[HN Gopher] The cesspool of the internet is to be found in a vil...
___________________________________________________________________
The cesspool of the internet is to be found in a village in North
Holland
Author : ahubert
Score : 169 points
Date : 2021-04-03 15:45 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nrc.nl)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nrc.nl)
| breakingcups wrote:
| Somehow, when the following two sentences are put together I lose
| all hope in the world's incentive structure:
|
| "Grapperhaus instituted a number of measures. [...] Companies
| would have to respond to a notification from the child
| pornography hotline without discussion within 24 hours"
|
| "In 2015, Ecatel became embroiled in a lengthy conflict with the
| Premier League in the UK over claims of illegal streaming of
| football matches over Ecatel's network. Streams must be removed
| by court order within 20 minutes of a notification."
| sennight wrote:
| How fast does the ban hammer need to be to restore your hope?
| You know that "porn filtration", regularly used to justify
| state censorship, always ends up filtering speech that the
| state just doesn't want heard? I forget from where the latest
| porn blacklist leaked, either NZ or AU, but it was full of
| sites the likes of WikiLeaks.
| fallingknife wrote:
| > When the hoster receives an official request from the US to
| remove copyrighted materials - a DMCA takedown notice - the men
| do nothing about it, says a person who saw it happen. ,,DMCAs are
| just tossed in the wastepaper basket." Subletters even advertise
| this 'service'. ,,DMCA ignored" reads one advertisement offering
| space in the ,,state of the art Ecatel DataCenter, located in
| Amsterdam".
|
| The Dutch hosting company doesn't obey _US law_. My god! Can you
| believe these assholes? Running a hosting company that just
| hosts, and doesn 't snoop into what their customers are doing?
| And how dare they make enforcement agencies actually go through
| the required legal processes to enforce the law!
| iudqnolq wrote:
| I don't care morally about the DMCA, but you're a dick if you
| pull pranks on your child pornography reporting form
|
| > For reasons that are unclear, the web form that the two men
| drew up for reporting gruesome images is designed in such a way
| that the system can only handle five reports an hour. That is
| unworkable, according to the hotline.
| nightwing wrote:
| I would agree if the questions was about helping to catch
| someone who had made these videos. But hosting isn't a
| morality question, they are just storing a number, and
| hosting company should not have to care what interpretations
| of a number can exist.
| smhost wrote:
| > they are just storing a number
|
| they are just storing atoms. the storage company should not
| have to care about what configurations the atoms can exist
| in.
| liamwire wrote:
| Those 'interpretations' are tangible, meaningful products
| of harm inflicted on children. Let's not pretend there's an
| alternative - that anyone is using those bits in a
| different way.
| yabadubakta wrote:
| Sounds like you'd be a terrible citizen, turning a blind
| eye to exploitation and corruption to make a buck...
| egypturnash wrote:
| Okay, what's your social security number, legal name, and
| date of birth? It's just a number, you shouldn't have any
| problem sharing all of those.
| xur17 wrote:
| Honestly, we shouldn't have to worry about publishing
| those, but banks like to use them as "proof of identity"
| for some stupid reason, so sharing them can cause
| problems.
| kernoble wrote:
| So a bookstore is just selling colored pieces of paper,
| even if those pieces of paper are images of child abuse?
|
| Seriously what is wrong with you? I get that cryto-
| anarchist are hip and think they're so cool, but there is a
| real human cost here. Are you OK with that?
| nightwing wrote:
| Images of child abuse are not child abuse. Instead of
| wasting energy on fighting with windmills and numbers, it
| would be better to concentrate efforts on catching child
| abusers, and keeping an eye on people who buy such books,
| to prevent crimes.
|
| The argument is exactly the same as the argument for not
| banning alcohol, decriminalizing drugs etc. Fight against
| actual crime instead of wasting resources on ineffective
| measures that look "morally right".
| [deleted]
| obedm wrote:
| "images of child abuse are not child abuse".
|
| Right. Because those images were just created magically?
| Someone took them. And there's a market for them.
|
| If there's no market for such pictures, likely less
| children will suffer the consequences.
