The good faith exemption originally had a good purpose, but like so much else, it has been perverted by the government.
The problem is that the government doesn't "learn" from its "mistakes". Okay, good faith in this situation, right? Next week, the same agents, the same prosecutor bring "the same case" before the same judge, as a new case. Agents and prosecutors aren't learning? Violating rights wholesale? Rejected, right?
Nope, same exemption.
Good faith has no memory. The government can use the same excuse, in the same circumstances, over and over and over and never "do (it) right."
At the very least, "good faith" needs to develop a memory of past wrongdoing.
There was a day, when journalism was king and the government and corporations trembled before it. But the journalistic bastions of yesterday are gone, replaced by the boot-licking propaganda mills of today. Facts are also long gone, replaced by self-interested fables taken gratefully from corporate or government press releases and reported with wide-eyed earnestness.
I would rate this one as hot pink with a tendency to go fuchsia and maybe to lava red (is there anything hotter, naturally?).
Not on Earth. But I would suggest maybe "solar yellow" and "nova white" as levels. Especially the latter, since the nebula resulting from a nova is reminiscent of the spreading of a really good Streisand.
I think the DEA creating that fake Facebook account a while back counts.
True, they didn't actually force the person to set up the profile, but they sure forced the profile upon the person; forced words into the person's mouth.
As of the filing of the motion, the court effectively requires that the evidence not be spoiled, everything frozen, until the judge issues a ruling on the motion. (That is necessary because otherwise everyone would simply burn the evidence the moment a motion is filed.)
The article is quite clear she made the change after the spoilation motion was filed.
The intelligence agencies despise criticism--destroy the source if they can--hence this bill to take even the criticism away. But you have to realize that eliminating PCLOB entirely would have as much effect as lifting a teaspoon of water from the ocean; then you'll understand that eliminating their criticism of particular programs hardly matters.
Sarbanes-Oxley is pretty toothless, though. Outside of Arthur Andersen, when is the last time you actually heard of a company getting more than a toe-tap for destroying evidence? And it's pretty easy to get around legally: "Your honor, we have a data destruction policy. It was accidentally destroyed pursuant to that policy." In worst case, punished by a fine amounting to about 0.05% of the CEO's annual salary.
Then there's the government. What's the latest we heard? Oh, right, CIA "accidentally" destroyed a document it was ordered to keep. Too bad, think they'll be punished? (Ha, ha.)
Destruction of evidence pretty much matters only if you're a peon. Corporations and bureaucracy thumb their noses at these rules and orders, all the time.
Google is 100% aware and knowledgeable of the specific bad activity of the Pirate Bay, etc.
No reason for them to be indexed at all.
If it were just Pirate Bay, I'd have a harder time disposing this argument. But it isn't, not really, because you said, "etc."
No, you're arguing for a world in which an IP holder can accuse a website of stealing a song and the website is immediately and utterly destroyed--cut out of the internet. No evidence, no defense, no trial, no conviction, no appeal; just the pointing accusatory finger and then the death penalty.
Contrary to your position I'd argue that they are much better off presenting as strong a defense as needed, spending considerable resources if needed to make it clear that they are willing to do so, and thus discourage others from trying the same to bully them into keeping content down when a counter-notice has been filed.
Oh, I agree, they'd be much better off presenting a strong defense.
But corporate bean counters are prone to argue for the cheap solution; and hand-wave "better off."
What is the greatest risk to YouTube: people like Flores suing? Or NYU (and other "big content" providers) suing again and again and again?
Yes, the dismissal for the case against YouTube will make the case relatively inexpensive--NYU will win no award. But it will cost YouTube lawyer hours; and at $600+ per, those are not cheap.
Suppose such lawsuits are filed regularly by NYU and others. That would tend to discourage the restoration of content after the filing of a counter-notice. Such restoration is not mandatory under the DMCA. For example, there have already been complaints that YouTube sometimes refuses to restore content after receiving a counter-notice; due to contract requirements.
In this specific case, it is already likely that the easy settlement would involve YouTube contracting to discontinue content restoration after an NYU DMCA. If enough big content providers follow the example, perhaps non-restoration will become universal policy.
Murdoch might be dead soon, but another "heartless, unconscionable bastard" will step into his place before his body is cold: the propaganda must go on.
On the post: Appeals Court Tells Government It Must Extend Educational Institution FOIA Fee Price Break To Students
Next up
On the post: Another Court Finds FBI's NIT Warrants To Be Invalid, But Credits Agents' 'Good Faith' To Deny Suppression
Re: Re: The "Good Faith" exception should go away
The problem is that the government doesn't "learn" from its "mistakes". Okay, good faith in this situation, right? Next week, the same agents, the same prosecutor bring "the same case" before the same judge, as a new case. Agents and prosecutors aren't learning? Violating rights wholesale? Rejected, right?
Nope, same exemption.
Good faith has no memory. The government can use the same excuse, in the same circumstances, over and over and over and never "do (it) right."
At the very least, "good faith" needs to develop a memory of past wrongdoing.
