
Terrorists used false DMCA claims to get personal data of anti-islamic YouTuber - amalag
http://beta.slashdot.org/submission/3961131/terrorists-used-false-dmca-claims-to-get-personal-data-of-anti-islamic-youtuber
======
kazinator
This can be meta-gamed. Suppose you create a Youtube account and use a fake
identity: that of someone you would like to be targetted as terrorists. Then
post videos which make them upset, and so it goes.

~~~
malkia
Some kind of honeypot?

~~~
existencebox
This was done to some extent/similarity by people honeypotting the standard
your standard email scammers, having the scammers run around the country to
"pick up the check", go through hilarious hoops, etc, so it's certainly not
without precedent.

I shouldn't find this as entertaining an idea as I do, already don't have
nearly enough free time...

------
AnimalMuppet
Seems to me that, if anything happens to the author of the video, YouTube is
likely to have some serious financial liability issues. That consideration may
give some incentive to people like YouTube to be less trigger-happy when they
receive a DCMA request.

It's a shame if someone has to die for people to learn that lesson, though...

------
e40
It's been pointed out that it's Youtube's policy and not the DMCA that allowed
this leak of personal info.

~~~
kazinator
Also: it's the stupidity of giving your personal info to Youtube in the first
place that allows it to leak personal info.

~~~
louhike
Maybe I misunderstood but Youtube asked for its identity if he wanted the
channel back online because of the false DMCA notices. And it is Youtube, most
people will trust the website to do not disclose their identity like that.
They may be wrong, but it is not that stupid if you are not fully informed of
the risks.

~~~
yebyen
Youtube is a safe-harbor under the DMCA because they facilitate this
transaction. Here is the workflow:

1) You put something online.

2) They come and submit a DMCA takedown.

Little or no verification is required at this point, because the penalties for
filing a false DMCA takedown are very limited and the penalties for not
responding appropriately to a DMCA takedown are huge (eg. youtube can lose
their safe-harbor status and become directly liable for your infringement.)
The appropriate response to a DMCA takedown for a safe-harbor is in almost
every case to take it down.

3) (Two?) weeks pass. You file an appeal or "counter-notice." YouTube can
accept your appeal if it contains the necessary information, with no court
oversight, at the end of the two weeks. They put your content back up, they
forward your information to the DMCA claimant, and they are thus absolved of
any direct liability and retain their safe-harbor status.

4) If the entity from (2) believes that you are indeed infringing, they now
have your information and can file in a court of law, or as it was shown here,
firebomb your house.

This is actually the way the process of DMCA law is written in my
understanding.

------
gohrt
Broadcasting on YouTube is very public. Someone needs to stand behind each
piece of content. When it's not safe for an individual to do it, someone
stronger needs to step in. This is why Edward Snowden needed The Guardian to
publish his revelations, instead of posting them on YouTube or SlideShare
himself.

------
gohrt
Has Google forwarded the original complainants' personal information to the
FBI and DoD for follow-up?