|
| Fighting the crime directly is important, but so is doing
| it indirectly.
|
| Read about the suicide rates in the UK by women before
| and after the country changed the type of gas stoves.
| Indirect effects can be very strong.
|
| Reconsider your morals and logic.
| cambalache wrote:
| > If there's no market for such pictures, likely less
| children will suffer the consequences.
|
| The market will always exist: pedophiles. They have been
| and will be among us until the end of times.
|
| > Fighting the crime directly is important, but so is
| doing it indirectly.
|
| Yes, but the difference is so abysmal that you know where
| is more important to put the effort. Stopping even 1
| child of being abused is better than stopping the sharing
| of 1 million child porn pics.
| smhost wrote:
| > Images of child abuse are not child abuse
|
| have you talked to those children and asked whether or
| not they think publically displaying and selling images
| of their abuse is abuse?
| chr1 wrote:
| Do you mean that images that are hand drawn or generated
| by neural net should be handled differently?
| anonAndOn wrote:
| Anytime those images/videos are shared you are
| victimizing the abused.
|
| Disagree? I would love to see enablers/apologists put
| some skin in the game (pun intended) and start posting
| some of their favorite images of them getting abused.
| Let's see some of that philosophy in action!
| [deleted]
| vimax wrote:
| I might care more once laws start protecting children from
| those in power more than used by those in power as a ploy to
| dismantle privacy from ordinary people.
| JeremyBanks wrote:
| Have you seen the news about the child predator congressman
| facing imminent indictment?
| [deleted]
| aww_dang wrote:
| Many of the robo-DMCA-claim firms simply search for the string
| of a movie title. If the page in question is determined by
| their poorly written software to include the content, a DMCA
| takedown request is spammed. No human confirmation is involved.
| One wonders who the abusers and spammers are in this situation.
|
| Of course some will claim that provisions exist for damages to
| be claimed in the event of false takedowns, but it is hard if
| not impossible to collect. Typically you need to provide all of
| your personal data to respond.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Of course some will claim that provisions exist for damages
| to be claimed in the event of false takedowns
|
| If the falsity is only in regard to the not-under-perjury
| parts of a takedown notice (like, say, that there is
| infringing content!), then you maybe, in some circumstances,
| have a tortious interference claim, but, generally, you are
| screwed. If you are _lucky_ , your host has and follows a
| counternotice process and you can get the material back up,
| but recovering any damages is unlikely.
| mindslight wrote:
| Yes the DMCA is a terrible law that isn't based on justice,
| but rather was one of the first laws bought by copyright
| holders so they could attack the nascent Internet. This was
| apparent at the time, and the community tried to fight it.
| But as with most ratcheting authoritarianism, we lost and
| it's just how things are now. I feel like this has been
| forgotten, based on how people talk about the claim-
| counterclaim process expecting it to be equitable.
| Grollicus wrote:
| I wish people would find a way to monetize obviously false
| DMCA requests.
|
| I know of some people who basically finance their niche
| bulletin boards via police requests - they get something in
| the range of 2-3 digits (EUR) for a information request. Get
| a few of these a year and your hosting costs are paid.
|
| There's not a lot of money to be made but if it's your hobby
| anyways..
| inter_netuser wrote:
| They get paid by the police? Is there a pricelist somewhere
| for these police requests?
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| personal story:
|
| I remember uploading a BF3 montage on YouTube some eons ago
| when it was all the rage, no copyrighted music or anything. I
| received a DMCA claim by some spanish tv/broadcasting company
| or something along those lines, totally unrelated to my
| content.
|
| ---
|
| The fact that DMCA claims can be issued with no human
| interaction and no repurcussions is beyond me. If anything,
| the hosting company should at least issue penalties on false
| claims.
| azeirah wrote:
| Filing a false DMCA claim is perjury.
|
| > A DMCA claim (or takedown) is when a copyright holder
| notifies a service provider that they have infringing
| material on their site/service. It is also known as a
| "Notification of Infringement". For example, Twitch has
| these guidelines for submitting DMCA claims. Essentially it
| boils down to send in writing who you are, who is
| infringing your rights, how they're doing it, and swear
| under penalty of perjury that you are telling the truth.
