U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#51

Post by rayiner » Wed, Oct 02, 2013, 9:25 PM UTC

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #46

rayiner wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that Youtube takes advantage of the DMCA safe harbor provision by responding to DMCA takedown requests. Indeed, the Youtube/Viacom litigation was instrumental in the current understanding between media companies and internet companies that sharing sites could operate freely as long as they complied with DMCA requirements. Megaupload in comparison made it a point to bill itself as a facilitator of co…

I'm not sure I remember it billing itself as a facilitator of copyright infringment and I do seem to recall megaupload responding to DMCA requests. I remember in response to their indictment megaupload said that the DMCA requests they didn't respond to were on machines that had some other legal instrument demanding they not interfere with the evidence. I wasn't sure how youtube's private videos worked but jlgreco has…

I don't know if the Google/Viacom litigation says anything about Google's lobbying prowess. Google is just trying to take advantage of the DMCA safe harbor, which is as old as Google itself and quite a bit older than Youtube.

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#52

Post by eliasmacpherson » Wed, Oct 02, 2013, 9:39 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #48

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I remember it billing itself as a facilitator of copyright infringment and I do seem to recall megaupload responding to DMCA requests. I remember in response to their indictment megaupload said that the DMCA requests they didn't respond to were on machines that had some other legal instrument demanding they not interfere with the evidence. I wasn't sure how youtube's private videos worked but jlgreco has…

No, from the available information (including the indictment) it did not appear that Megaupload complied with DMCA laws. Specifically: (1) They sought to rate-limit DMCA takedown requests (2) They operated the service with red-flag knowledge of copyrighted content, such as when a user complained that the video quality of the Showtime show "Dexter" was poor, and Kim Schmitz mailed his team to work on improving the qua…

1) I don't have anything to disagree with here specifically: it would be easy to make a case that youtube were more responsive than megaupload. (though I don't know any of the details - I'm just assuming) I doubt megaupload had youtube's resources - another assumption.

2) 3) and 4) I think youtube staff were just as bad if not worse. From Google/Viacom - you can see email transcripts on page 7 onwards (numbers being at the bottom of the page)

(PDF warning) http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/...

4) further to above - I do think youtube channels make money - and copyright material can be a source of that (though it should not be by their rules). Youtube now have detectors in place - that wasn't always the case. Megaupload could have done similar.

I think what really swung it for Google was catching Viacom uploading their own material, and yet suing for it, but again I'm not 100%

Also youtube weren't dealing with an FBI sting and it went through the courts. (I think that is where the lobbying aspect comes in - wild speculation, sure, but there is a marked difference in treatment)

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#53

Post by BlackDeath3 » Wed, Oct 02, 2013, 10:01 PM UTC

mrt0mat0 wrote: post #10

I honestly didn't expect much from this. The part that scares me about all of this is this: if the government can't read our emails, listen to our phone calls, or see our web traffic but they have the ability to... what stops them from outsourcing the work to another country, where there is no constitutional restraint. we outsource everything else, why not our domestic spying?

That sounds sort of like treason to me. Or, I don't know, terrorism.

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#54

Post by tptacek » Wed, Oct 02, 2013, 10:03 PM UTC

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #52

tptacek wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, from the available information (including the indictment) it did not appear that Megaupload complied with DMCA laws. Specifically: (1) They sought to rate-limit DMCA takedown requests (2) They operated the service with red-flag knowledge of copyrighted content, such as when a user complained that the video quality of the Showtime show "Dexter" was poor, and Kim Schmitz mailed his team to work on improving the qua…

1) I don't have anything to disagree with here specifically: it would be easy to make a case that youtube were more responsive than megaupload. (though I don't know any of the details - I'm just assuming) I doubt megaupload had youtube's resources - another assumption. 2) 3) and 4) I think youtube staff were just as bad if not worse. From Google/Viacom - you can see email transcripts on page 7 onwards (numbers being…

Thanks for digging that up. It's instructive to read the evidence in the Viacom suit and compare it with the MegaUpload indictment. Again and again, the management of Youtube struggles with the copyright problem. Clear directives are given to remove full-length videos. The legality of clips from Comedy Central are constantly questioned. When Jawed Karim himself posts a copyrighted video, the rest of the team seems angry. And yes, repeatedly, the Youtube team is shown to be sensitive to the impact that copyright enforcement will have on their user stats.

There is no such conflict in the Mega emails. Kim Schmitz is show repeatedly to be concerned solely with maximizing the value of the content Mega stores to users. The operators of Megaupload are repeatedly shown to be aware of specific infringing content --- sometimes because they themselves used it, sometimes because their users pointed it out, and in some cases because they paid to have it put there.

Could there have been a criminal infringement charge leveled against Youtube? Based on this evidence, it looks like "maybe". But would DOJ have won the case? Almost certainly not. Read the judgements in the Viacom case. The founders are repeatedly found not to have had awareness of specific infringements. The DOJ doesn't bring cases it doesn't think it can win.

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#55

Post by kansface » Wed, Oct 02, 2013, 10:07 PM UTC

jamesaguilar wrote: post #28

CurtMonash wrote: post #7

There was a time when the trade-off was: 1. The government lied and pretends not to engage in domestic espionage. 2. To support that lie, the government didn't do much bad stuff with the results of its domestic spying. 3. Thus, the domestic spying wasn't a big deal. I think we're past that point now.

What bad stuff has the government done with the current batch of domestic spying?

Individuals are also a problem: see things like spying on girlfriends and blackmail.

