It's still a matter of someone with something to sell pointing out not-so-subtly that they have a solution for this (gosh) horrible problem. And to the probably industry shill who modded me down: go for it, I have more karma than Siva.
Good point--I was referring only to backscatter messages. Another aggravation is the "click this link to verify you're not a spammer and allow the message into my inbox" message. I click the link, then report the message. I thought that stupid idea had died a justified death until I received such a message yesterday that referenced mail-block.com.
From: Randy Saaf [mailto:randy@mediadefender.com] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 5:06 PM To: Benjamin, David Cc: Ben Grodsky; Jay Mairs Subject: FW: newsgroups
David:
There looks like there is a fair amount. Is this a play at ISP liability?
R
From: Ben Grodsky Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 1:04 PM To: Randy Saaf; leaks Cc: Jay Mairs Subject: RE: newsgroups
yes. loads of it. and loads of other illegal type content that David might also be wondering about.
From: Randy Saaf Sent: Mon 11-Jun-07 12:57 To: leaks Cc: Jay Mairs Subject: Fw: newsgroups
Without downloading, can anyone tell me if there is kiddie porn on news groups?
--- Original Message --- From: Benjamin, David To: Randy Saaf; Octavio Herrera Sent: Mon Jun 11 12:42:39 2007 Subject: newsgroups
is there kiddie porn on newsgroups
Next target is going to be premium ISPs. Now that the "legitimate" ISPs have dropped alt, it's just a matter of suing for contributory copyright infringement, which is what the crackdown on USENET is really all about.
. . . and gets nothing in the way of information opposing this view.
I beg to differ. Colleges and K-12, documented in part from stories here, have been co-opted into putting out the MAFIAA's side of the intellectual "property" story using myriad propaganda techniques (anyone remember "Don't copy that floppy" and the attempt to seriously introduce "softlifting" ito the lexicon from the BSA?),
I find it encouraging that we haven't slid that far, but the trend towards is disturbing. I remember being told about Simas Kudirka's defection in grade school and the lack of freedom in the U.S.S.R. at the time. Many of the things they described such as pervasive state surveillance, secret police, citizens being encouraged to inform on each other, children being encouraged to denounce their parents, etc. are starting to happen here.
Ah--but it *does* have to be documented, then. So if someone manages to find out they were, say, diabetic or HIV positive through an anonymous test (don't know if this is even possible) but kept it under their hat until insured, and was never treated for the condition before having become insured, the insurance company still gets to pay. I was thinking that it might be possible for them to make the argument that the illness had to have been present before the date of insurance, even if they couldn't find documentation.
Surprised there isn't a significant market for anonymous, fee for service medical treatment or at least testing given the possibility of being blackballed for a showstopper illness.
If they redacted because the amount they paid was embarrassing, rather than legitimately suppressed for national security, that's an abuse of the redaction process and just as bad as if it were legitimate sensitive information they were trying to hide.
As one of those fat bastards (as well as a non-smoker who nevertheless abhors the infringement on individual sovreignty that excessive cigarette taxes and smoking bans represent), I'd like to present you with a hale and hearty "piss off".
Compelled doesn't mean a lot when they just terminate the user's service. The loophole you pointed out is one they can drive a station wagon full of mag tapes through. And as to the loss of safe harbor for failing to restore potentially infringing content? I doubt that any judge and jury is going to hold that against the ISP should it be decided infringement had indeed occurred, which is the only case in which the safe harbor would be an issue anyway. So it looks like in the letter the law might compel, but in practice that it only permits.
All it takes is for someone to say "Hey I'm not a runner and I disagree with the takedown" and the ISPs must put it back up ASAP.
That is not true. The ISP is permitted, not compelled to put the contact back up after having received a counterclaim. Most ISPs decline, preferring to let their customers go rather than deal with the (non-existent, given the safe harbor provision) risk of being sued.
If only that did any good. The counterclaim permits, but does not force, the ISP to restore the content that was the subject of the takedown notice (although the ISP would have a safe harbor if it did). Not many ISPs are willing to "man up", and fold at any threat and would rather lose the business than deal with any potential legal hassles.
Slashdot Mirror
It's still a matter of someone with something to sell pointing out not-so-subtly that they have a solution for this (gosh) horrible problem. And to the probably industry shill who modded me down: go for it, I have more karma than Siva.
News at 11.
Well played!
Obviously that's never been challenged on First Amendment grounds. What state, if I may ask?
Robert Tinney did the covers for Byte Magazine in the late 70s/early 80s and is selling prints of some of them now.
Good point--I was referring only to backscatter messages. Another aggravation is the "click this link to verify you're not a spammer and allow the message into my inbox" message. I click the link, then report the message. I thought that stupid idea had died a justified death until I received such a message yesterday that referenced mail-block.com.
Write your own damn code!
I've got practically infinite disk space on my old 486, because I ran multiple copies of Stacker :).
I find it encouraging that we haven't slid that far, but the trend towards is disturbing. I remember being told about Simas Kudirka's defection in grade school and the lack of freedom in the U.S.S.R. at the time. Many of the things they described such as pervasive state surveillance, secret police, citizens being encouraged to inform on each other, children being encouraged to denounce their parents, etc. are starting to happen here.
We're already well on our way to being like the USSR. May I please see your internal passport, Comrade?
Surprised there isn't a significant market for anonymous, fee for service medical treatment or at least testing given the possibility of being blackballed for a showstopper illness.
You're thinking of USPS Registered Mail, but other than that, you're right.
If they redacted because the amount they paid was embarrassing, rather than legitimately suppressed for national security, that's an abuse of the redaction process and just as bad as if it were legitimate sensitive information they were trying to hide.
. . . when this "profane" picture of their "saint" is mirrored everywhere and becomes an Internet meme.
No worries--my humor detector was apparently broken. FWIW, I didn't mod you down!
As one of those fat bastards (as well as a non-smoker who nevertheless abhors the infringement on individual sovreignty that excessive cigarette taxes and smoking bans represent), I'd like to present you with a hale and hearty "piss off".
Hear, fucking hear.
Compelled doesn't mean a lot when they just terminate the user's service. The loophole you pointed out is one they can drive a station wagon full of mag tapes through. And as to the loss of safe harbor for failing to restore potentially infringing content? I doubt that any judge and jury is going to hold that against the ISP should it be decided infringement had indeed occurred, which is the only case in which the safe harbor would be an issue anyway. So it looks like in the letter the law might compel, but in practice that it only permits.
That is not true. The ISP is permitted, not compelled to put the contact back up after having received a counterclaim. Most ISPs decline, preferring to let their customers go rather than deal with the (non-existent, given the safe harbor provision) risk of being sued.
If only that did any good. The counterclaim permits, but does not force, the ISP to restore the content that was the subject of the takedown notice (although the ISP would have a safe harbor if it did). Not many ISPs are willing to "man up", and fold at any threat and would rather lose the business than deal with any potential legal hassles.