|
| https://blog.pretzel.rocks/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-
| about-...
| maccard wrote:
| Has that ever been enforced, in any shape or form?
| salawat wrote:
| You have to counterfile, but there's a poison pill in the
| regulation that by doing so you agree U.S. courts have
| jurisdiction, thereby nullifying any protections you have
| from being in another countries juridiction.
|
| I mean, there is no getting around it if you want the
| countersuit to work and reflect poorly on the claimant,
| but you are agreeing to letting the U.S. have extra-
| territorial jurisdiction.
| maccard wrote:
| If you're in the US then you're already under
| jurisdiction, right? Why wouldn't someone who is already
| under us jurisdiction try it?
| JadeNB wrote:
| > If anything, the hosting company should at least issue
| penalties on false claims.
|
| If penalties are issued by the hosting company, then they
| just won't be paid. Then you lose: there's no way to take
| _all_ the non-paying offenders to court, and you can 't
| ignore subsequent requests, so you wind up in the same
| situation as you're in now.
|
| Instead, move the onus off the hosting company: if they
| receive from some entity a DMCA takedown that is believed
| to be false (according to whatever standards are applied to
| counterclaims), then no further takedown notices from that
| entity are required to be obeyed until the entity takes
| appropriate remedial action.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > if they receive from some entity a DMCA takedown that
| is believed to be false (according to whatever standards
| are applied to counterclaims)
|
| There are no standards for counterclaims except format
| standards. All a counterclaim does is permit undoing a
| takedown without the provider being liable, transferring
| determination of who is right to litigation between the
| purported copyright owner and the content uploader with
| the host fully immunized.
| [deleted]
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| >Dutch law states that a hosting company cannot be prosecuted
| for the actions of those who hire its servers. It is impossible
| for a hosting company to know the content of every byte on
| those servers. But hosting companies are required to take
| action if they are informed of the presence of illegal content.
| The question is how quickly and how actively they do so.
|
| Chucking a DMCA in the trash sounds like it's against Dutch law
| tyingq wrote:
| I don't think a DMCA constitutes "presence of illegal
| content". It constitutes presence of "content with a US
| copyright, maybe".
| kazen44 wrote:
| not really, DMCA is not binding by dutch law. If however,
| they get a request from a dutch/european authority, they
| would have to respond to that.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| It might count as being notified of illegal material which
| they are required by Dutch law to remove.
| techrat wrote:
| Digital Millennium *Copyright* Act.
|
| To use a claim for any purpose other than enforcing your
| own copyrights (since 'illegal images' is such a broad
| term) is illegal in of itself.
|
| The DMCA itself has no jurisdiction outside of the US
| regardless of the person accessing the data is within the
| US.
|
| In order to submit a DMCA claim, one has to do so under
| the penalty of perjury.
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
|
| >(vi)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.
|
| A DMCA claim isn't a "notification of illegal images." It
| is a statement of "I own the (copy)rights to this work
| and you do not have permission to host/use it."
| [deleted]
| vonwoodson wrote:
| Copyright laws are international. If you think WIPO won't
| enforce a DMCA claim because "American laws don't apply outside
| of the US" (Bwahahahaha! Ha hahah! _gasp_ HAHAH!! Ha! Ha! _Ahh_
| heh heh heh... oh, my...) you're kidding yourself.
|
| https://www.wipo.int/
| toast0 wrote:
| You can't enforce a DMCA claim against an entity without ties
| to the US. You can enforce a copyright claim against an
| entity in a jurisdiction that respects copyright, but you're
| going to need to use that jurisdiction's procedures.
|
| I'm sure these companies don't throwout local court summons,
| but a lot of copyright holders (or their agents) send out
| DMCA claims and don't follow through beyond that.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > You can't enforce a DMCA claim against an entity without
| ties to the US
|
| a "DMCA claim" isn't really the issue, the DMCA _safe
| harbor_ (takedowns aren't a basis for claims, but for safe
| harbor from claims against the provider) doesn't apply
| outside of US law. To the extent another jurisdiction has
| provider liability, following US DMCA takedown rules won 't
| protect you from it.
