12 ms·
When Telecom Companies Search Your Home for Piracy
- expertentipp 8y agoMedia companies behave like warlords claiming an absolute monopoly on media content distribution and treating accordingly anyone they might perceive as competition.
- xte 8y agoCanada is NOT a democracy, is a "protectorate" of UK crown, so do not be surprised. Canadians are NOT citizen, they are, formally, subjects of her majesty the queen. In continental Europe such an action is simply illegal: only officers can enter a home, only with justice permission or for danger-life situation. Also any IT device can't be sized looking for digital proof, they must be imaged locally with image given to the defendant with relative hashes and a proper chain of custody. Of course sometime police forgot doing that and in MANY cases any proof became simply invalid in court. Dear "citizens" freedom does not came from "ether" and stay forever, must be conquered and kept. Business as usual and classic Chomsky frog principle are the best weapon few people have to shift between representative government to corporatocracy.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Canada is NOT a democracy, is a "protectorate" of UK crown, so do not be surprised. It is not a protectorate of the UK crown, it is a separate constitutional monarchy that happens to have the same sovereign as the UK; like most similarly-situated ex-British states (and Britain itself), the substantive form of government is a representative democracy.
- OJFord 8y agoAnd further, having a monarchy (or even being "a \"protectorate\" of [a] crown") says nothing of the legality of private companies searching citizens homes...
- xte 8y agoSorry for my poor English, not my motherlanguage. You are right being a monarchy says nothing of the legality of private companies searching citizens homes. However being a monarchy means NOT being citizens, peer between peers and thet's a very very very important thing that may justify anything else. Symbols are symbols but still have their importance.
- Lio 8y agoEnglish may not be your first language but you clearly are not in possession of how constitutional monarchies work. Even in the UK British people _are_ citizens, so could you please stop repeating this nonsense? https://www.gov.uk/check-british-citizen https://www.gov.uk/check-british-citizen Canada has it's own rules on citizenship and you can find them here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canadian-citizenship.html https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se...
- OJFord 8y agoThe word for 'citizen' may have such a meaning in your native language, but I'm afraid it does not translate.
- Jedi72 8y agoYou ignore the most basic fact of freedom, that it lives in the hearts and minds of the people. It doesn't really matter what's written down on paper, the Canadian people would not follow the Queen.
- xte 8y agoNo, I do not ignore but it doesn't matter what people think if people live in such form of government, symbols still matter. Do not forget that nazism, fascism etc do not born as "bad guys with many guns and ammunition", they born as founded small political parties and they grow, not so suddenly, thanks to a certain political environment, certain economic environment and a small laws at a time, following what we call now Chomsky frog model. They start to be "bad guys" when they feel strong enough. I do not say that Canada will evolve soon in a new nazi country of course, but I'm pretty sure it will evolve in a corporatocracy more and more powerful and Canadians have less symbolic and democratic/formal weapons to fight that change.
- Lio 8y agoWell history proves you wrong. The last British monarch that ignored the will of Parliament had their head cut off in front of a crowd. There is no divine right of Kings anywhere in the Commonwealth. Ever since the restoration in 1660 the deal has been that the monarch has to follow the will of the people as expressed through Parliament. For example Charles 2nd wanted to convert to Catholicism but couldn't for political reasons. That was further strengthened by the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701. Your assertion that Canadians are somehow more likely to fall to corporatocracy because they live in constitutional monarchy is just naive ignorance.
- andybak 8y agoThe concept of intellectual property was invented to further certain economic goals. It provides a social good. There is no doubt about that but it has a drastically shorter history than the concept of physical property (which predates written records to my knowledge) The legal system has evolved many safeguards over the years related to improper search, self-incrimination and due process. I find it curious how easily the latter is sacrificed in favour of the former without anyone suggesting we need to continually reevaluate the degree that the former provides us benefit. I think this is partly a language problem. Intellectual "Property" has now become merely Intellectual Property without the quotes. This sleight of hand has led many to forget it's origin's and contingent nature and to treat it as some kind of natural right rather than a concession from the state to further commerce and creativity.
- adrianN 8y agoI think it's mostly a money problem. IP owners have a lot more money with which they can influence politics than people pirating movies.
- TomMarius 8y agoIsn't that a systematic problem? Money should not influence politics
- heavenlyblue 8y agoShould they not?
- jacobush 8y agoMoney is free speech ... :-P
- radicalbyte 8y agoDoesn't pure Capitalism require that money rules?
- 8y ago
- empressplay 8y agoSo according to the article you don't have to let them in to search your residence (although you may be held in contempt) but these fine individuals turned up with a locksmith? IANAL but sounds like a case of bad faith if I've ever heard it. Should've forced them to use the locksmith and then had the cops charge them with burglary.