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#56

Post by eliasmacpherson » Wed, Oct 02, 2013, 10:16 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #54

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) I don't have anything to disagree with here specifically: it would be easy to make a case that youtube were more responsive than megaupload. (though I don't know any of the details - I'm just assuming) I doubt megaupload had youtube's resources - another assumption. 2) 3) and 4) I think youtube staff were just as bad if not worse. From Google/Viacom - you can see email transcripts on page 7 onwards (numbers being…

Thanks for digging that up. It's instructive to read the evidence in the Viacom suit and compare it with the MegaUpload indictment. Again and again, the management of Youtube struggles with the copyright problem. Clear directives are given to remove full-length videos. The legality of clips from Comedy Central are constantly questioned. When Jawed Karim himself posts a copyrighted video, the rest of the team seems an…

> There is no such conflict in the Mega emails. Kim Schmitz is show repeatedly to be concerned solely with maximizing the value of the content Mega stores to users. The operators of Megaupload are repeatedly shown to be aware of specific infringing content --- sometimes because they themselves used it, sometimes because their users pointed it out, and in some cases because they paid to have it put there.

Agree with everything you wrote except the above. Basically the disagreement is on the source materials - one is a naive Viacom and the other is an indictment. So I think the indictment is cherrypicked "better" than Viacom managed.

If e.g. the FBI/DOJ were going after youtube I think they would have quoted more selectively than Viacom did.

Unless the full text of Mega's emails are out there - I can't be sure there's no conflict, I'm sure someone could dredge up him ordering something taken down.

Again with "repeatedly" and "specific" - the youtube emails, for all their conflict are repeated and specific, many times. There's also instances of youtube employee's grabbing stuff from other sites and putting it there themselves, which mega are accused of. I'm pretty sure with youtube's channel system, copyrighted content is paid to be put there in the same manner, though I'm not sure how youtube's early users were compensated.

I doubt the thought occured to them to bring a criminal case against youtube - that's one of the points I'm wildly speculating on - or if it was the case, lobbying stemmed it.

I'll have a read of the ruling: (PDF) http://www.legalbytes.com/uploads/file/Viacom-YouTube%20%28G...

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#57

Post by tptacek » Wed, Oct 02, 2013, 10:24 PM UTC

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #56

tptacek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for digging that up. It's instructive to read the evidence in the Viacom suit and compare it with the MegaUpload indictment. Again and again, the management of Youtube struggles with the copyright problem. Clear directives are given to remove full-length videos. The legality of clips from Comedy Central are constantly questioned. When Jawed Karim himself posts a copyrighted video, the rest of the team seems an…

> There is no such conflict in the Mega emails. Kim Schmitz is show repeatedly to be concerned solely with maximizing the value of the content Mega stores to users. The operators of Megaupload are repeatedly shown to be aware of specific infringing content --- sometimes because they themselves used it, sometimes because their users pointed it out, and in some cases because they paid to have it put there. Agree with e…

The full text of Mega emails are included in the indictment. If Viacom could have quoted anything of a similar magnitude, they absolutely would have. You should read the indictment. It's damning. And fun reading!

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#58

Post by jlgreco » Wed, Oct 02, 2013, 10:24 PM UTC

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #47

jlgreco wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everything on Youtube is publicly indexed. That is not actually the case. Youtube has a concept of both private and unlisted videos. Unlisted videos work similarly to how you describe Megaupload: "Unlisted videos Making a video unlisted means that only people who have the link to the video can view it. To share an unlisted video, just share the link with the people who you’d like to have access to it, and they’ll t…

Can you embed private videos on youtube in a webpage?

I have no idea, I've never actually uploaded anything to youtube.

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#59

Post by brudgers » Wed, Oct 02, 2013, 10:25 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #18

brudgers wrote: post #6

So this week I've been reading Battle of Wits: The Complete Story of Codebreaking in World War II by Stephen Budiansky. The US intelligence community has a long history of going right to the communication source and obtaining raw data from public companies. In the 1920's Herbert Yardley's "American Black Chamber" worked with Western Union and other cable companies who turned over interesting cablegrams and radiograms…

So if anything. What we are seing might be an improvement of the situation rather than a worsening. People can and do speak up and for each generation we will move toward a more liberal approach perhaps.

Maybe. But intelligence is an odd enterprise.

Two hundred years ago, intercepting signals was extremely difficult. They were sent by courier in envelopes. Couriers are crafty and the backwoods perimeter long.

150 years ago, they could be sent by wire and this meant both an explosion of signals, but also a corresponding ease of identifying the route by which they would be passed.

In the early 20th century, radio increased the volume of signals, but again interception became easier to the point that there were many so many locations from which an antenna could be used that the development of encryption and decryption methods became the most important task in signals intelligence.

Today, anything could be important. And the NSA, being charged with national security assumes that you and I may very well be up to no good. There job is to be paranoid, and they are good at it.

Building a massive security apparatus, so far as I am aware, has never led to a more liberal political regime. While anecdote is not evidence, I don't see how one can make a strong case that the current state of affairs is the result of increasing liberalization.

Re: U.S. Opposes Tech Companies’ Requests to Disclose Surveillance

#60

Post by eliasmacpherson » Wed, Oct 02, 2013, 10:26 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #57

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no such conflict in the Mega emails. Kim Schmitz is show repeatedly to be concerned solely with maximizing the value of the content Mega stores to users. The operators of Megaupload are repeatedly shown to be aware of specific infringing content --- sometimes because they themselves used it, sometimes because their users pointed it out, and in some cases because they paid to have it put there. Agree with e…

The full text of Mega emails are included in the indictment. If Viacom could have quoted anything of a similar magnitude, they absolutely would have. You should read the indictment. It's damning. And fun reading!

I remember enjoying reading the indictment, but I don't recall all of Mega's emails being there, that's what I was getting at. Given a sufficiently large sample - I'm sure you could find exonerating material.