| throwawayfire wrote:
| > You can't enforce a DMCA claim against an entity without
| ties to the US.
|
| This is less obvious than it might appear - the US has
| pushed to include DMCA-equivalent claims in international
| trade deals.
|
| E.g. The proposed UK-US Free Trade Agreement explicitly
| includes negotiation around intellectual property rights: h
| ttps://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Summary_of_U.S.-UK_Nego
| ...
| PeterisP wrote:
| The core copyright laws e.g. the Berne convention are
| international and pretty much universally accepted, however,
| DMCA goes way beyond that, and several key provisions of DMCA
| - including the specific takedown process and the prohibition
| on distributing DRM-circumvention tools - is USA-specific law
| that does not have an equivalent in many other jurisdictions.
| zabzonk wrote:
| WIPO don't "enforce" anything - they are not like agents of
| SHIELD.
|
| Worked for WIPO as a consultant back in the 90s.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| alejandrojaez wrote:
| what about the isp companies they use for connect the datacenter?
| irq wrote:
| Read the article.
|
| > If the companies that give IP Volume access to the rest of
| the internet were all to decide to stop doing so, the company
| could no longer operate on the internet. This is called de-
| peering, and it does occur very sporadically.
|
| > But it is highly controversial, says Guilmette. It flies in
| the face of the voluntary, decentralised structure of the
| internet. That is why the largest hub, the Amsterdam Internet
| Exchange, say they won't do it. A spokesman for the exchange:
| ,,We are only a highway, we have nothing to do with the
| content. You surely can't expect us to paternalistically review
| what such a party is hosting?"
| iudqnolq wrote:
| I enjoy the idea that a translater decided to include the dutch
| word _hashcheckserver_ instead of looking for a similar english
| word.
|
| > Grapperhaus instituted a number of measures. A technical system
| for detecting child pornography - a hashcheckserver - would be
| set up that hosting companies could join.
| unfunco wrote:
| The similar English word would surely be hash check server?
| iudqnolq wrote:
| Yep, and I learn again to never assume a joke will work over
| the internet.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Safe and boring, too much water and wind, everyone speaks
| English, government will help you evade the IRS. Its basically
| heaven for data centers.
| Reason077 wrote:
| > _" Armin received a bottle of jenever in thanks. ,,But the
| customs made me throw it away before the return flight. I
| couldn't even take a sip.""_
|
| It would have been airport security that made him throw it away,
| not customs. At that time, the UK was part of the customs union,
| so there were no customs on a flight between the Netherlands and
| UK.
| raverbashing wrote:
| Yes (he should have known not to take liquids as hand-luggage
| on a flight)
|
| Edit: as hand-luggage
| [deleted]
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Can you not take spirits, wine, or beer (sealed) on a flight
| in the EU? EDIT: Removed question about duty free, answered
| by replies below.
|
| Odd, as in the US, there is no limit if in your checked
| baggage if below 24% ABV, and 5 liters if 24% - 70% (carry on
| has much stricter limits [3.4oz or less that can fit
| comfortably in one quart-sized, clear, zip-top bag], but is
| still permitted).
|
| https://www.tsa.gov/blog/2019/06/21/tsa-travel-tip-
| traveling...
| bayindirh wrote:
| Duty free shops put your bottles in a sealed transparent
| bag with the receipt, everything is perfectly visible.
|
| You're not allowed to open the bag on the flight,
| obviously.
| masklinn wrote:
| > Can you not take spirits, wine, or beer (sealed) on a
| flight in the EU? How do duty free shops work if that's the
| case?
|
| The duty free is inside the secure area, you've already
| passed security.
| jerrysievert wrote:
| when flying back from china, the duty free shop asked me
| what my next airport was (Seattle) and whether it was a
| connecting flight or not (it was). at that point, they told
| me that they wouldn't sell me anything, as I would have it
| confiscated.