- tomalpha 8y agoI'm not familiar with Canadian law, but under UK law which I suspect is similar, this is called a Civil Search Order[0] or Anton Pillar Order. "A search order is probably the most draconian order the court can make" [1] However there is no forcible power of entry and there is no right as such to require entry, however the judge granting the order can hold you in contempt of court and jail you if you do not grant entry. An independent lawyer must be present who is not directly acting for the plaintiff to represent the subject of the order. It's very very expensive. Edit: Canadian law does appear to be based on UK law to some extent [2] [0]https://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/search-orders/ https://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/search-orders/ [1] https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-204-8056?originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=%28sc.Default%29&comp=pluk https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-204-8056?origin... [2] https://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in-canada-guidance-for-anton-piller-orders https://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in-canada-...
- jstanley 8y agoFrom [0]: > That if the defendant is a woman living alone, that a woman must accompany those executing the order; This seems oddly sexist.
- PhasmaFelis 8y agoProtecting only one group from dangers that overwhelmingly apply only to that group is not bigotry.
- dade_ 8y agoIt says in the article that it was an Anton Pillar Order. They scewed it up though, everything said by the defendent was ruled an interrogation and thrown out. Most of these companies are not run by very bright people. Their businesses are only still here because they are a government oligarchy.
- scopecreep 8y agoThey meet my 2 Rottweilers and my German Shepard?
- TheForumTroll 8y agoIf they do anything more than bark they will be put down.
- lixtra 8y agoYou will be left with your dogs dead even if you are innocent.
- charlieflowers 8y agoIf they come to my house and hurt my dogs, that is not going to end well.
- maxxxxx 8y agoTrue. It won't end well for the dogs.
- kowdermeister 8y agoBut the representatives of these companies are not armed forces. It would be very wrong if they were able to use any force beyond air pressure coming from their throats.
- scopecreep 8y agoSomeone hurts my dog, on my property, with no warrant? And they aren't even cops? They better bring more than 30 people with them is all I'm saying. And some EMT's because I live like an hour from the nearest emergency medical treatment.
- AllegedAlec 8y agoI'm more and more concerned about shit like this. I'm not doing anything illegal now, but that doesn't seem to stop companies from destroying your entire life if they even think you have done something illegal. I feel like if I'd have to have anything that could be seen as remotely shifty behind additional encryption layers, preferably with a way to destroy the records completely at a distance.
- sdfjkl 8y agoI don't understand why searches can be done by private parties, with no police present. This seems extremely wrong to me. How can this be?
- cimmanom 8y agoPerhaps something buried in the 20 pages of legalese that you consent to as “terms of service” when you “sign” your ISP/cable TV contract by saying “yes” into the phone when prompted?
- mr_toad 8y agoThey had a bailiff, so presumably they’d already been to court and got a court order. If you refuse entry to a bailiff they’ll just call the police and knock your door down.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoDepending on the local PD the police may be substantially less than thrilled that someone else is essentially serving a search warrant in their jurisdiction without a warrant. If the bailiff mouths off to the cops that respond (which he could very well do, bailiffs don't exactly have a lot of practice being polite with those that stand in their way) he could very well wind up being the one in handcuffs. You have nothing* to lose and plenty to gain by calling the police. *Applies to non-white trash white folk only.
- lucozade 8y ago> they’ll just call the police and knock your door down Not in this case they won't. They are absolutely not allowed to use force, even (legally) reasonable force, to enter. As such, if the defendant isn't home, they can't enter at all. Also, the defendant is legally allowed to refuse entry. Or more precisely, they may only enter if the defendant permits entry. However, if the defendant does not permit entry, they may be in contempt of court. And yes, I know the last bit is perverse. Apparently that's deliberate (at least it was in the English law from which the Canadian law was derived).
- latchkey 8y agoI know we are supposed to be all up in arms about his rights and certainly that is a big issue, but at the same time... he was running a questionable / edgy website... "he took a laissez-faire approach to policing which addons made it onto his site." At some level, given the history of previous issues like this, what did he expect?
- ahje 8y ago> what did he expect? A fair trial?
- latchkey 8y agoWho said the real world was fair? Sure, it is an ideal thing to hope for a fair trial and due process, but if I stick a target on my back by doing something edgy, the last thing I would expect is to get treated fairly as a first reaction to something.
- ahje 8y agoThat's a valid point, but it doesn't mean the absence of a fair trial is something that should be ignored, and it's quite reasonable to demand a fair trial in a situation where one has been denied to you.
- throw2016 8y agoYet corporates seem to routinely take a 'laissez-faire' approach to policing and get away with it. No one is banging on Google's or Uber's door with orders. Businesses seem to get away with more, protected by law and due process, and with recourse to lobby and challenge and even if found guilty merely fined while individuals lives can be turned upside down, with processes and records that have far reaching consequences. There seems to be a fundamental imbalance at work here.
