Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account lock-out attack works

Re:Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account l... by ck2 on Thursday April 28, 2011 @12:18PM (#2493887)

Counter-notice, but only if you are positive it's a bogus takedown.

https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf (not actually a pdf)

They have to put it back online with a counter-notice.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account l... by jerf on Thursday April 28, 2011 @12:27PM (#2493931)

It doesn't sound to me like this is necessarily a DMCA complaint. While the DMCA defines certain procedures in return for certain protections, I don't think it actually forbids just dropping Facebook a note saying "Hey, this is infringing content", without even having to necessarly own the content in question, and if Facebook chooses to aggressively take it down, what recourse do you have? Filing a counternotice won't necessarily do anything, as far as I can tell.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account l... by ck2 on Thursday April 28, 2011 @12:33PM (#2493966)

Safe-harbor means the provider dooes not have to authenticate a DMCA notice - the takedown notice is done under perjury, they just have to obey it to escape any liability.

The catch is there is virtually never a prosecution for a bogus takedown, I cannot remember ever reading about one, it would be huge news.

Bogus takedowns happen all the time on youtube so I guess now it's moved onto facebook.

Can't believe I am suggesting this but anonymous just needs to have "Takedown Fridays" where they target the service of their choice and perjure away to their hearts' content. When thousands of FB pages suddenly vanish, eventually Congress may get wind of it and improve the law but I kind of doubt it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account l... by TheAmazingIdiot on Thursday April 28, 2011 @01:23PM (#2494164)

It'd work alright. Do you think you'd target Joe_Blow_1374 ?

Nope.

You'd target Actors/Actresses, Politicians, CXOs, and other influential people, and their families. When those people hurt, they WILL do something. Sometimes, that something could be changing the law, or using the law as a nice pointy stick.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account l... by kljensen on Thursday April 28, 2011 @12:37PM (#2493983)

Totally right -- it's well within FB's TOS and you have no recourse other than to email them. But, humans responding to email doesn't scale well, hence the poor "customer service".

(The quotes because, you're not so much the customer as the product...your eyeballs at least.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account l... by dfranke on Thursday April 28, 2011 @03:41PM (#2494799)

They have to put it back online with a counter-notice.

No they don't. Doing so merely gives them safe harbor from any liability for having taken it down. Facebook has no legal obligation to its members to maintain the content in the first place, and therefore no obligation to pay attention to a counter-notice.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook shoots first, ignores questions later; account l... by fuckoff on Friday April 29, 2011 @07:35AM (#2497019)

Yes they do. Read the law.

[ Parent | on HN ]