Before takedown: http://imgur.com/8r9cDxS
CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
31–40 of 87 posts
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#32In a situation like this, who files the counter-claim(s) to get the content restored?
I would SE as an organization cannot, as they are the safe harbor in this case, but it sounds like the takedown notice wasn't specific enough for the relevant users to know what they can leave up. Does each user involved need to counter-claim so that SE can put the question and answers back up? Can one user claim that nothing on the site was infringing and have that be enough to protect SE?
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
That looks really horrible and I am somewhat tempted to write and publish a GreaseMonkey script that does bad things to CipherCloud protected pages...
Why would you (or anyone) deliberately try to hurt a company? Just because their tech is not 'on par'? Please think about how it would hurt that company and the employees (and their families!).
It's not about deliberately hurting a company; if it's possible to make such a script, it will be made. Period.
The question is: do you want the script publicly available, or in the hands of your adversaries without anyone knowing? There's a third alternative: fix the problem.
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
The penalty for materially misrepresenting a DMCA claim is actual damages plus costs and attorney fees. That's automatic, written into the bill, unlike many other torts/crimes where you need exceptional circumstances to get attorneys fees in addition to the damages.
Except that 512(f) of DMCA is practically unenforceable [1], since the standard is to prove that they "knowingly materially" misrepresented: [1] http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/04/another_512f_cl...
So, it's not practically unenforceable. The case Eric is citing appears to be a case where Someone has an actual good faith but unreasonable belief that they have a cause of action.
That eliminates the "knowingly" part. A lot of DMCA claims, including the one in the OP, are being filed by lawyers or companies who will have a much harder time showing they have a good faith but unreasonable belief. They are basically going to have to argue they are idiots. The second you can show bad faith, i have trouble believing (and I don't know of any cases where ..) a court would not impute knowledge.
Basically, you want them to have to consider your affirmative defenses (which is what fair use is). While i don't necessarily disagree, to be fair, this would be wholly inconsistent with almost every other area of law.
For example, if i file a negligence claim against you, you bear the burden of proving any affirmative defense to my claim, such as assumption of risk. I don't have to consider it at all when I file my claim, and if you don't prove your defense, i win. This is true no matter how valid your defense may be.
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#35What's interesting is that there is a whole ecosystem of companies like CipherCloud that do the minimum required to provide solutions for those interested in "compliance," not "security."
My sense has been that their customers are predominately those bound by things like HIPPA or PCI, who want to use cloud services, but can't do it with a straight face unless they can say they're "encrypting" their data.
What their customers want isn't security; it's the minimum required that will allow them to use salesforce.com. Incriminating details on StackExchange aren't a problem because their customers don't already know CipherCloud is insecure, they're a problem because it would make it harder for customers to say they're in compliance with a straight face.
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#36I think "used" needs be replaced with the word "abused". It's appropriate here. With no penalty for false DMCA claims, it's a "stop us if you can" mentality. The real reason may have been the conclusion that "Ciphercloud is NOT doing homomorphic encryption" ? (but google cache still works)
The penalty for materially misrepresenting a DMCA claim is actual damages plus costs and attorney fees. That's automatic, written into the bill, unlike many other torts/crimes where you need exceptional circumstances to get attorneys fees in addition to the damages.
This will only ever be enforced in the case of someone sending a request under a false name.
Anything else is impossible to prove
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#37What's interesting is that there is a whole ecosystem of companies like CipherCloud that do the minimum required to provide solutions for those interested in "compliance," not "security." My sense has been that their customers are predominately those bound by things like HIPPA or PCI, who want to use cloud services, but can't do it with a straight face unless they can say they're "encrypting" their data. What their c…
Is it really that simple? Or is it that crypto is difficult and buyers have no knowledge and thus are wide open for people selling snake-oil?
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#38Just listen to Cryptography I in coursera.
Never ever, use your own algorithm for encryption. Always use tried, tested and known algos. And don't even change it one bit (literally!).
Only the key remains secret.
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#39If something can be destroyed by the truth, then it should be.
If a crypto company abuses DMCA to fight this, then they deserve the Streisand effect. You should send the materials to someone in a free country where DMCA doesn't apply and speech is still free, and they can host the documents and discussion.
Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
That looks really horrible and I am somewhat tempted to write and publish a GreaseMonkey script that does bad things to CipherCloud protected pages...
Why would you (or anyone) deliberately try to hurt a company? Just because their tech is not 'on par'? Please think about how it would hurt that company and the employees (and their families!).
Exposing charlatans is commonly accepted. Elsewhere in the thread it was implied they hold peoples medical data (hipaa).