10 ms·

Homeland Security Issuing Its Own DMCA Takedowns On YouTube To Stifle Speech

161 points by tomse 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
vehe 14y ago
Stupid headline nitpick: the DHS's goal in this case is not "Hey guys, let's stifle free speech", so it is dishonest to word it as "DHS <doing something> to stifle free speech". It is true that free speech in this case is stifled, so it would be less deceitful to say, "DHS stifles free speech by <doing something>" or "DHS <does something>, which stifles free speech".
- jcoder 14y ago
  Really??? None of us know their motives for sure, but I think it's more than plausible that they did this TO stifle speech.
  - gph 14y ago
    It's plausible though doubtful that this was done to stifle free-speech. That said it appears DHS were given ample time to give a comment and decided not to. That was their choice and it left their motives open for speculation, which the article writer took full advantage of when selecting a title. It's probably a bit of yellow journalism, but DHS could have squashed it with a comment saying they simply didn't want their copyrighted material to be associated with such views.
    - wtracy 14y ago
      In the article, the author tries and fails to come up with some other reasons to explain this action. So, if the takedown was not done with the intent of silencing someone, why was it issued?
      - ceol 14y ago
        Because the uploader did not own the rights to parts of his video?
        wtracy 14y ago
        Why would the DHS be issuing takedown requests on someone else's behalf, then? I believe that it's been established that isn't even legal.
        ceol 14y ago
        Because it's possible for the DHS to hold copyrights if someone else transfers it to them.
  - Jach 14y ago
    Somehow I think the DHS is competent enough to be aware of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect If this was a plot to stifle speech, it was very poorly executed.
    - thinkingisfun 14y ago
      you say that as if you have a link to a mirror of the video, if not many.. ?
- tomjen3 14y ago
  It is the dhs. They don't exist to be boyscouts.
Hoff 14y ago
If you call the US "IP cops" for a perceived violation of IP or copyright, then the response will probably involve DHS. The Department Of Homeland Security (DHS) is the home of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), and ICE has had responsibility for the enforcement of copyrights, intellectual property and related. ICE has had that role for a while now, too. Which means you see DHS listed on various postings. Here is one of many previous OMG-DHS-WTF kerfuffles: http://www.quora.com/U-S-Department-of-Homeland-Security/When-did-the-DHS-start-to-become-involved-in-copyright-enforcement http://www.quora.com/U-S-Department-of-Homeland-Security/Whe... Waving the latest round of DHS enforcement in front of nerds is probably great for the clicks, but not really all that newsworthy.
- danielweber 14y ago
  Thank you. I only learned recently that traditionally Customs was in charge of IP enforcement, because so much of it happened overseas. It was a little weird but similar to the way that the Secret Service that protects the President was (until recently) part of the Treasury Department. So when ICE was made in 2003, the same department stayed under it. And ICE is under DHS.
- _delirium 14y ago
  The U.S. has somehow historically been really bad at producing this kind of paranoia over computer-related stuff through strange assignments of responsibility. The fact that '80s hax0r kids were raided by the United States Secret Service, rather than by some normal-sounding police agency, added a whole layer of mythos to that historical episode.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    They were raided by the US Secret Service because the Secret Service is/was actually the Treasury Police (the Protective Service assignment to the Secret Service is an accident of fate). In other words, it is/was weirder that the Secret Service protects the President than it was that they were involved in Sun Devil. And, as someone who came up close enough to Sun Devil to know a couple things (I graduated high school in '94 and went almost directly to working in vulnerability research): many of the people who got caught up in Sun Devil were ultimately good people playing MIT-style pranks that just got out of hand... but don't valorize it. For a good long chunk of time, people were routinely hacking phone switches and rerouting calls. Almost the whole phone infrastructure --- and EVERY Internet-connected Unix system --- was owned up. It was NUTS.
DamnYuppie 14y ago
Once again the HSA shows why they should not exist. I am not saying it is a conspiracy per-se. You give a group of people great power over others with limited oversight or accountability and soon they will be running over everything in their path. This isn't a conspiracy theory this is simple human behavior, one that has been proven time and time again through out history.
smlacy 14y ago
Here's Google's Transparency Report for the United States: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/US/?p=2011-12 http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government... Looks like ~1700 videos have been taken down.
mtgx 14y ago
Why does Homeland Security exist again? Even the name doesn't suggest it's coming from a "free" country.
- gph 14y ago
  9/11. Kind of funny how a department setup to ostensibly protect us from terrorists is now involved in taking down websites and sending DMCAs.
  - brc 14y ago
    Scope creep from government departments is a frightening thing when you think about it. Personally, I think all government departments should be automatically dissolved every 5 years, and require politicians to renew them. It's unlikely that it would ever happen, but just the remote possibility that it might could hopefully put a check on this type of massive scope creep.
    - kalleboo 14y ago
      Requiring a "renewal" hasn't stopped the PATRIOT Act yet. I can't imagine why it would stop "Homeland Security".
      - mtgx 14y ago
        At least it means there would be a debate about them, rather than sailing through smoothly with no worries, and keeping asking for bigger budgets to expand their mission, like I'm sure TSA wants to do, by checking subway stations and bus stops, and whatnot.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  There is a comedian one liner that goes Q: "Why do we have the Department of Homeland Security?" A: "Because the Russians own the trademark on KGB." Its one of those painful chuckles. That said, take down notices from law enforcement or intelligence agencies would generally cite either an investigation in progress or a confidential information. I saw a takedown which related to the a video that included extensive footage of the federal building in San Jose. The amateur music video was using the concrete pillars for some coreographic moves but the Feds complained it contained too much 'site intelligence' with respect to the building. Which you really couldn't argue with, watching it you could see where all the fire exits were, office partitions, etc etc.
eloisius 14y ago
Perhaps a FOIA for all DHS DMCA take town activity is appropriate. https://www.muckrock.com https://www.muckrock.com
jimrandomh 14y ago
This is very likely a hoax; someone typed "Department of Homeland Security" into a form, and YouTube didn't do anything to verify it. Quite likely the same person who made the video in the first place, actually. The Streisand Effect is well-enough known that people have started to use pretending to be censored as a strategy.

