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

CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography

meta.crypto.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography

#41

Post by DanBC »

PeterisP wrote: post #39

If 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.

I haven't seen the DMCA notice. I think the screenshots are the things being DMCAd. If so, they clearly fall under fair use.

Someone should issue a counter notice. And get them put back up.

What's interesting to me is what happens if StackExchange put these back up, and then the cryptocompany sends a DMCA to SE's hosts.

Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography

#42

Post by rubbingalcohol »

danbruc wrote: post #21

Now let the Streisand effect do its work... (I made a snapshot of the page from Google's cache only to discover that at least two others used the very same service within the last hour to do exactly the same...and there are a few services to snapshot web pages.)

Here's one. DMCA claim is bullshit. This is fair use: http://static.rubbingalcoholic.com/images/temp/ciphercloud.p...

Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography

#43

Post by qb45 »

sergiotapia wrote: post #22

Google cache of question in...question (lol): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FYBbAFU...

So they use AES as a building block of substitution cipher?

One would think that if something is insecure anyway they could at least make it efficient.

Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography

#44

Post by pyre »

DanBC wrote: post #37
moxie wrote: post #35

What'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?

It can be both. There are going to be companies that are serious about actually protecting their customers (but don't have the technical know-how to be an informed customer), and there are companies that see these laws/rules (PCI, HIPPA) as hindrances to cast aside with the least possible effort.

Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography

#45

Post by qb45 »

sergiotapia wrote: post #24
danbruc wrote: post #23

Earlier 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!).

I guess it's not about hurting a company but about hurting fraudsters. Their tech isn't "not on par" - it's pure nonsense and they know it.

Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography

#46

Post by pyre »

gcb0 wrote: post #36
dangrossman wrote: post #10

Earlier 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.

This will only ever be enforced in the case of someone sending a request under a false name. Anything else is impossible to prove

A lawyer sending a 'copyright' claim over a trademark dispute (for example) would have to argue that they are an idiot about the law (I would think).

Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography

#47

Post by PeterisP »

sergiotapia wrote: post #24
danbruc wrote: post #23

Earlier 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!).

Fraudster companies SHOULD be hurt. And their employees should have been the ones that bring this to light - otherwise, they are accomplices and deserve whatever they get.

Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography

#48

Post by rubbingalcohol »

Situations like this really highlight how out of step the DMCA is with peoples' right to free speech and fair use. DMCA takedowns put too much compliance burden on individuals who are unaware of or intimidated by the counter-notice process.

At the very least, there should be more stringent requirements for legitimate takedown claims and stricter penalties for abusing the process.

Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography

#49

Post by _b8r0 »

moxie wrote: post #35

What'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…

I've mirrored Emil Vokstrom's mirror[1] here[2] and I encourage HNers outside of the US to do the same and post here.

[1] - http://lajm.eu/emil/dump/ciphercloud-security.html

[2] - http://securitybookreviews.eu/ciphercloud/

Re: CipherCloud used DMCA Takedown on StackExchange discussion of their cryptography

#50

Post by troels »

dangrossman wrote: post #17
ck2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So years later you can get content restored? Are there lawyers who will take on cases for consignment only? It's a calculation that little people will not be able to take on the big people. This is why corporations have zero fear of incorrectly killing individual content on youtube, little chance of penalty and they can smother any attempt to fight them.

Not years. It's back up ~10 business days after you file a counternotice or the service provider loses their safe harbor. The DMCA is designed so that disputed content is not taken down permanently without an actual injunction signed by a judge. YouTube is not responding to DMCA notices, it's given media companies direct access to take down content through their own system, and it can do this because it has no obliga…

But surely neither is Stackexchange obliged to host any discussions online. So this content may never reappear - counterfiling or not.
Post reply on HN