3 ms·
I'd express it slightly differently: A Sony employee is publicly accusing a non-anonymous GitHub user of breaking the law, and at the same time demanding the i
by duncan_bayne 15y ago
I'd express it slightly differently:
A Sony employee is publicly accusing a non-anonymous GitHub user of breaking the law, and at the same time demanding the identities of GitHub users in the hopes that GitHub will comply out of courtesy (i.e. without a subpoena). At the same time, GitHub is providing him or her with anonymity.
- benologist 15y agoRight, but it's just a coincidence that it's Sony and that they're also hoping to get that stuff - GitHub's policy is to always anonymize the sender regardless.
- duncan_bayne 15y agoYes, that's true. My question was why that's their default policy. What is the point of anonymizing requests? I certainly had no expectation of anonymity when I employed the DMCA to take down unauthorised copies of my software from download sites.
- benologist 15y agoSo as not to cause problems for themselves or others. Imagine you're a legal guy at bigcorp and you issue a DMCA because some clown uploaded [something shiny] to GitHub ... and then 10s or 100s of thousands of people got pissed off it was removed, and shown your phone number, email, etc. It's really a good policy for them to have - they don't need the fallout from people harassing some guy or some company, and the internet's always looking for an excuse to be outraged.