Bill Would Extend DMCA-Style Takedowns To 'Personal Info'

[Dave Farber <dfarber () me com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Richard Forno <rforno () infowarrior org>
> Date: April 26, 2010 3:35:39 PM EDT
> To: List Infowarrior <infowarrior () attrition org>
> Cc: Farber Dave <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Bill Would Extend DMCA-Style Takedowns To 'Personal Info'

> Bill Would Extend DMCA-Style Takedowns To 'Personal Info'
>
> from the this-won't-end-well dept
>
> http://techdirt.com/articles/20100426/0034189166.shtml
>
> There are certainly concerns from many people about the fact that it's difficult to get certain information to go 
> away online. Hell, there's an entire industry built around the idea of trying to either remove or hide any "bad info" 
> about you online. However, it looks like there's a new bill in Congress that would be a disaster for free speech and 
> would have incredible unintended consequences. It's an attempt to extend DMCA-style takedowns for any "personal info" 
> posted online. This comes just as more people are recognizing that such takedowns have a high likelihood of being 
> unconstitutional. In this case, the so-called "Cyber Privacy Act" would require any website that allows open posting 
> of content to provide "a means for individuals whose personal information it contains to request the removal of such 
> information" and would then be required to "promptly remove the personal information of any individual who requests 
> its removal." 
>
> Notice that there is no other option. You can't respond as to why that content is reasonable and should be left 
> available. You can't defend basic freedom of speech. In fact, this is even worse than a DMCA-style 
> notice-and-takedown regime, which at least has a process of counternotices and the allowance that content can be put 
> back up under certain conditions. That does not exist in this case. And what constitutes "personal information"? 
> According to the bill:
>
> As used in this Act, the term 'personal information' means any information about an individual that includes, at 
> minimum, the individual's name together with either a telephone number of such individual or an address of such 
> individual.
>
> The bill was introduced by Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, and it seems like one of those bills that someone rushed 
> out after hearing some moral panic about people's information being online. But it looks like Rep. McCotter never 
> bothered to think through the unintended consequences of making it easy to demand content be taken offline with no 
> recourse. In many cases, things like your name, address or telephone number are, in fact, public information -- and 
> even if you don't like that such content is out there, it doesn't mean that it should be illegal. It's not hard to 
> see how this would be massively abused, just like the DMCA takedown process and create a pretty big burden for all 
> sorts of websites. About the only "good" thing I could see if this bill passed is perhaps we'd get a precedent that 
> could be used to invalidate the DMCA's takedown process as unconstitutional as well.



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com