161 points by tomse 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

vehe 14y ago

Stupid headline nitpick: the DHS's goal in this case is not "Hey guys, let's stifle free speech", so it is dishonest to word it as "DHS <doing something> to stifle free speech". It is true that free speech in this case is stifled, so it would be less deceitful to say, "DHS stifles free speech by <doing something>" or "DHS <does something>, which stifles free speech".

jcoder 14y ago
Really??? None of us know their motives for sure, but I think it's more than plausible that they did this TO stifle speech.
- gph 14y ago
  It's plausible though doubtful that this was done to stifle free-speech. That said it appears DHS were given ample time to give a comment and decided not to. That was their choice and it left their motives open for speculation, which the article writer took full advantage of when selecting a title. It's probably a bit of yellow journalism, but DHS could have squashed it with a comment saying they simply didn't want their copyrighted material to be associated with such views.
  - wtracy 14y ago
    In the article, the author tries and fails to come up with some other reasons to explain this action. So, if the takedown was not done with the intent of silencing someone, why was it issued?
    - ceol 14y ago
      Because the uploader did not own the rights to parts of his video?
      - wtracy 14y ago
        Why would the DHS be issuing takedown requests on someone else's behalf, then? I believe that it's been established that isn't even legal.
        ceol 14y ago
        Because it's possible for the DHS to hold copyrights if someone else transfers it to them.
- Jach 14y ago
  Somehow I think the DHS is competent enough to be aware of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect If this was a plot to stifle speech, it was very poorly executed.
  - thinkingisfun 14y ago
    you say that as if you have a link to a mirror of the video, if not many.. ?
tomjen3 14y ago
It is the dhs. They don't exist to be boyscouts.

Hoff 14y ago

If you call the US "IP cops" for a perceived violation of IP or copyright, then the response will probably involve DHS. The Department Of Homeland Security (DHS) is the home of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), and ICE has had responsibility for the enforcement of copyrights, intellectual property and related. ICE has had that role for a while now, too. Which means you see DHS listed on various postings. Here is one of many previous OMG-DHS-WTF kerfuffles: http://www.quora.com/U-S-Department-of-Homeland-Security/When-did-the-DHS-start-to-become-involved-in-copyright-enforcement http://www.quora.com/U-S-Department-of-Homeland-Security/Whe... Waving the latest round of DHS enforcement in front of nerds is probably great for the clicks, but not really all that newsworthy.

danielweber 14y ago
Thank you. I only learned recently that traditionally Customs was in charge of IP enforcement, because so much of it happened overseas. It was a little weird but similar to the way that the Secret Service that protects the President was (until recently) part of the Treasury Department. So when ICE was made in 2003, the same department stayed under it. And ICE is under DHS.
_delirium 14y ago
The U.S. has somehow historically been really bad at producing this kind of paranoia over computer-related stuff through strange assignments of responsibility. The fact that '80s hax0r kids were raided by the United States Secret Service, rather than by some normal-sounding police agency, added a whole layer of mythos to that historical episode.
- tptacek 14y ago
  They were raided by the US Secret Service because the Secret Service is/was actually the Treasury Police (the Protective Service assignment to the Secret Service is an accident of fate). In other words, it is/was weirder that the Secret Service protects the President than it was that they were involved in Sun Devil. And, as someone who came up close enough to Sun Devil to know a couple things (I graduated high school in '94 and went almost directly to working in vulnerability research): many of the people who got caught up in Sun Devil were ultimately good people playing MIT-style pranks that just got out of hand... but don't valorize it. For a good long chunk of time, people were routinely hacking phone switches and rerouting calls. Almost the whole phone infrastructure --- and EVERY Internet-connected Unix system --- was owned up. It was NUTS.

DamnYuppie 14y ago

Once again the HSA shows why they should not exist. I am not saying it is a conspiracy per-se. You give a group of people great power over others with limited oversight or accountability and soon they will be running over everything in their path. This isn't a conspiracy theory this is simple human behavior, one that has been proven time and time again through out history.

smlacy 14y ago

Here's Google's Transparency Report for the United States: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/US/?p=2011-12 http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government... Looks like ~1700 videos have been taken down.

mtgx 14y ago

Why does Homeland Security exist again? Even the name doesn't suggest it's coming from a "free" country.

gph 14y ago
9/11. Kind of funny how a department setup to ostensibly protect us from terrorists is now involved in taking down websites and sending DMCAs.
- brc 14y ago
  Scope creep from government departments is a frightening thing when you think about it. Personally, I think all government departments should be automatically dissolved every 5 years, and require politicians to renew them. It's unlikely that it would ever happen, but just the remote possibility that it might could hopefully put a check on this type of massive scope creep.
  - kalleboo 14y ago
    Requiring a "renewal" hasn't stopped the PATRIOT Act yet. I can't imagine why it would stop "Homeland Security".
    - mtgx 14y ago
      At least it means there would be a debate about them, rather than sailing through smoothly with no worries, and keeping asking for bigger budgets to expand their mission, like I'm sure TSA wants to do, by checking subway stations and bus stops, and whatnot.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
There is a comedian one liner that goes Q: "Why do we have the Department of Homeland Security?" A: "Because the Russians own the trademark on KGB." Its one of those painful chuckles. That said, take down notices from law enforcement or intelligence agencies would generally cite either an investigation in progress or a confidential information. I saw a takedown which related to the a video that included extensive footage of the federal building in San Jose. The amateur music video was using the concrete pillars for some coreographic moves but the Feds complained it contained too much 'site intelligence' with respect to the building. Which you really couldn't argue with, watching it you could see where all the fire exits were, office partitions, etc etc.

eloisius 14y ago

Perhaps a FOIA for all DHS DMCA take town activity is appropriate. https://www.muckrock.com https://www.muckrock.com

jimrandomh 14y ago

This is very likely a hoax; someone typed "Department of Homeland Security" into a form, and YouTube didn't do anything to verify it. Quite likely the same person who made the video in the first place, actually. The Streisand Effect is well-enough known that people have started to use pretending to be censored as a strategy.