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

Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

blog.pragmaticengineer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 139 posts

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#81

Post by criddell »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #46
atombender wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good start would be to require that claimants must verify their real identity. The claim in this case was made by an apparent pseudonym and their address is fictional. Both should themselves be reason to reject the claim. The fact that anyone apparently can submit claims to Google under false names seems insane to me.

Who decides what counts as a "real identity"? Fictional address, sure: that would, as I understand, be some kind of fraud, and can reasonably be prohibited if there's a mechanism to do so… but then you run into the problem that not everyone has an address.

> Who decides what counts as a "real identity"?

Notaries do this all the time often for free or for a fairly minimal fee.

The solution doesn't have to be perfect to be better.

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#82

Post by andersonpico »

bluGill wrote: post #69
pibaker wrote: post #17

Ah, yes, you know someone's desperate when you see a bogus DMCA claim like this. Not the first time this happened and definitely won't be the last. This also demonstrates why it is bad for a law to mandate private entities to do moderation, in this case taking down copyright infringement materials when reported. Google, like basically all big platforms, doesn't care if a claim is fraudulent because the parties impact…

Was this really DMCA? The article implies it is, but I don't see any evidence (maybe I missed it). There is discussion of what the DMCA says, and Google took the article down. However it is generally understood that DMCA rarely is used to take things down. Instead Google has a "I can't believe it isn't DMCA" process that looks similar, but in reality it isn't actually DMCA. If this is really DMCA then the author shou…

> but I don't see any evidence

Isn't this screenshot on the article evidence https://storage.ghost.io/c/39/f8/39f85cc7-8637-40fc-a57c-f45... ? Or could it still be the "I can't believe it's not DMCA" you've mentioned?

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#83

Post by nextaccountic »

pibaker wrote: post #54
atombender wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good start would be to require that claimants must verify their real identity. The claim in this case was made by an apparent pseudonym and their address is fictional. Both should themselves be reason to reject the claim. The fact that anyone apparently can submit claims to Google under false names seems insane to me.

This is another problem with letting private entities be the arbitrator. How is Google supposed to know if Ellie Piee is a real person? It can ask for ID verification of course, but these can be faked, and when that happens there is little Google can do to hold the claimant accountable. A court will certainly have an easier time verifying the identity of the claimant and take action when fraud occurs.

How are banks supposed to know if Ellie Piee is a real person?

Actually

How is Google supposed to know if Ellie Piee is a real person when Ellie Piee pays for a Google product? Or otherwise uses a Google service that requires identity

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#84

Post by bluGill »

andersonpico wrote: post #82
bluGill wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was this really DMCA? The article implies it is, but I don't see any evidence (maybe I missed it). There is discussion of what the DMCA says, and Google took the article down. However it is generally understood that DMCA rarely is used to take things down. Instead Google has a "I can't believe it isn't DMCA" process that looks similar, but in reality it isn't actually DMCA. If this is really DMCA then the author shou…

> but I don't see any evidence Isn't this screenshot on the article evidence https://storage.ghost.io/c/39/f8/39f85cc7-8637-40fc-a57c-f45... ? Or could it still be the "I can't believe it's not DMCA" you've mentioned?

I don't know how to tell the difference. Google has incentive to hide this

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#85

Post by buran77 »

pibaker wrote: post #54
atombender wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good start would be to require that claimants must verify their real identity. The claim in this case was made by an apparent pseudonym and their address is fictional. Both should themselves be reason to reject the claim. The fact that anyone apparently can submit claims to Google under false names seems insane to me.

This is another problem with letting private entities be the arbitrator. How is Google supposed to know if Ellie Piee is a real person? It can ask for ID verification of course, but these can be faked, and when that happens there is little Google can do to hold the claimant accountable. A court will certainly have an easier time verifying the identity of the claimant and take action when fraud occurs.

> How is Google supposed to know if Ellie Piee is a real person?

That doesn't really matter. Anyway it's silly to question whether Google, a multi-trillion dollar company, can validate someone's ID when they already do it in many other aspects of their business.