|
| they were correct, the international arrivals required
| another bag check to enter the domestic part of the
| airport, that had the stringent TSA rules (after you went
| through customs and collected your luggage, before you
| could drop your luggage off again for your next flight).
|
| so, it appears to be airport by airport when traveling to
| the US.
| Ekaros wrote:
| They are after the checkpoints and they are marked. So you
| can take them on board. But that likely won't work for next
| flight if you have to through security again... Also some
| airlines sell stuff that is directly deposited on your
| seat.
| eptcyka wrote:
| I don't want anything to do with seats on planes that
| have had liquids deposited onto them.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| You can buy it from a duty-free shop even if you have
| multiple flights, even if you have to transfer out of the
| security area - they seal it in a special bag with
| receipts attached; when you go to your next security
| check-in, you present the sealed bag, and they check if
| it has been less than 24h since it was purchased, they
| inspect the seals, and they let you through if everything
| is in order.
| dmacedo wrote:
| You can from duty free, just nothing that you bring from
| outside the airport that goes with your carry-on that
| passes through security. Your luggage can carry spirits or
| whatever other drinks you want, just not carry-on though.
| For... Safety reasons, obviously.
| [deleted]
| tsimionescu wrote:
| For checked-in bags, there is no limit in the EU at all as
| far as I know. The problem is with carry-on, where you are
| extremely limited in the quantity of liquids you can get
| past security - no more than ~100ml, and even then it must
| be in a bottle inside a clear plastic bag.
| buzer wrote:
| There probably isn't an EU-level limit, but member
| countries can set them. In Finland you can bring as much
| as you want for your own use, but past some point you
| need to be able to actually prove that it's for your own
| use. Current guidelines are: 110 liters of beer, 10
| liters of other alcohol drinks, 20 liters of max 22 %
| intermediate products, 90 liters of wines or fermented
| long drinks/ciders. Common reasons for bringing more than
| that are e.g. your own wedding.
| gaucheph wrote:
| what's the significance of this distinction?
| graeme wrote:
| Accuracy? Always worth striving for. For example it's akin to
| saying "the police made me go through a metal detector" if
| building security did or "the nurse gave me CPR" when a
| lifeguard did.
|
| They're....close but it isn't the same.
|
| In case you were asking literally: security are the people
| that make you throw out liquids due to bomb threats and check
| for weapons. Customs see you after the plane across a border
| and check that you didn't bring anything that requires
| payment of border tax. If you do, they will make you pay the
| tax at the border before entry.
| 1996 wrote:
| > ,,But the customs made me throw it away before the return
| flight. I couldn't even take a sip.""
|
| B.S.
|
| Before a flight, a highly paid (given what they do) security
| theather monkey tried to demand that I forfeit an expensive
| bottle.
|
| Knowing full well how it works in most countries, where the
| loots are split at the end of the day, I said "watch this",
| chugged it down, and voluntarily surrendered the now empty
| bottle.
|
| At least I enjoyed it partly!
|
| Even if later I did throw up during the flight, I prefer being
| sick than my luxury bottle being stolen by a security theater
| monkey.
| layoutIfNeeded wrote:
| Sounds like a good way to get alcohol poisoning.
| 1996 wrote:
| The human body is wonderfully done: you then throw up.
|
| It was a smelly flight however. Sorry, plane ground! Sorry,
| seat neighbours!
|
| But it was funny when the stewardess asked my why I was
| sick: I just told the truth, I was drunk! What was she
| going to do anyway? Throw me out of the first class and
| into the main cabin?
| iandanforth wrote:
| Hosting center known to multiple nations as a hotbed for illicit
| activity that surprisingly hasn't been shut down? Yeah that's a
| compromised system.
| h2odragon wrote:
| It makes life simpler, when the usual suspects are all in one
| easy to watch place.
| markdown wrote:
| North Holland? More like Hamsterdam.
| pindab0ter wrote:
| I get the The Wire reference, but I don't think it applies
| here.
| [deleted]
| jtvjan wrote:
| Would ,,confidental computing"[1] be able to provide a solution
| in this situation? If it is encrypted using a TEE, they would
| have no way of knowing what kind of data they are hosting.