On the post: Another Court Finds FBI's NIT Warrants To Be Invalid, But Credits Agents' 'Good Faith' To Deny Suppression
Judge uses his Bic
On the post: Shameful: House Panel Votes Down Plan To Make Public Domain Congressional Research Public
Re: Highly informed voters...
On the post: You're Entitled To Your Own Opinions, But Not Your Own Facts About Copyright, NY Times Edition
Whence journalism
The fourth estate of yesterday is truly dead.
On the post: Judge Says Defendant Has Right To Examine FBI's Hacking Tool While Stating FBI Has Right To Withhold Details
I sense a solution coming up
"Fine with me. Government keeps its secrets; defense gets to look. Justice has been served!"
On the post: Law Firm Subpoenas Glassdoor For Negative Anonymous Reviews, Supercharges Streisand Effect With Its Response
Re: Streisand Degrees
Not on Earth. But I would suggest maybe "solar yellow" and "nova white" as levels. Especially the latter, since the nebula resulting from a nova is reminiscent of the spreading of a really good Streisand.
On the post: Homeland Security Has Not Sent Us A Subpoena
Re: Re:
True, they didn't actually force the person to set up the profile, but they sure forced the profile upon the person; forced words into the person's mouth.
On the post: Why Is Congress Undermining President's Surveillance Oversight Board?
Re: In other news, PCLOB starts pro bono program
If not, then Congress need not worry its empty heads: because no employee is sticking his neck out while the axe awaits.
On the post: Judge: Taking Your Facebook Account Private During Litigation Isn't Exactly 'Preserving Evidence'
Re: Date Mismatch?
The article is quite clear she made the change after the spoilation motion was filed.
On the post: Why Is Congress Undermining President's Surveillance Oversight Board?
Does PCLOB matter?
On the post: Judge: Taking Your Facebook Account Private During Litigation Isn't Exactly 'Preserving Evidence'
Destruction of evidence matters if peons do it
Then there's the government. What's the latest we heard? Oh, right, CIA "accidentally" destroyed a document it was ordered to keep. Too bad, think they'll be punished? (Ha, ha.)
Destruction of evidence pretty much matters only if you're a peon. Corporations and bureaucracy thumb their noses at these rules and orders, all the time.
On the post: A Dozen Bad Ideas That Were Raised At The Copyright Office's DMCA Roundtables
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No reason for them to be indexed at all.
If it were just Pirate Bay, I'd have a harder time disposing this argument. But it isn't, not really, because you said, "etc."
No, you're arguing for a world in which an IP holder can accuse a website of stealing a song and the website is immediately and utterly destroyed--cut out of the internet. No evidence, no defense, no trial, no conviction, no appeal; just the pointing accusatory finger and then the death penalty.
What will you do when the finger points at you?
On the post: Court Strikes Down Louisiana's Attempt To Regulate Online Content 'For The Children'
Re: Re: Re: Age Verification considered harmful
On the post: Judge In Child Porn Case Reverses Course, Says FBI Will Not Have To Turn Over Details On Its Hacking Tool
Conundrum solved
Hey, I know: "Case dismissed, with prejudice."
On the post: NYU Sues YouTube For Reposting Video After Video Poster Sent DMCA Counternotice
Re: Re: Teaching them to do it "right"
Oh, I agree, they'd be much better off presenting a strong defense.
But corporate bean counters are prone to argue for the cheap solution; and hand-wave "better off."
On the post: CIA Inspector General Claims It Accidentally Deleted CIA Torture Report After Being Asked To Retain It
I'm sure it went something like this...
Larry: "Well, what did you do that for? Moe is gonna have a fit."
Curly: "I didn't do it."
Larry: "Well you'd better get rid of them, fast!"
Curly: "Okay, they're gone."
Moe: "Hey, I forgot to tell you guys. The files on that server are very important. Be careful of it."
Larry: "What files?"
Curly: "Yeah, what files?"
Moe: "There's no files?"
Moe looks at server, "You knuckleheads!"
Curly: "Woo! Woo! Woo!"
On the post: NYU Sues YouTube For Reposting Video After Video Poster Sent DMCA Counternotice
Teaching them to do it "right"
Yes, the dismissal for the case against YouTube will make the case relatively inexpensive--NYU will win no award. But it will cost YouTube lawyer hours; and at $600+ per, those are not cheap.
Suppose such lawsuits are filed regularly by NYU and others. That would tend to discourage the restoration of content after the filing of a counter-notice. Such restoration is not mandatory under the DMCA. For example, there have already been complaints that YouTube sometimes refuses to restore content after receiving a counter-notice; due to contract requirements.
In this specific case, it is already likely that the easy settlement would involve YouTube contracting to discontinue content restoration after an NYU DMCA. If enough big content providers follow the example, perhaps non-restoration will become universal policy.
On the post: Local Fox Affiliate's Reaction To Brutal Police Beating Is A Dereliction Of Its Duty
Re:
On the post: Heart Surgery Stalled For Five Minutes Thanks To Errant Anti-Virus Scan
Re:
Next >>