All human research has to comply with guidelines set by the government. There is no exception for research sponsored or contracted by a government agency. The NHTSA would be forced to cancel the roadside surveys if they were found to be lying about how the collected samples were being analyzed. Anyone who was responsible would be losing their jobs, at least. I don't know what specific criminal charges could apply. The full testing methodology is laid out in the following document: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811237.pdf
You may choose to distrust each and every part of the government, but I would rather pick and choose my battles and my distrust. With total distrust you end up living in a never-ending web of conspiracy theories with no hope for resolution. This year has uncovered tons of things that, prior to insider leaking, might well have been considered fringe conspiracy theories. Despite all that I feel more hopeful for the future because it seems the average citizen does have power and there will always be whistleblowers with the courage to speak out when there is a need.
Urmann and his henchman, Daniel Sebastian, are sleaze-bag lawyers par excellence. They have claimed that the method for uncovering IP addresses is a trade secret and is also covered under attorney-client privilege. There is a question now whether The Archive has the full property rights needed to sue for infringement. The 10 films in question are supposedly still being marketed as their own by Combat Zone, the American company that produced the films.
Itguards, supposedly the company that created the software to divine the IP addresses from Redtube, has its headquarters in a mailbox in downtown San Jose, CA. For locals, the mailbox is rented out by NextSpace, an office sharing/tech community building business housed in the same building as the Gordon Biersch brewery
The cops are only used to direct traffic off the road and onto the survey site. There is supposed to be a sign, or signs, that say "Voluntary Survey". A driver seeing that sign can ignore, non-police, traffic directors on the site and continue back onto the road without stopping. Sometimes the local cops won't agree to direct traffic and the survey staff have to do this themselves. I think they should always direct traffic themselves, because you cannot get away from an implied obligation to stop when law enforcement is directing traffic.
I would personally stop and participate in these surveys if I ran across one. However, If I didn't know about the study beforehand, my hackles would raise and I would be looking for permission, like a sign, to exit. In California, at least, law enforcement has to give advance notice of a drunk driving checkpoint and allow for an alternative route once a driver can see the checkpoint. I have and will always take that alternative route just on principal.
You don't even have to stop, you can drive right past the survey. The setup, particularly with police directing traffic, just makes it look like your required to stop. Previous roadside survey reports include the number of those who didn't stop at all. Nothing is going to happen to you as a result.
lollipops crayons and paper for any kids dog biscuits for the dogs $50 for a driver's blood sample $10 for a driver's saliva sample $5 for a driver to participate in an alcohol use survey $5 for each passenger over 16 that participates in a survey $100 for a subset of those who refused initially to reconsider taking part.
So, a driver can earn up to $65 normally and some may be able to earn $165. Money orders are used for payouts. Additionally, if you're an out-of-towner and driving drunk, they will put you up for free in a local hotel/motel.
I think people who run across this keep thinking there is a DNA test because they collect saliva with a swab which most people associate with DNA testing. If you look at the test methodology for this study at the NHTSA website, you can see they only do drug testing with the saliva. If there is a blood test as well they compare the two to help evaluate the efficacy of the saliva test. Sure, they could be sneaky about it, but given that they could use the blood for DNA analysis or test the pen you held for DNA.
Human research always requires informed permission which is done with a signature. There are innumerable human research studies that are blind or double blind and anonymous as well. Anonymous research still requires that signature. What it does mean is the documentation with the signature is kept from anyone who looks at, or analysis, the test results. The NHTSA, and PIRE, are claiming that the passive alcohol test does not require a signature because it is just observational, and not invasive. I disagree with this strongly, and they should realize it undermines trust in the study participants which is something that agency needs for the studies to be useful. Here's a tip: If you don't want to be tested passively for alcohol, do not breath closely towards the PDA that is being held by the initial interviewer. That PDA has the sensor velcro'd to the bottom.
The police should not be involved. They are there supposedly just to ensure safety but I suspect they are also being used as a persuasion tactic to increase participation. Increased participation makes the study more statistically accurate. The use of the police will end up being counter-productive in an era where trust of the government is pretty damn low.
