639
Microsoft doesn't understand the Fediverse (cyberplace.social)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/fediverse@lemmy.world
154 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The admin of the Mastodon instance cyberspace.social just received an AI powered notice to delete the parody account @microsoft@lea.pet

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Very interesting.

I'm making a decentralised open source sharing protocol (have your free cloud drive, website, ...) and I very often gets the question about what if my node shares some illegal stuff (because when someone shares yours, you share theirs)?

It's all encrypted so a node cannot know what it shares, and if someone asks you to take down abc.xyz then we'll do it and it should be the end of the story.

Seems that's what it would be in the UK at least (and the rest of the EU usually doesn't have harsher laws for what I know), what are your thought?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Maybe look up the story behind Tornado Cash.

    EU law has liability exemption for hosters if they remove illegal content once notified (DSA Article 6). I think we still have to wait for more case law to know how that works with encryption. National law may still cause problems.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Thank you!

    Seems like the EU Safe Harbor Provisions, you basically must not incentivice illegal hosting, accept takedown requests, but also have some sort of procedure for the takedown requests. Which all seem quite easy to follow and adhere to and would function perfectly for Tenfingers IMO.

    Toronto cash seems to avoid the "not incentivice illegal usage", and after a quick check it seems to be almost it's sole reason to be, please correct me if I'm mistaken here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Toronto cash seems to avoid the “not incentivice illegal usage”, and after a quick check it seems to be almost it’s sole reason to be, please correct me if I’m mistaken here.

    I'm not familiar with the details. The point is simply, don't expect to get away with playing games.

    Seems like the EU Safe Harbor Provisions, you basically must not incentivice illegal hosting, accept takedown requests, but also have some sort of procedure for the takedown requests. Which all seem quite easy to follow and adhere to and would function perfectly for Tenfingers IMO.

    Yes, but there is more. The DSA is written in a very convoluted way, with the exceptions for smaller platforms scattered here and there. I don't remember what exactly applies here. You may also have obligations under the DMA, CRA, and quite probably the GDPR.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yeah I'm not in it go play games with the law, I'd love everyone having their decentralised FOSS web page, backup, and share stuff between your machines without snooping.

    I'll have to dig into all this, or maybe there are legal pro bono services somewhere. One can always dream, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    On the one-hand I think it would be similar to how usenet works now for binaries. That is, once notified under DMCA (for the USA) and likely similar laws in other western countries you're duty bound to remove it.

    I don't know if there would be other problems with hosting files when you don't know what they are. Also in terms of defence against DMCA, how would the original file uploader defend against it when you can't know what the file is without the key. Person A reports file xyz as infringing their copyright, Uploader B says it doesn't. Normally you could re-instate it and let the two parties fight it out in court. But, I wonder how it would play out when you hosting the file don't even know what it is.

    I'm really not sure how it would really stack up against copyright law in general and more specifically laws for truly illegal content (e.g. CSAM), since you could be hosting that and never know.

    Seems a bit more of a risky venture to me and more a question for an actually qualified legal advisor I'm afraid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    CSAM or any illegal content, or is there a specific legal difference?

    The protocol is robust, so if a node removes the shared data, it just goes elsewhere. In-fine it's the original sharer doing any potential illegal thing IMO but laws are not always logical nor moral.

    Any idea where one would be able to get some answers from some real legal experts? Pro bono ofc 😰.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent