4 ms·
Stripe partners with Chilling Effects
- purephase 14y agoSeems like a wise decision. First I've heard of Chilling Effects and it sounds interesting. Seems like an opportunity there for someone to make it international as it is very US-specific. Calling all IP lawyers! Stripe is now in Canada, so maybe OpenMedia.ca?
- ianterrell 14y agoThis is great news. > we’re adding a clause that commits us (when possible) to first notify the user if we’re legally compelled by a litigant or government to disclose a user’s private information The only additional thing I would like to see is an additional commitment to use all legal means to fight gag orders when they're present.
- iandanforth 14y agoDo you happen to know what these means are? For a national security letter my understanding is that the company can't tell anyone and for other lesser gag orders it might be impossible to even contact the EFF for assistance.
- cwp 14y agoIn the case of a national security letter, you have to sue the U.S. government. It's rare, but possible. The Internet Archive did it, and won. http://archive.org/post/192021/fbi-gag-order-against-the-internet-archive-is-rescinded http://archive.org/post/192021/fbi-gag-order-against-the-int...
- magicalist 14y agothat looks like they fought the request and won, but that the gag order was in place until the FBI actually withdrew the national security letter. Maybe it's what you meant, but it seems that there's no way to get the gag order removed without also getting the letter withdrawn.
- cwp 14y agoI suppose you could sue for the right to break the gag order, while still supplying the information, but I'm not a legal expert.
- Titanous 14y agoThere are two things that should be done to fight national security letters and gag orders: 1) Sue the US government to fight the order. 2) Use technical workarounds to inform your users without breaking the law. For example, rsync.net has a signed notice that they haven't been served a warrant: http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt
- geofft 14y agoWhile clever in a hacker sense, I see no reason why the government can't compel rsync.net to continue updating the canary by just yelling "national security" loudly enough.
- wpietri 14y agoHow do you imagine that working? There's a law that allows them to ban disclosure under penalty of law. Is there some other law that allows them to compel people to lie?
- geofft 14y agoThere's no law or constitutional amendment _preventing_ the government from compelling people to lie, is there? In the contents of an already-secret national security letter sent to rsync.net, what prevents the government from saying "You may not tell anyone about this letter; this means you must continue updating the canary as if you hadn't received this letter"?
- wpietri 14y agoThe rule of law and tenth amendment mean that the federal government can't just do whatever the president wants. They have to be authorized specifically by Congress, and event then there are limits. Congress, in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, has said that the feds can ask for records, and can additionally forbid people to say that they have been asked. It doesn't say they can compel people to lie. If the government orders them to do it, they can take the government to court, or they can just say no. The government then has to arrest them and try to convict them. Either way, a court would have to decide for sure. In this case, probably the Supreme Court, in that compelled speech has often been ruled as against the first amendment.
- rsingel 14y agoDue to an appeals court decision, NSL gag orders have been challengable since 2008 -- and it's very simple to do. But the thing is, companies rarely care to fight for their users. In 2010, the FBI admitted that the gag order has been challenged only 4 times, with a 50% success rate. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/nsl-challenges/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/nsl-challenges/ So yes, that would be a fine clause for companies to sign onto as well.
- jasontraff 14y agoThis is fantastic news! For too long have larger companies used the looming threat of legal action to discourage legitimate competition from smaller companies. I'd never heard of Chilling Effects before this, but now I'm tempted to put all of the C&D's we've collected (and will continue to collect) into it.
- davorak 14y agoPlease do. The world would better if it was a standard practice for everyone.
- revelation 14y agoGoogle seems to relay the majority of their legal notices there for many years now [1]. That said, the site didn't change at all in those years, either. Just an information trove rotting away. [1] You can try searching for "Amy Weber" on Google (random query I pulled from one of the complaints, semi-nsfw). For me, it shows multiple links to CE with respective DMCA-esque requests made to german governmental bodies. You aren't affected by those in the USA, but theres a DMCA one, too.
- magicalist 14y agoThe site hasn't changed much (and dear god is it still slow), but it has been pretty fundamental in a number of papers on copyright. The database will hopefully be able to bring actual data to bear on future copyright reforms...if that ever happens. I'm surprised at the number of people who haven't heard of the site before. If a link has been removed from Google, it will replace it with a notice that a link was removed and and link to the actual takedown request in the Chilling Effects database (which includes the link that was taken down). I believe they started doing this when they were forced to take down the Scientology links years ago. Since we now know Microsoft is one of the top DMCA notice issuers to google, if you pick a query like https://www.google.com/search?q=windows+7+torrent https://www.google.com/search?q=windows+7+torrent you'll see a bunch of the notices down at the bottom. If you click through to a notice, I don't think you can figure out which link was actually removed for your particular query since the notices can apparently contain hundreds of links, but it is at least a decent measure of transparency for the process.
- pdog 14y agoFirst I've heard of Chilling Effects. Their website (http://chillingeffects.org http://chillingeffects.org) looks like a conspiracy theory website, but I guess take-down requests are rather conspiratorial.
- dsolomon 14y agoLink for later.
- dfc 14y agoI do not understand why a payment processing company would be receiving general cease & desist requests or DMCA takedown requests. What am I missing? EDIT: Tried to clarify that I am not limiting the scope of the question to DMCA takedowns and DMCA cease and desists. Rather DMCA takedowns and general cease and desists.
- chc 14y agoIf you look, you'll see that the DMCA is not mentioned anywhere in this post. They're receiving demands that they stop serving certain users, not to take down copyrighted content.
- dfc 14y agoI guess I needed an oxford comma or two. I will update my post to be clearer.
- JoshTriplett 14y agoCompanies trying to shut down a website will often go after anything they can connected to that site: the service itself, its hosting service, their upstream bandwidth provider, their payment processor, and anything else they think they can get away with.
- dfc 14y agoIt will be interesting to see who sends stripe requests. This announcement would be so much more interesting if the CE search worked:(
- Firehed 14y agoCourts will subpoena financial records. I don't know the details not being the one that provides the information but I know we have received requests in the past. I'm going to see if we can set up the same thing. I wasn't aware of this service but definitely support the disclosure when it can be legally provided.
- kloncks 14y agoI believe AngelList also does this with Chilling Effects.
- malandrew 14y agoQuora does this as well.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]