One new vaccine type was missed here and is missing from the linked Atlantic article. A DNA vaccine takes the RNA for a gene from the target flu virus, makes DNA via reverse transcription, inserts that DNA segment into a plasmid, reproduces that plasmid in bacteria, purifies those plasmids from the bacteria to produce a vaccine. I took part in a clinical trial for a DNA vaccine last year at Stanford. These are quickly produced and offers other advantages or traditional flu vaccines. I have not seen the results of that study yet. I was thinking they would inform me, but results may have been published and I simply haven't searched for them. It could be totally misleading to judge this on a single anecdotal result, but last year was the only year in a long time where I avoided the flu completely.
point taken about Tauschbörse. My wife keeps reminding me her German is stuck in the 1980's when she emigrated to the US. I guess it's most accurate to say that this word has adopted a new meaning that is related to the old meaning of "trading post".
I think it is a definite possibility that someone used trafficholder.com to cause redirection to infringing content on redtube. I would expect MindGeek to clarify very soon whether they ever use trafficholder at all and, in particular, whether they are responsible for the particular example of redirecting traffic to one of the infringing videos on Redtube. Two of the videos on that list are no longer there, however one is, albeit with a different title. That video is cited in a demand letter as "Miriam's Adventures". Its original title in the heise.de link posted below is "My Black Stepdad 1" which was released by "Combat Zone". The video that now resides at that redtube link appears to be the same video but with yet a different title: "Kendra's stepdad takes care of her". The earliest comment for that video was posted 3 years ago. Registered users can upload their own videos. I did not register, so it is not obvious to me if such uploaded videos can be seen by unregistered visitors. If they can be seen they are not distinguishable from all the other videos. Anyway a video that has been there for 3 years is not likely to be a honeypot. Also, MindGeek shouldn't tolerate its continued presence once the demand letters start going out. Yet, it is still there.
Even stranger, Philip K. Dick thought that a visit by the feds was triggered because he had gotten too close to the truth in one of his stories. That's what it feels like here. A story about a paranoid schizophrenic whose paranoid imaginings reveal a truth few suspected and no one believed it's magnitude. What a fictionally fitting result it would be if the Patriot act is overturned because of his lawsuit.
Dick himself wrote letters to the FBI about a Moscow directed plot to control science fiction. He got the feeling from the first responses that the FBI was brushing him off. He ended up writing more letters but not sending them. Instead, he put them in an addressed and stamped envelope and threw them in the trash. His reasoning was that "The authorities will receive the letter if, and only if, they are spying on him."
Yes, my reply wasn't responding to your post, a habit of mine that doesn't work well in social situations. But there it was, the awkward Google translation of "Tauschbörse" and I had just learned that "trading post" was less awkward.
Most interesting! It's possible that Redtube, itself, was using this forced redirect method to increase traffic to their porn site. That does seem to be the whole purpose of trafficholder.com to increase traffic to adult sites. If so, Redtube would do it for many of their other videos as well. It does seem odd to me that the redirect is to a specific video. If they don't do this I expect Redtube would announce it publicly quite soon.
The other odd thing is that article show increased traffic to what was titled "Miriam's adventures". The graphic shows the Redtube file number. That file still exists on Redtube. Although it does not have the same title it is clearly the same video. That video has been sitting there for at least 3 years. If there was a real copyright infringement concern why was Redtube not notified and why do the copyright holder's not complain about the video still being available on Redtube? As the evidence comes out it is becoming more clear this whole U+C scheme is not about copyright but an extortion scam.
"Porn sites have historically proven to be sources of malware"
Historical is the keyword here as this is no longer true. I wish I could remember where I read the article that said that church websites are now more risky for malware than other websites while porn websites are some of the safest now. Porn purveyors were early adopters of the web. They were also some of the first targeted by malware. They learned quickly that user input can be messy and dangerous so it's the porn sites that were some of the first to ramp up security by restricting user input (not the semi-liquid kind, but XML scripts sneaking past simplistic text barriers).
