Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

blog.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 222 posts

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#131

Post by AnthonyMouse »

jdietrich wrote: post #98
smsm42 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are many things that an American could say that would see them brought before the courts. Unless it's libel (i.e. intentional or neglectful causing of actual harm to a person) or speech connected to specific lawless action (like saying "let's whack this guy" to a contract killer) - no, there's not. Which things do you mean? > Germans in particular are acutely aware of the disastrous consequences of allowing i…

>Unless it's libel (i.e. intentional or neglectful causing of actual harm to a person) or speech connected to specific lawless action (like saying "let's whack this guy" to a contract killer) - no, there's not. Which things do you mean? It's quite a long list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

That's not a very long list. Several of them fall into his original categories. Incitement, fighting words and child pornography into the second, false statements into the first. (Or more like the first falls into false statements, but libel really is a central example of false statements not being protected.)

The big one he missed was obscenity, but that's somewhat understandable given the frequency with which "obscenity laws" get struck down rather than upheld.

And the others aren't categories of speech. You can't use someone else's copyrighted work, but you can convey the exact same information in your own words. Government employees et al can't say certain things, but anyone else can say the same things.

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#132

Post by eridius »

baroffoos wrote: post #86
lilyball wrote: post #85

Why does the proposed EU legislation have a 1-hour deadline? No matter what you think of the action it's trying to take, a 1-hour deadline is preposterous for anyone and seems expressly designed to force people to set up an automated process that acts on takedown notices without prior review. But who benefits from this? About the only thing I can think of is if some big company, think Facebook or Google, lobbied for…

I think the idea of the 1 hour deadline is to pull it offline before others can download and repost it. The police/governments especially in Australia and New Zealand have worked out that there is simply no way to remove a file from the internet if someone else grabs it in time. Its a fruitless effort and very dangerous when misused but thats what I assume they are trying to do anyway.

By the time the government can find and report it, surely other people will have found it already.

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#133

Post by Semaphor »

wongarsu wrote: post #84
durnygbur wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really hopeless each time one realizes how French and German politicians perceive the internet. For them the internet is not synonymous with the freedom of creativity and expression, but with the freedom to restrain and to control.

Germany is ruled by liberal conservatives for well over a decade. While there is some maliciousness and desire to expand control, I see mostly the lashing out in an attempt to retain the control the state used to have. The internet brings an unprecedented amount of freedom, and that weakens the state. Where previously you could wiretap the phone of a criminal, today you have no way to read his whatsapp. They don't kn…

Just as a reminder, the ruling party, specifically our chancellor Merkel, said: "the Internet is Neuland (uncharted territory) for all of us". And that was only 6 years ago.

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#134

Post by baroffoos »

Carpetsmoker wrote: post #124
baroffoos wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea of the 1 hour deadline is to pull it offline before others can download and repost it. The police/governments especially in Australia and New Zealand have worked out that there is simply no way to remove a file from the internet if someone else grabs it in time. Its a fruitless effort and very dangerous when misused but thats what I assume they are trying to do anyway.

I'm in New Zealand, and finding the Christchurch shooter's manifesto was harder than you'd think. The "it's not foolproof, so it's fruitless"-argument strikes me as missing the point. We can't prevent many things from happening (rape, thieving, excessive drug use, etc.) but that doesn't mean that efforts to contain this are useless.

It was very easy to find if you know where to look. If you know the domain for 8chan you could find it in seconds. The massive attempt to hide the video probably made it much easier to find as so many people who saw it saved it expecting it to be gone in the future.

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#135

Post by nitwit005 »

ascendantlogic wrote: post #13

Politicians do not care about the ramifications of this. They only care about granting themselves power over who sees what when through the guise of combating hate speech, terrorism, child porn, etc. Posting a blog about this will change nothing.

I suspect laziness is a major factor. Half assed keyword searches and threatening emails are easy to implement. A real process with reasonable review and court oversight would take a lot of work.

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#136

Post by [deleted] »

fzeroracer wrote: post #126
Sacho wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your facts argue against your point. In your words, a city , the government itself, tried to block the "Unite the Right" rally. Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter "was treated with far more disdain"(presumably by private actors exercising their own freedom of speech - not government actors?). It sounds like there was plenty of disdain for the "Unite the Right" rally as well - I can't imagine what else would lead a city to…

No, my facts argue in favor of my point. Which is that the policing apparatus in America functions to serve those that are already in power. That was the point of my comparison, because white supremacist rallies tend to be treated very well by the police with violence committed by the rally members allowed to go unchecked, while others are met with immediate violence by the state and a zealous show of force from the…

[deleted]

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#138

Post by sadris »

fzeroracer wrote: post #106
deogeo wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, no-one has any rights anywhere, because you can always find some incident where the law was subverted or abused by the powerful. But I would dearly like to hear how freedom of speech is used to suppress minorities. Note that in my own country (or the region that became my country), censorship was used to suppress the growing independence movement. A movement of a minority of the population. Perhaps if…

An easy way to examine this issue is how rallies, protests etc are treated differently depending on their racial origins. For example, when a city attempted to block the march of the Unite the Right rally, they were met with a strong resistance under their right to freedom of speech. Yet Black Lives Matter was treated with far more disdain and had a considerably stronger and disproportionate response to their activis…

> Yet Black Lives Matter was treated with far more disdain and had a considerably stronger and disproportionate response to their activism.

When was this?

Re: EU Agencies Falsely Report More Than 550 Archive.org URLs as Terrorist Content

#139

Post by sadris »

jijji wrote: post #115

Do any web sites based in the USA have to honor these takedown notices from countries based in the EU?

There is an appellate court case pending involving Google and foreign court orders.

Depending on how is decided is the answer to your question.

Edit: no they do not need to remove content because a foreign entity asked them to https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/06/judge-rules-canada-de-in...

Post reply on HN