by Mike Masnick
Thu, May 22nd 2008 6:48am
We've been mocking various attempts to get laws passed that would make it illegal for criminals to post evidence of their crimes on YouTube. This makes absolutely no sense -- as you're basically telling criminals "stop giving us the evidence we need to convict you." If the criminals are so dumb as to hand over such evidence, shouldn't the police and gov't officials be happy about it? Now, in a rather extreme example of this, the city council for Leeds, in the UK, has banned a man they refer to as one of the city's "dumbest criminals" from posting any more evidence to YouTube. In fact, the City Council even seems to recognize how helpful the guy has been: "He has handed us the evidence against him on a plate. In the last three years, we have seen a 32 per cent reduction in crime in Leeds. If more criminals were as obliging, the city would be even safer." So why would you ban him from uploading such evidence?
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- This Will Backfire: Google/Facebook Using Copyright Tools To Remove 'Extremist' Content
- Communications Show GCHQ's 'Oversight' Talking Itself Out Of Performing Any Sort Of Oversight
- UK Parliament Ignores Concerns; Moves Snooper's Charter Forward
- Web Sheriff Accuses Us Of Breaking Basically Every Possible Law For Pointing Out That It's Abusing DMCA Takedowns
- Investigation Shows GCHQ Using US Companies, NSA To Route Around Domestic Surveillance Restrictions