I believe that U+C placed an Advertisement on Redtube. Ads are placed by Traffic Junky and it looks like the buyer can place it at a specific website. I suspect the Ads can even be placed on a particular webpage. Alternatively, if an ad can contain a script it might be able to tell it is on a page for the particular videos. I am not positive that an ad is served from an advertiser's website, but if so, the IP address of the viewer can be harvested. I am checking on this (It's challenging work but somebody should do it).
That is the easiest scenario except for commenting. If a comment on a page can contain XML code that returns the IP of the viewer. Porn sites are, now counter-intuitively, some of the safest sites on the web from malware because the porn purveyors have learned how to restrict user input.
The 3rd alternative is for U+C to upload a honeypot video containing code that, again identifies viewer's IP addresses. That is riskiest, because if the courts find this out...
The fact that Google indicates the site is hacked is more likely coincidental. Google may have tagged one of their advertiser's as a source of spam or malware.
The hoodwinking of the court was not just being vague about the nature of Redtube. They are claiming that the software tool gladii 1.1.3 was used to identify the IP addresses. Since that software is particular to identifying IP addresses in a peer-to-peer files sharing context rather than a streaming video context, that claim seems to be a lie.
From this Stern article article it appears that after the existence of these demand letters became public news, some witty clown took advantage of this to send fake demand letters containing malware.
So, the Swiss firm "The Archive" got a court order to obtain account details for thousands of IP addresses. The mystery is how they obtained those IP addresses of alleged streamers of the copyright protected porn that was uploaded to Redtube.com. Now, it's possible that those uploaded porn files were a honeypot that contained an exploit that harvested the IP address of any streamer. That seems risky to me because analysis of the video file could reveal such an exploit. Are any of these video files still available on Redtube? There are a couple of other possibilities:
1) If a webpage with the video in question can contain user comments or located ads, then a script can report back the IP address of anyone visiting the page
2) Suppose that "The Archive" put an ad anywhere on Redtube or on any website that they think such serious users of porn portals [that lovely phrase is from a lawyer looking to defend users] might frequent. This ad could contain a script that is used to query various websites. Suppose the webpages queried are the ones on Redtube for the videos in question. The timing of the response to the query can determine whether that webpage is cached in the users browser. One aspect I am unsure about is the difference between viewing the webpage and actually viewing the streamed video.
I hope Ms. McPherson is reading this because it is directed towards her. I like wildlife photography and I have a number of my own photos. I like Mia McPherson's work. The SomethingAwful transformation of her photo strikes me as just stupidly juvenile and I really have no interest in looking at it. My reaction is precisely why the altered photo is not infringing. It shows that the existence of a butt-altered bird photo will not affect the market for her unaltered photos. Just as importantly, it shows that the photo has been transformed in a way that provokes a completely different response than that of the original. It is a fair use transformation of the original photo.
Mia, don't waste your time pursuing fair use postings of your images. You will lose in court. Arne Olav was being pretty accommodating in not challenging the DMCA takedown. In his letter to you he even said he would have removed the altered photos if you had requested him directly. Don't mistake his accommodation as confirming that your understanding of copyright law is correct. His transformations were also fair use and he does not need your permission to make them or post them. That may annoy you to no end, as a photographer, but copyright does have limitations. You write in response to his letter:
"I do sell my images to editors and publishers for book, magazines and other publications so have my image misused this way can devalue them."
Neither Olav's transformations or Miller's is going to devalue your photos. In a comment you write:
"Only The owner of the Tapir image and I own the right to make derivative works from our files."
You are ignoring fair use transformations so that statement is incorrect. They author of an unauthorized derivative work does not get a copyright to the transformed work, but they may escape liability via fair use.
Don't let your emotional reactions to the alterations cloud your mind to the business aspects. Focus on real infringement that affects your bottom line and don't limit that focus to just running around the web endlessly filing DMCA notices or sending out C&D letters.