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...
- UK Gov't Report: Facebook, Twitter, And Google Are Pretty Much Unrepentant Terrorist Supporters
- The NYPD's Third 'Forfeiture' Option: Call Seized Items 'Evidence;' Never Give Them Back
- Facebook's ContentID Clone Had A Vulnerability That Opened Up Ability For Users To Game Others' Videos
- BBC Now Training Its Secret, Likely Imaginary, Fleet Of Detector Vans On Your WiFi
- Even The Usual Defenders Of The RIAA Are Pointing Out They're Simply Lying About YouTube