So you nicely repeat the lies they have fed to you ?

What lies? That there are a bunch of murderous thugs trying to take over the Middle East and impose a 1500-year-old fascist dictatorship on the 99.9% of ordinary people that live there?

The lies about the suicide bombers with surgically-implanted bombs?

The Isis thing is once again financed by the Sauds. YOUR friends.

Yes, I know who finances them. They're not "my friends." I've never met any of them personally, and I don't approve of any of it, whichever of the warring sides you care to mention.

Inventing the "freedom" of Jamaica and the Caribbean sugar-colonies, of India and Kenya. Hitler couldn't have done worse to people, over multiple generations.

There needs to be a cost for issuing overbroad DMCA takedown notices.

I have a proposal: civil forfeiture of copyright assets spuriously alleged to be infringed, if the number of legitimate uses affected by wrongful DMCA letter exceeds 10 per work per calendar year.

If you buy a shared hosting account the ISP is hosting the content on their machines

I am replying to the parent. I am agreeing that buying your own hard disk storage and network endpoint is the way to go if you are concerned about a provider giving an overzealous response to a DMCA letter.

Further, I am disagreeing with the parent's point They will respond to DMCA's by sending it to you, but you must respond or they will disconnect your machine

Since you can avoid that by finding a Tier1,2, or 3 internet service provider who will specifically agree to not do so, and this provider is still protected by the safe harbor.

Then I point out the need to be judicious in your selection of DNS registrars. Although DNS registrars are not protected by DMCA safe harbor and also not hosting the content, some large corporations _will_ target DNS registrars and send them DMCA letters, and some DNS registrars will overzealously shutdown the domain.

Finally, I would add.... that none of these methods mean that you won't ultimately be liable if there would be a legitimate reason for a DMCA takedown request.

However, when co-locating: it should be within nobody's power but yours to decide to turn services off due to copyright issues, until and unless you infringe and a court order is issued requiring your entire site to be removed.

Yeah, that would work.

The article states that Google alone is getting over 1000 requests per day. How many other companies are getting requests, and at what rate?

While it would be ideal for some humans to look at the tens of thousands of requests made daily and carefully judge the merits of the request, it won't happen.

It won't happen for the same reason real people don't look at the DMCA takedown lists.

There are too many, and it is easier to just automate the system than to validate that every single line item is an actually infringing item. It won't take long before the requests become fully automated much like the DMCA lists are. People will download a simple tool that scours the interwebz for your name, then submits takedown requests for every match. There will be many incorrect matches made as the plebeian masses use the simple automated tools.

The whole concept of the law applying to everybody is surprising sometimes. ;-)

Anybody can request that data about themselves can be deleted. The law also allows links to be removed. The business can comply, or claim they have a reason outlined in the law, such as a business need for record keeping. If they fight it the person can fight it through the courts. If enough people fight it the company will suffer the pains of thousands of lawsuits.

While the news stories themselves can remain under the terms of the law, it is no surprise that people absolutely will try to make things hard to find. That's the entire point of the law. It applies to not just convicted criminals but also to politicians and prominent figures. ANYBODY can request that data be deleted under the terms of the law.

The law is to allow things to fade from the collective memory and makes it difficult for them to be found.

Removing the link to unsavory things IS the purpose. This IS what the law was designed for.

The expressed right to be forgotten includes forgetting about news stories.

I suppose next people will be upset when links to all negative stories related to upcoming politicians will suddenly vanish under the requests.

No, they really are not. Gravity has very little effect at the atomic level, but at the level of solar systems is the primary force.

No, they might very well be. But it is just speculation --- accomplished science neither shows whether they are or not. It's just speculation, either way.

Iif you subscribe to the Bohr model of an atom... our solar systems are a larger scale universe's atoms, then the force we call "Gravity" could be the larger scale universe's electromagnetic force, and then Earth would be an "electron" orbiting the Sun, which would be our nucleus.

The laws of chemistry and physics applicable to the universe at the different scale would have to be quite different.... which is not to say that our solar systems are not another universe's fundamental particles.

While I also doubt that this is possible today, I am sure the NSA is looking at placing the respective sensors.

The NSA almost certainly have placed sensors, either just a few to test the principle, or completed their deployment many years ago.

And whether it's effective or not: classified, probably

On the other hand... if it is effective... I am sure the NSA would like the world to think it is ineffective, which is easily accomplished using propaganda and some nudges to the media.

Therefore... I think the only responsible thing to say here, unless, you've spent thousands of man hours studying this possibility and devoted technical resources into looking for meaningful or predictable data in video random background noise, is We don't know, this might or might not be possible, and they might or might not have this capability.

If you're concerned about being surveilled: I think you need to assume that this is possible and well within their reach.

Lossy digital compression and processing filter this out. This is especially true on consumer electronics used today.

In theory. There's no such thing as a perfect filter, though.

You're not guaranteed that lossy compression render the signals completely unusable for the purpose investigators would be interested in.

Theories one way or the other are pointless, until people start looking with the best analysis tools to see if videos usually contain such signals in some form or another or not.

I mean.... I have a theory that Internet Explorer has no zero day vulnerabilities left to be found, since none are known, but, some day, that will probably be shown to have not been such a great theory.

Due to the amount of signal processing that goes on with modern television, its highly unlikely. MPEG compression probably stops it at the source since its instantly fuddled with and massive amounts of the data they use is lost right then and there.

It might, but you can't really be too sure that there isn't enough data surviving; MPEG compression was never designed as a feature for ensuring privacy, and there will still be human-imperceptible recorded noise.... or, maybe intentional "canary" noise signals / watermarks transmitted by the feds to help aid them in this endeavor. A video camera with a GPS and a secret way of "watermarking" the output files with analog patterns incorporating the location and/or IP address data would also be a great aide, and many modern cameras already have the GPS capability too.

Imperceptible but recorded visual noise from the background lighting in the room and orientation of cosmic background radiation noise alone may be revealing.

You must claim _under penalty of perjury_ that some work is infringed and you are or represent the copyright holder.

False. Only the second part is required to be under penalty of perjury: the part where you claim that you are or represent the copyright holder of the work alleged to be infringed; the allegation of infringement is not under a penalty of perjury, even if it's obviously bogus.

If you do commit this perjury; it is not going to be provable by a third party, unless the copyright work you are alleging to be infringed is someone else's work, and the third party can prove you don't represent the copyright holder.

If the DMCA letter writer slaps on an allegation of infringement of their unpublished title Xyz; nobody can prove it's perjury, at least, without the admission of the person who sent the letter.

See the text from the act:

A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

With 90% confidence; I estimate this is a trap. Police can defeat encryption, no problem, usually by coercing the defendant. The reports by the police themselves are geared at getting tougher anti-privacy/anti-encryption legislation and giving bad guys a false sense of security. The feds could likely have broken the encryption, no problem, the issue at hand just wasn't important enough to reveal the capability. Pretending not to have the capability gives politicians better ammunition when improving state powers for legal surveillance, and for forcing the hands of software providers to secretly include specified backdoor tech.

when police said that they’d been stymied by crypto in four cases—and that was the first year they’d ever reported encryption preventing them from successfully surveilling a criminal suspect. Before then, the number stood at zero.