But is Google treating some claims different from others? Are Ellie Piee's claim against Gergely Orosz's article, and the latter's appeal treated exactly the same as any other? In other words, if I use an obviously bogus identity to make DMCA claims against Google content on their own platforms, will they immediately take it down and then go through the same standard appeal process? If not, then the system isn't "abused" it's used exactly as it was designed to be used. In an asymmetrical manner to the benefit of some.

So the real question isn't "how can Google validate an identity", it's "why is Google treating some different from others"? It sure isn't an accident.

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#86

Post by wizzwizz4 »

nkrisc wrote: post #57
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decides what counts as a "real identity"? Fictional address, sure: that would, as I understand, be some kind of fraud, and can reasonably be prohibited if there's a mechanism to do so… but then you run into the problem that not everyone has an address.

Establish the identities of people is something the courts have long had to deal with and is nothing new for them.

Indeed. But it's not something that Google can do, so bolting on an identity verification requirement to the DMCA process isn't helpful. Re-routing DMCA requests through the bureaucracy of the courts might work.

If counterclaims require doxxing yourself under penalty of perjury, then I would assume that's still perjury even if the other guy started it, so just making the counterclaim process easier doesn't fix the problem.

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#87

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

atombender wrote: post #60
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decides what counts as a "real identity"? Fictional address, sure: that would, as I understand, be some kind of fraud, and can reasonably be prohibited if there's a mechanism to do so… but then you run into the problem that not everyone has an address.

The onus is on the DMCA processor to verify the legitimacy of the claim. I don't have a real solution, but Congress created the problem and should solve it. There's of course a whole legal system that has been dealing with this since for ever. If I were to implement it myself, I'd use a third party service like those that can verify passports and driver's licenses and so on.

No they don't. The onus on them is to comply with the takedown request and provide for immediate restoration with a counter-notice. If the initiator is acting in bad faith it will be exposed if they attempt to litigate.

The friction free restoration flow is what Google is missing because they don't actually follow the DMCA process. Amend the law to strip safe harbor immunity in this scenario and suddenly we'd see abuse effectively combated.

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#88

Post by lokar »

HillRat wrote: post #70
pibaker wrote: post #17

Ah, yes, you know someone's desperate when you see a bogus DMCA claim like this. Not the first time this happened and definitely won't be the last. This also demonstrates why it is bad for a law to mandate private entities to do moderation, in this case taking down copyright infringement materials when reported. Google, like basically all big platforms, doesn't care if a claim is fraudulent because the parties impact…

A middle ground (which wouldn't clog up an overburdened court system) would require a US attorney to draft and sign a complaint for a takedown request, putting their accreditation on the line.

You could also require a signed letter that has been properly notarized. Again, adds an independent 3rd party with a verified identity and something to loose. And falsifying is a crime.

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#89

Post by bflesch »

jen20 wrote: post #80
bflesch wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

In the UK, “Wright” is the 14th most common surname. It appears in Chaucer, and appears to cover approximately 900,000 people globally. “Negus” is indeed less common - most prevalent in Ethiopia (where it means “king”) - seems to be 6-7000 people globally currently. However, that _isn’t actually the name_ of the CEO in this case, which is “Negus-Fancey” - an English double-barreled name with different etymology: akin…

[flagged]

Re: Pollen tried to remove my article and Google is assisting with it

#90

Post by lokar »

ikeboy wrote: post #77
lambdaone wrote: post #23

DMCA notices are meant to be submitted "under penalty of perjury", and false notices could in theory result in civil action being taken against those who send them. In practice, neither of these occur even if the sender is a real person, like a record company lawyer lending their name to complaint that are entirely computer generated, or, in this as in so many cases, a completely fabricated identity. Requiring verifi…

We got told by the 9th circuit that false claims submitted under penalty of perjury are actually just "opinions" not capable of being proven true or false. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/22...

But does that apply to a lie about your identity?
Post reply on HN