- brokenmachine 8y agoIt brings to mind that recent case of a Facebook user who posted a recent movie on Facebook which was downloaded 6 million times! The uploader is facing prison, but Facebook is seemingly above reproach. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18004544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18004544
- berti 8y ago> ... and his use of a web service that hides a site’s hosting provider (Lackman says it was the immensely popular service Cloudflare), meant that there was a real risk that Lackman might destroy evidence if they didn’t conduct a surprise search. TIL Cloudflare makes you suspicious in the eyes of the law. Lawyers are truly great humans. /s
- stephengillie 8y agoLaw is an industry entirely based around charisma and precedent. Entirely "(s)he said, (s)he said". It's quite boring on a technical level, because maths are rarely involved. And quite frustrating on a human level, because judgments are based more on the judge's previous meal and night's sleep than the case facts.
- denzil_correa 8y ago> Deep-pocketed companies, on the other hand, “not only have the resources to pursue [perceived harms] to the point where individuals don’t have the ability to defend themselves, but also to advance mechanisms with fewer safeguards,” Israel said. Does anyone else feel this shouldn't be the case? Clearly, the amount of money in your pockets shouldn't decide the quality of legal representation. We need to evaluate alternate proposals that fixes these gaps.
- ddalex 8y agoI'd say the law should pool together the defense and plaintiff budgets and split it half and half for each parties lawyers who then would auction for the right to represent. Thus giving each party comparable lawyers, driving down the cost of legal representation and giving everybody a fairer process.
- axilmar 8y agoIn my humble opinion, this guy deserved what happened to him, which was justified in its entirety. He was an enabler of technologies that allowed sharing of information for enjoying content without permission from authors of said content. Also, in my humble opinion, this should cover anyone that provides links, including search engines. Furthermore, again in my humble opinion, copyrights should be permanent, and I really see no reason why someone should stop enjoying the success of their creation as long as their creation is popular. If there is demand for something, why shall it not produce profit?
- bleuarff 8y agoPermanent copyright? So you're saying your great-grandchildren should be entitled to reap the benefits of something they did not create and has nothing to do with them, long after the death of the original creator?
- axilmar 8y agoYes, absolutely. If one creates a timeless piece of work, then whoever inherits the rights to this should enjoy the benefits as well.
- Asooka 8y agoPermanent copyright might in the end be a good thing, because it's so completely unworkable in real life, that we'll be forced to put in place enough exceptions as to make copyright in its current form extinct.
- martimarkov 8y agoBy your humble opinion do you think links are copyrightable? Why are links a problem? If for example I post hxxps://thepiratebay.org/torrents/some_id is that to a copyrighted content? What if that link was to my free book I decided to post for free? What if now the website changes that link to a pirated movie? Do you think that links have a permanent quality? Just because something could provide access to copyrighted material via illegal means doesn't mean it should be stopped or blocked. I don't even think I should go into the permanent copytight, it sounds more like a troll statement than anything...
- appleflaxen 8y agoHe was smart for calling a lawyer during the search, but he committed a major error by providing login credentials for his machines. Yikes.
- expertentipp 8y ago> he committed a major error by providing login credentials for his machines At the point when one is forced to unlock electronic devices on request even during security check on the airport, one is simply unable to identify when some legal bullies exceed their authority.
- runarb 8y ago> providing login credentials for his machines > I would not recommend doing so without consulting with a lawyer either, but how does this work in civil law? There is no assumption of innocence in civil law as I understand it. If one did not do what one is accused of, but refuse to prove that by not participating in discovery, can then the other party ask for a judgment against you?
- StanislavPetrov 8y agoHe was stupid for opening the door or talking to them at all.
- ataturk 8y agoIt's up to use to decide what kind of world we want to live in. I am sick of big government + big corporations. Just sick to death of their excesses. The power grab isn't 100% all at once, it's just a chip here and a "reasonable" chip there and then eventually you're a slave in the 21st century. Gotta smarten up and fight back.
- talltimtom 8y agoI find it weird that they just took down the site and took over the twitter account during a search. Nothing has been ruled illegal. It’s like if someone sued Google and decided to take the search engine down during the initial search for illegal material. How is this legal? And even if the site is deemed illegal, how does that allow them to hijack his twitter account?
- mxuribe 8y agoThat is just awful...and all this time i thought Canada was a far freer (as in liberty) place to live. Huh.
- radicaldreamer 8y agoWhen it comes to individual protections specifically around searches and especially speech protections, the UK, Canada and Australia are far less free than the United States.
- jiveturkey 8y ago> “I never saw this as hurting [rights holders],” Lackman told me. “People run sites that link to content—torrent sites. Those are the people who are stealing the movies.” typical feigned naivete
- ryanlol 8y agoHow come pirates making decent money with sites like this always seem to be woefully unprepared for any sort of legal action being taken against them?
- TylerE 8y agoWhat is there to gain? They know they're boned as soon as they get sued. Might as well just take the money instead of giving it to a lawyer.
- mothsonasloth 8y agoI wonder if there's a Linux package that can wipe your server/ computer when you input a specific code when logging in?
- bklaasen 8y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18153862 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18153862