|
| [1]: https://confidentialcomputing.io/
| kernoble wrote:
| Are you suggesting that something is a "solution" by shielding
| people who perpetuate the distribution of child abuse media and
| profit off it?
|
| If you are, then there is something seriously wrong with you.
| pindab0ter wrote:
| I think this is a case of a HN user seeing the abstraction of
| a problem rather than the actual subject matter.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Yes, you can use one of the four horsemen of internet crime
| to strip rights from everyone who isn't doing anything wrong,
| or, you can realize the good will always outweigh the bad.
| fireeyed wrote:
| The hosting company could be a cesspool but I just checked one of
| the news blog site the article attributed to 'right wing
| radicals'. The content looks like Dutch version of Buzzfeed or
| TMZ https://vizieroplinks.org/
| [deleted]
| radicalbyte wrote:
| A version of Buzzfeed who put letter bombs through left-
| winger's mailboxes, regularly make death threats to left-wing
| politicians and generally act like a they're living in some
| third world anarchist state.
| cbozeman wrote:
| Anarchists don't want states.
|
| That's the whole point of being an anarchist.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Anarchist state is an oxymoron.
| the-dude wrote:
| Sources please.
| korijn wrote:
| It was on the national news couple days ago, too many to
| list but here's one article: https://nos.nl/l/2373565
|
| I don't know about death threats though. But I for sure
| would feel intimidated as hell.
| De_Delph wrote:
| This Nadia Bouras person has cheering on red paint
| 'attacks' on an elected right wing politician's home
| address front door a while ago. Something something black
| kettle.
| the-dude wrote:
| I see nothing about letter bombs or death threats.
| korijn wrote:
| That's right.
| the-dude wrote:
| So it is not a source for the actual claims of the OP,
| right?
| korijn wrote:
| Sure. I guess I missed their point. I would consider it a
| source for the argument that they can't be compared to
| buzzfeed, and that people feel intimidated by them, but
| that's as far as it goes, correct.
| the-dude wrote:
| > and that people feel intimidated by them,
|
| OP did not claim that, OP claimed letter bombs and death
| threats. I ask for a source on that, and you provide a
| link which does not deliver at all.
| [deleted]
| radicalbyte wrote:
| Here are the death threats:
|
| https://www.gelderlander.nl/nijmegen/huub-bellemakers-gl-
| wor...
|
| Rumoured letter bombs were around new years (Cobras).
| They were rumours, mind - it's not like they've made
| specific claims.
| the-dude wrote:
| Could you please quote the _death_ threats? I am not
| seeing them at a glance.
|
| So are you backtracking on the letter bombs? They were
| merely rumors?
| misja111 wrote:
| I don't approve of Vizier op Links, but there is not a
| single mention of death threats in the article you
| linked.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| I'm glad they wipe their asses with DMCA. They have nothing to do
| with the USA.
| KirbyTetro wrote:
| These issues are endemic to any platform. Even mainstream
| blogging sites like Tumblr had issues with the large quantities
| of child pornography being shared by the users. It's the users
| posting illegal content that should be held accountable not the
| platform owners.
| [deleted]
| polishdude20 wrote:
| Yeah isn't this akin to say, posting child pornography on
| electrical poles in the city and then blaming the city for it?
| luckylion wrote:
| No. The servers in the data center are rented to specific
| clients. If these clients commit crimes and the DC operator
| knows about it but chooses not to shut down the offenders,
| that's their business feature.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| I'm considering the previous posters comment on how the
| users who post illegal materials should be responsible, not
| the platform. But yeah that makes sense. In this case it
| would be as if the city knew about the child pornography on
| the street but decided not to do anything about it.
| read_if_gay_ wrote:
| But also the city is required to check all the light
| poles for CP constantly.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| North Holland is quickly rising in datacenter fame... They also
| have an ongoing conflict between local and higher level
| government about Microsoft building a huge datacenter and using
| all their renewable (wind) energy.
