Their interest is in getting as many new generations of young people hooked as possible.
Isn't that obvious?
Each new 'user' is a lifetime revenue stream. And they are likely to get other members of their family and friends addicted to this product.
Cigarettes are safe and legal. But a huge problem our society has is that we allow licensed physicians prescribe pain killers to people who need them. Drugs that have been carefully manufactured and have huge amounts of scientific data before they were ever allowed to be prescribed.
This is why everyone needs to be using encryption by default.
The really nice thing about this technique is that AT&T wouldn't even have to make your browser make strange unexpected connections to the mothership that your network monitoring aparatus (if any) might detect. They can inject 'outbound' traffic right into your next HTTP request to anywhere. Then remove it in transit so that your target site like TechDirt doesn't see any extra content or HTTP Headers. But AT&T's injection systems would see them as it removes them. Nice neat invisible two-way communication with code running in your browser, and no unexpected connections.
This potential has always existed with HTTP. It's just that now network equipment has become powerful enough to do this kind of despicable evil, which is even worse than advertising itself, on a massive scale.
You would really do better complaining about the Extortion. You would have a real argument there.
> "Yes I have it, your honour, but they still have it too. > Yes I know that it was their's, but it still is - it's just kinda ours now".
That is EXACTLY how copying works. Whether authorized or not, once I have a copy of something, the copy is mine, and the original is still theirs. My neighbor gave me a copy of his cookie recipe. Guess what? He still has it. And I have it. Exactly as you are saying in your argument. Yes, it's still his, but it's also mine too, and not kinda.
You could argue the copy was unauthorized. But maybe I obtained my copy innocently, possibly without understanding the implications, from some website that offered it for download. (As in the copyright case: you should be going after the download site, not the downloader, not Google.) Some people could argue that once disclosed, this data is of public interest (eg, reporters, researchers, politicians running against an Ashley member for the same political office).
The extortion argument is so much simpler and clear.
Chicken Sandwich in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey
I seem to remember some astronauts traveling from a moonbase to a remote location in some type of transport. It was time to eat. They opened a container. It had several types of (copyrighted) sandwiches.
One of them was a Chicken Sandwich.
Or maybe not...
"Anybody hungry?" [Rummaging] "What's that, chicken?" "Something like that. Tastes the same anyway." "Got any ham?" [Rummaging] "Ham, ham, ham…"
Patents are definitely the way to go for chicken sandwiches. Not copyright.
The careful USPTO examination process makes use of a room full of kittens with "PATENT GRANTED" stamps affixed to their feet.
I hear you not only can patent a method of swinging in a circular motion on a public park swing, but you can also patent rectangles with rounded corners. Bouncy scrolling. The possibilities are endless. Why not chicken sandwiches.
The Eastern District of Texas is definitely the venue to use in order to get the vast rewards you are entitled to for having the creative boldness and innovative genius to conceive of a chicken sandwich.
The RTBF (right to be forgotten) creators didn't forsee this failure mode. But they can amend it to correct this deficiency.
The failure mode is that an RTBF can not recursively, pre-emptively take down all future articles critical of RTBF requests.
Heck, why not allow a single RTBF request to take down all future articles / discussion forums / tweets / etc...: * about this RTBF request * about this particular subject, person, etc. * criticism such as your suggesting the mere possibility that the RTBF could be abused
Ashley Madison you have it all wrong with the DMCA
You are wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG.
You need to see the light and STOP using the DMCA to try to deal with this.
You should be using the new super dooper RTBF ! (Right To Be Forgotten)
The new RTBF has advantages over the outdated DMCA. 1. While the DMCA can only be used within worldwide jurisdiction, the RTBF can be used in even wider worldwide jurisdiction! 2. You can't use the DMCA to take down articles critical of DMCA requests, but you CAN use RTBF to take down articles critical of RTBF requests! 3. Coming Soon!... the ability to recursively take down all future articles about an RTBF request! (just try that with the puny DMCA.) 4. You don't have to be an actual copyright owner to use RTBF. (although it is doubtful that you need copyright ownership to use DMCA.)