was engaged with CENTURIES, not decades but centuries in the Mediterranean & middle east, just like we are seeing now with ISIS. You know murder, torture, slaving all the sorts of things that are considered in-human. Come on the battle of Tours was in 732 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... ]. We were trying to wipe them out and for good reason.
The problem is that the issue IS with Islam, it is the problem, because you see Mohamed is meant to be the perfect man?! Really? How can a rapist, murdering, pedophile possibly be perfect? All muslims are taught to be like him. For example some of the great examples muslims follow Mohamed forces a 17 yr old Jewish girl called Safiyyah to marry him and rapes her on the same day her husband and family are killed in the battle of Khaibar (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 522, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367).
You know everything that is being done by these muslim terrorist (Al-nasura, ISIS, Boko haram, etc.....) All of it comes from the Quran, every bit of it. Try and do that with the new testament.
Political? Islam is a political system you fool!
So the issue fundamentally IS ISLAM, is Mohamed, his teachings and more importantly his behaviour. OK here's a snip for you to think about:
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/...
A Muslim state must [first] attack a Christian state—sorry, I mean any non-Muslim state—and they [the women, the future sex-slaves] must be captives of the raid. Is this forbidden? Not at all; according to Islam, sex slaves are not at all forbidden. Quite the contrary, the rules regulating sex-slaves differ from those for free women [i.e., Muslim women]: the latter’s body must be covered entirely, except for her face and hands, whereas the sex-slave is kept naked from the bellybutton on up—she is different from the free woman; the free woman has to be married properly to her husband, but the sex-slave—he just buys her and that’s that.
Oh did you notice the freudian slip she made as well?
Unfortunately there are indeed Muslim countries in which the majority of people support killing apostates, yes. (Afghanistan, for instance.)
That doesn't make Chrisq's bullshit any less unreasonable, though. Muslims in Western countries tend not to be like that.
You have to bear in mind that following Muhammad's example, as they have done throughout the world, they will apear friendly and attempt to undermine societies until they have sufficient forces for a violent uprising. Lets hope that when it happens it will go the way of Spain, not Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan, and many more.
Look at statistics like the fact that more European Muslims have joined Islamic state than their country's armed forces (it may be true in the US also, I don't know) and you get an idea of what these "peaceful" muslims in the west think.
Google isn't the problem here, they did exactly what was expected of them. The law itself ("safe harbor") isn't really a problem either. The problem is that there's no meaningfull check and balance. It's a very one-sided thing. The law wasn't written by all parties invoved, it was written singlehadedly with one side's interests in mind.
If someone cries "rape!" and gets a man arrested, and then we find out that it was just a girl scorned that didn't like her BF had cheated on her, SHE is now up for legal charges "filing a false statement" as well as a target for a civil suit.
No such balance exists with DMCA. Anyone can file a DMCA claim, and the recipient is legally obligated to take action. They're not [i]required[/i] to take action, but if they don't, they accept legal responsibility if the DMCA filing was lawful. So it's not really "optional" for them, even though it may appear so.
Then, if the filing turns out to be iffy, inaccurate, or even deliberaly misleading, there are NO penalties or liabilities of any kind for the person that filed the fraudulent DMCA notice.
This has several effects, and only some of them are really noticed. First, the victim has no recourse. They have no legal basis to sue the filer. No law has been broken, so law enforcement has no teeth either. But it doesn't stop there. The victim's only possible relief is a civil suit against the middleman tha received the notice. (google in this case) They have a pretty good defense since they can argue (as above) that although not legally obligated, they actually WERE obligated, indirectly. Also, google has no recourse against the filer. If they have to stage a legal defense against the victim, it's on their nickel, they can't recover any of the costs from the filer because google acted "voluntarily".
The only way out of this for google is to do research before acting on the notice. This causes all sorts of problems because not promptly taking the material down forfeits their protection, and there will be a cost to this, which is unrecoverable, regardless of the outcome.
Provisions for accountability need to be added to the law. Not so much to protect the victim, but to protect the intermediary, so they can act in the victim's best interst instead of as the filer's whipping dog. Do that, and it would (A) reduce the number of false claims, (B) make people think more carefully about filing a claim, (C) give the intermediaries some teeth to go after fraudulent filings. Once that's in place, the back end of the process will only be activated when there's a much better change it's necessary and appropriate.
Looking to change the back end of this process just isn't productive. The changes need to be made in the middle.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I agree, albeit in the general sense. There's a group of mentally deranged humans that make the other 5% look bad.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
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
“Taqiyya” is the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, with its origins in Shi’a Islam but now practiced by non-Shi’a as well, of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers. A related term, of broader application, is “kitman,” which is defined as “mental reservation.” An example of “Taqiyya” would be the insistence of a Muslim apologist that “of course” there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qur’anic verse — “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” {2:256} But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been cancelled out by later, far more intolerant and malevolent verses. In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, “compulsion in religion” for Muslims, and for non-Muslims.”Kitman” is close to “taqiyya,” but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Muslim maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle,” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “kitman.” When he adduces, in support of this doubtful proposition, the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said (as known from a chain of transmitters, or isnad), that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” and does not add what he also knows to be true, that this is a “weak” hadith, regarded by the most-respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing “kitman.
I'm not really convinced by that argument:
"Hey remember that one time that one guy killed some people and said that it was for Jesus? Yeah, that means Christians are as bad as Muslims, who in the meantime have committed tens of thousands of separate suicide attacks."
Today in the world, most terrorism comes from the Muslim community. Nobody gets to claim that that factual statement implies that all Muslims are terrorists, because that's not what the statement says. Anyone who makes that false claim concedes all credibility.
A majority of worldwide Muslims support death as a punishment for apostasy. If you think death-for-apostasy is bad, and if you think majority support within a group for a certain policy makes it fair to discuss that policy in terms of that group, then it is fair to say that "Muslims support death for apostates".
Compare that to the statement "Republicans support restrictions on abortion". Is that a true statement? I consider it to be true even though not every last Republican supports restrictions on abortion. When discussing groups, we don't have to account for every last member of the group. If we did, it would be impossible to discuss groups.
The Muslim community has problems -- moral problems. The community generally supports some incredibly horrible things. It is wonderful that some Muslims are not horrible, especially many or most of those who now live in Western countries, as well as a minority of those living in Islamic countries. I hope that that minority grows into the majority someday, but today they are still a minority, and it is fair to discuss Muslims as a group and policies supported by the majority of Muslims.
Muslims as a group support death for apostasy.
Muslims as a group are opposed to rights for women.
Muslims as a group are opposed to rights for homosexuals.
Muslims as a group support blasphemy laws.
Some Muslims don't support those things; most do.