Actually, it's not a DSS video, although it is made available on their website. The DSS's own security videos indicate the Defense Security Service's name: http://dssa.dss.mil/seta/training_videos.html You'll notice that the NSA video includes no mention of the agency that produced it. But the polygraph examiners shown on the video are NSA personnel.

My site is hosted on a server in a data center in Canada by a Canadian company. But it seems that their bandwidth provider is a US company. I'm in the Netherlands.

Actually, the letter that Pearson sent to me does not appear to be formulated as a DMCA take-down request, though it mentions that one has been sent to my ISP. It is true that I did not post the text to which Pearson objects.

Thank you for pointing out my error!

Since I posted this to Slashdot a few days ago, my webhosting provider (CanadianWebhosting.com) received a communication from its bandwidth provider (Peer1.com) that unless the post that was the subject of the DMCA takedown notice was removed, the entire server (which hosts other Canadian Webhosting customers, too) would be taken offline. So I reluctantly agreed to temporarily remove the post in question and have replaced it with a brief notice explaining the situation.

Peer1.com seems to be under the impression that once a DMCA takedown notice is received, the material mentioned in the notice must be removed for a period of 14 days, after which, if the complainant does not provide notification that it has sought a court order, the material may be restored. However, my understanding is that the material may be placed back on-line (PDF) promptly upon the service provider's receipt of a counter-claim (which I have already sent), that is, there is no need to wait 14 days.

It's also worth noting that Pearson, the copyright holder of the MMPI-2, filed a takedown notice for the very same post in 2007. We promptly filed a counter-notice, Pearson took no further action, and we thought the matter resolved. Has anyone had a problem with a copyright holder filing repeated DMCA takedown notices to one's service provider for the same material?

That was the idea. But it wasn't a particlarly good or useful one. If you look at the article in the original post, you'll see that a secondary aspect of the DHS study (beyond lie detection) is to try to identify "odor fingerprints" by which individuals can be identified.

As the co-founder of a website dedicated to exposing and ending waste, fraud, and abuse associated with supposed "lie detectors," I think this project stinks. It's redolent of the old East German secret police -- the Stasi -- who maintained a "smell register" of dissidents. For a short video commentary, see Smellograph.