September 20, 2002

3:02 PM

Ever wonder who collects information on DMCA violations?
posted by anathema (8 comments total)

yesterday's slashdot thread on this provides some additional info on this fucker - addresses, phone numbers, checkered past...This dude should probably be leaving the country right about now - good work Bob Cringely!
posted by mantid at 3:36 PM on September 20, 2002

"But many people -- including, oddly, Mark Ishikawa -- think the DMCA goes too far by making it illegal for me to even tell you how to circumvent encryption or copy protection technologies. It makes the very passing of knowledge against the law whether or not that knowledge is ever used." (my emphasis)

Is it not creepy when the creep doing the creeping admits the "creepage" is going too far?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:38 PM on September 20, 2002

And why is he making a living from it? Isn't the legitimate part - ie, tracking the traffickers in child porn - something a publc agency should have the tools for?
posted by dash_slot- at 4:19 PM on September 20, 2002

This gem of a quote stood out for me: "... just as the Internet makes it easy to distribute child pornography, it effectively encourages these criminals." Does the internet really encourage child pornography? Or am I alone in thinking this logic suspect? Doesn't the ease of distribution the internet facilitates encourage more than criminal behavior?
posted by josephtate at 4:47 PM on September 20, 2002

No, the newer tack that government tries to pawn off on people is that private enterprise, as introduced by lobbyists, can provide better service, at supposedly a better price. I believe this could very well be true, but I just don't have too much faith in our good representatives to actually hear about the best companies.

And no, I don't think that the internet encourages child porn. It could be argued that it enables pornographers, but isn't it funny that because it's a possibility that some people could abuse the tool, all users are monitored?

And it sickens me to think of all the information that is getting collected on people, without previous notice. How long is the statute of limitations on distribution of content?

Is this going to bite a lot of people in the ass when the companies decide to stop being so benevolent with people who, in their opinion, are stealing?
posted by Busithoth at 5:03 PM on September 20, 2002

All unatributable news stories should be regarded as disinfo.
Whats to say this isn't fiction out of the ashcroftian school of thought control?
posted by Fupped Duck at 5:57 PM on September 20, 2002

As an occasional browser of the binary movie newsgroups in Usenet, I can vouch for the fact that people are getting very paranoid. Not paranoid enough to stop posting material, but they've gotten increasingly careful about obscuring the names of the movies (listing the IMDB number, or using l33t speak or high-ASCII in the titles) and posting anonymously. If there are busts in October, like Cringely says, they may very well start in Usenet.
posted by waxpancake at 6:37 PM on September 20, 2002

josephtate- You are right. That whole statement registered on my bullshit detector. Child abductions and similar crimes are NOT going up.

According to the FBI, the number of children stolen in nonransom, noncustodial cases has been shrinking for years. In fiscal year 1999 there were 134, while last year there were 93. In the first three quarters of this fiscal year, there have been 62, which basically works out to one less kidnapping a month. -Salon.com 08/07/2002

This guy just found an untapped market. Not that this is bad. The correlation-->causation fallacy is in full effect.
posted by McBain at 11:11 PM on September 20, 2002