My take is that rather than SSL being an indicator of possible quality of the underlying web site, they may be thinking of it being a quality in and of itself. IOW, all other things being equal, an encrypted site is of higher quality than an non-encrypted site because it's encrypted.
The problem with the First Rule of Holes is that it starts with "If you find yourself at the bottom of one...". Finding yourself anywhere requires a modicum of situational- and self-awareness. I suspect Mr. Queen hasn't looked up lately.
Why not just shoot the kid right there in the principle's office as soon as he's brought in, and get it over with as quickly as possible? Why drag out the torture? It's not like they wasted any due process on him anyway.
I think there is a certain logic to claiming damages on the copies that have been taken down, since they're also claiming that those copies need to be erased, and that blocking is insufficient. It's their premises that are flawed.
"...there's no specific protection in place for these contents, which some courts have argued contain no "expectation of privacy" thanks to constant "checkins" with third party providers and services."
The is no expectation of privacy for things I do inside my home with the doors locked, lights off and shades drawn because I do other things in public.
Anything I tell my bank is also public knowledge, including my PIN. Because they're a third-party provider or service.
So I recently found a reference that got me interested in a particular film, and noted that when I searched Google for it that film, I got a number of DMCA notices in place of download links.
Using my mouse (and my astonishing Internet P0w0rz) I selected the next search engine in the browser-provided pull-down list and clicked Search. In three mouse clicks and as many seconds I had more download links than I could possibly use.
Forcing Google to filter search results is SO effective because, you know, Google Is The Internet.