The language/framework I created uses Google Sheets as a datastore, even providing language constructs for JOINs/Pivot tables, and caching timeseries report line items by daterange in a separate auto-generated google sheet. It all works fine, but SQL with a caching layer like memcached is obviously a better option if you have control over your server at all.
If you're a young hacker that wants to get into kernel development as a career, are you going to consider going to a university that has been banned from officially participating in development for arguably the most prolific kernel?
The next batch of "researchers" won't be attending the University of Minnesota, and other universities scared of the same fate (missing out on tuition money) will preemptively ban such research themselves.
"Effective" isn't binary, and this is a move in the right direction.
A couple years ago I tried to integrate this into a website specifically for the visualizations, but couldn't get it working... did the work you did on the visualizer just increase performance, or did it also increase support or ease of getting it setup on a new site?
This quite literally happens with the FBI on a regular basis. Most recently, the plot to capture in Michigan governor was in fact founded, organized, and mainly staffed by federal law enforcement.
They goaded a handful of 'regular' folks into signing onto their honeypot and 'busted' them for terrorism.
FBI comes out looking like heros; keeping them relevant and well funded during a time when law enforcement popularity is waning rapidly.
A false DMCA takedown is equivalent to perjury. If SteamDB were to counter-sue Sega, Sega could be punished for perjury, forced to pay SteamDB's lawyers fees, and potentially lose their copyright on the content they claimed was violated.
Really? If the risks for making a false DMCA takedown request were that high, I would expect to see less false takedown notices, and less aggressive bots. Or maybe the aggressors are just assuming that the victims don't have the resources to fight a megacorp in court? If it's the latter it seems like an organization like EFF should step in to fund such a fight.
I believe for all of the above to apply, it would have to be proven that the request was knowingly malicious, as in they had full knowledge that the page did not infringe but decided to send a takedown notice anyway. That's highly unlikely, and good luck proving it anyway.
However, they are still liable and can absolutely be sued civilly for an improper takedown notice. But the penalty probably wouldn't extend beyond a monetary payment.
> Their inability to route that information to the right person should not be a valid defense or else incompetence becomes a business advantage.
I don't mean to sound trite but hasn't it pretty much been proven to be already?
Look at things like the Equifax situation. A competent team performing security reviews and fixing and maintaining things would cost money. Repeat for N data breaches. And that's just software security -- it doesn't consider even more serious cases like those of infrastructure failures (bridge collapses, levee failures, dams breaking etc.) that have more important consequences.
I agree with what I believe was the main point you were making which is that SEGA should not be excused here. I just think businesses have come to view competence as being expensive and so it's optional, and that this seems to be somewhat okay with people until it directly affects them.
So the approach is to write a bot, do zero human checks and then say "well, see, yes, we sent this complaint, but we didn't actually send it ourselves, the bot did, so we didn't know that it was wrong, because we've decided to never check these things before sending them out"?
It's weird, when you can write a program to do something in your name and as your agent, and then claim "it totally wasn't me, lol".
More generally: we need a legal framework that makes people deploying automation responsible for what the automation does to the same extent as they would be if they hired people to do the same work. "It's a false positive in an automated system" should never be acceptable justification for invalid legal action, nor should it be used as extenuating circumstances. Either you're prepared to pay for the mistakes of your algorithm, or you should not be deploying the algorithm at all.
If you knew that your algorithm produced false positives and you deployed it anyway, then you had fraudulent intent for the subset of automatically generated takedown notices which were false positives.
Say that the false positive rate is 3 in 4, so that 75% of takedown notices are invalid. Do we have fraudulent intent? I dare you to tell me that we don't.
OK, we've established that delegating to an algorithm doesn't provide an impenetrable shield. Now it's just a question of how irresponsible you have to be for the court to go against you.
Now, is there any difference between the injured parties who are affected by your false positives when that rate is 1% versus 75%? For the subset of assessments affecting the injured party, your false positive rate is effectively 100%. Why should they bear your burden?
An algorithm can be used to identify prospects for takedown notices. If you choose not to vet those prospects, then any mistakes are on you. If you can drive down the false-positive rate low enough, you might choose to accept the costs every time you falsely accuse someone and turn the algorithm loose anyway. But if you can't absorb the costs of the algorithm's mistakes, don't rely on the algorithm.
You put out a product knowing that it can fail in X (very long) time or Y (highly unlikely) scenario. Does that mean you intentionally put out a faulty product?
"This process is inherently subjective, so creating perfect software while properly protecting our copyrights would be impossible. We determined that the false positive rate would be quite low, and had no intention of pursuing action against any invalid claims."
IANAL, but I think it's when, in a follow-up lawsuit, they find emails or other such evidence showing the takedown submitting party did so with knowledge that it was a false notice ahead of time. If you can't find something like that, then it stays negligence.
(There's a couple of points in a DMCA notice that are certified under penalty of perjury, but they aren't the 9bes that are likely to be be false on a false one in the first place.)
As long as the lawyers that filed this DMCA takedown really represent Sega and Sega owns the copyright that they claim is infringed, then there is no perjury. It is irrelevant if the notice is otherwise frivolous.
Charge a $1/month membership billed annually to the coop site, and offer a $25 rebate to any coop members when they book a room.
Make it very easy to become a member while booking the room... $100/night + $12 coop fee, and after you check-in you get a $25 rebate. The OTAs would still get the $100 price, but hotel would effectively charging $87.
Anyone with a good lawyer would argue this is circumstantial evidence, and considering the large volume of felonious criminals in the area, it wouldn't be above them to spoof the cell signals to frame anyone they wanted. Considering the government those rioters were attempting to overthrow is also in heavy possession of electronic devices to spoof cellular signals, the FBI/CIA/NSA could have framed them.
The important thing to remember with intelligence agencies and a principle of omniscience itself is that if you could see literally all crimes being committed in an area and who is doing them, not only would you be horrified and trust no one ever again but you would immediately be forced to reevaluate what constitutes a “serious” crime worth pursuing
I don't know which Alphabet subsidiary the payments to creators actually come from, but YouTube itself is headquartered in San Bruno, California; not Ireland.