| kazen44 wrote:
| Also, the electricty grid around amsterdam is basically filled
| to the brim, and there has been a ban on expending datacenters
| in the area because of energy concerns.
|
| In my opinion this is quite a good thing, considering this
| would ditribute the datacenters more across the netherlands.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| Can confirm, it's kind of ridiculous to build all kinds of
| renewable energy sources only to have them cause a massive
| increase in datacenter electricity usage, because they want to
| become 100% renewable. It would maybe be OK if they weren't
| subsidized as heavily.
| [deleted]
| vultour wrote:
| > Tim Kuik, director of copyright organisation BREIN, says he was
| told by the men that he had to stop sending legally formulated
| letters of complaint. ,,They wanted a meeting where I would tell
| them what was wrong in a jovial tone, and then they might look at
| it."
|
| This is hilarious, I wish less sketchy companies would do this to
| DMCA requests.
| oneplane wrote:
| Odd to see so many people come up with ways to defend this
| unethical business.
|
| It's hard to pin it on them legally but they are still dicks
| doing dicky things, they know it and they do it on purpose, and
| there is no clear way to fight it.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Damn. Seems like I found the adres where I will get servers when
| I need them.
| aaomidi wrote:
| 50% of known CP is hosted in Netherlands. A country smaller than
| New York state.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 50% of known CP is hosted in Netherlands.
|
| Does that mean "CP is hosted disproportionately in the
| Netherlands" or "CP hosted in the Netherlands is
| disproportionately likely to be discovered"?
| orhmeh09 wrote:
| Also a hotspot for drugs trafficking, yet with a pristine
| official record of corruption, ranking as one of the ten least
| corrupt countries in the world. These seem incongruous,
| somehow.
| rocqua wrote:
| There has been movement and cries for help about criminal
| influence at the municipal level. With cases of criminals
| getting elected, or mayor's being threatened for taking
| action against criminals.
|
| These have been listened to, and a campaign to undermine
| criminality by law enforcement has been setup with moderate
| success. The issue is known in government and action is being
| taken. At the same time, our value and expertise is largely
| in logistics. Government tries to balance economic interests
| against crime fighting.
|
| Meanwhile we are a huge logistics hub with a relatively small
| police force (cause we are a small country). So it makes
| sense that we are attractive for criminals.
|
| What worries me most is the port of Rotterdam. It is big,
| vital, and known to have quite a large criminal element
| embedded in the workforce. Fixing that whilst keeping the
| port operational is probably quite difficult.
| kazen44 wrote:
| the south of the netherland is the largest XTC producer in
| Europe, and very hard to tackle because criminal enterprises
| are usually entrenched in local villages and communities.
| ummonk wrote:
| Sounds like a ranking as meaningful as pandemic preparedness.
| https://www.statista.com/chart/20629/ability-to-respond-
| to-a...
| FabHK wrote:
| Not incongruous, I think. By basically legalising drugs,
| prostitution, and similar victimless peccadillos (and
| focusing on treatment and support instead), you destroy the
| mob's business model, reduce opportunity for corruption, and
| allow cops to concentrate on real crime.
| mustafa_pasi wrote:
| But actually the opposite is happening in the Netherlands.
|
| There are drug labs basically everywhere in the
| countryside.
|
| All global organized crime syndicates have a local
| presence.
|
| With regards to prostitution, human trafficking has
| actually increased and prostitutes get imported and pimped
| out. Half the business is legal so the police have even
| less incentive to care, especially if the victim and the
| pimp are both foreign. Basically free tax money and no harm
| (to ethnic Dutch people).
|
| There's also lots of arms trafficking.
| FabHK wrote:
| Oh wow, I didn't realise it was so bad.
| kome wrote:
| often northern Europe is like this... or Switzerland. I have
| seen incredible stuff in Switzerland.
| zabzonk wrote:
| >yet with a pristine official record of corruption
|
| A pristine record with whom?
|
| I've worked for several years, on and off, in the Netherlands
| (and enjoyed doing so, mostly), and it has always seemed to
| me that they simply ignore any crimes and corruption they
| can't be bothered with.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-03 23:00 UTC)