Can I take a picture of my company server room and post it on Facebook? Is there a law that prohibits the taking of photos of a company server room and posting it as a status in Facebook? Every component is exposed but... no software ID, usernames or passwords even IP addresses where taken. Or is it under company jurisdiction? EDIT: Reason... Rule of Cool? Location: South East Asia, Philippines.
The real question isn't whether there is a law, but whether you want to keep your job. If you want to do something that you believe will affect your company negatively, and you ask whether it's legal or not, the question alone should show you it's a bad idea. And another question is whether you can be sued, and what it will cost you even if you can win a case, and the answers to that are "yes" and "a lot".
DMCA applies as long as the the website is being hosted inside the U.S. The location of the copyright holder is irrelevant. For step-by-step help drafting a valid DMCA notice, see Step 2 of https://nppa.org/page/5617. If the site fails to comply with a valid notice, they lose the benefit of DMCA's safe harbor provisions and become themselves liable for continuing to host the infringing work, and you can sue them. (Prior filing suit, though, I imagine a letter from a lawyer that says, "Hey, my client sent you a valid DMCA notice a while ago; kindly comply at once, or we will actually sue you," should be sufficient.) The requirement to submit a photo appears to be totally unnecessary. A valid DMCA notice includes a signature (electronically including your name in an email is sufficient) and an assertion, under penalty of perjury, that the writer is authorized to control the copyright work and that the work is being used illegally. Beyond a signature and contact information, no further identity verification is necessary. The DMCA handles this by opening the submitter to perjury charges if the takedown was submitted illegally. Of course, any site might choose to ignore your DMCA takedown, at their own peril. They might bet that you won't actually hire a lawyer and follow through on your legal right to file suit, or they might not understand that identity verification is not a legal requirement listed in 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3). Your options are either: follow the law as written and file a valid takedown notice, and then hire a lawyer when they don't don't comply with the rules written in 17 U.S.C. § 512 follow their additional rules to get them to comply, which may be more difficult but might not require hiring a lawyer
This has yet to be specifically decided in the federal courts. The Post Office can set &quot;rules of conduct&quot; for its facilities. Prohibiting photographing is plainly a restriction on one's First Amendment rights, and it is established beyond question that a government cannot issue / enforce a blanket prohibition of public photographing. Someone would have to take a case to court to determine whether this limitation on First Amendment rights passes the relevant level of judicial scrutiny. The rationale (as set forth by the USPS) is that such photographing may be &quot;disruptive&quot;. One can perhaps analogize the right to film police with a new-found right to film post office, following from a right to public oversight over the government. DHS gives general guidance of its own (with a pile of redacted stuff), directing you to 41 CFR 102-74.420. Permission is thus required, until the courts find that to be an unconstitutional restriction (I would not expect there to be such a finding). But it is not unthinkable that the courts could at some point so rule. The YouTube aspect of the question is irrelevant: if you have the right, you have the right, and it doesn't derive from nor is it blocked by an intent to distribute on YouTube.
The tricky bit from a GDPR standpoint is that the US has a law that says a US-based company must hand over data to US government agencies even if the data is stored outside the US. This is US specific and a case where the US government gives itself jurisdiction outside the US but the EU can't directly do anything against it (outside of international negotiations). As you noticed this means if you store data at a US data processor there is no real difference whether the data is physically stored in the US or the EU. So to avoid transferring EU consumer data to the US several steps are needed. First the servers have to be physically located in the EU and second the company needs to be non-US based, EU based seems the obvious choice. AFAIK constructions of a US-based company creating a fully owned EU-based subsidary are currently used to achieve the second part. Whether this is sufficient may have to be decided in court.
For a large organization, software licensing compliance is a very broad and intractable problem. The licensing environment is very different for the big company than it is for little tiny you. Many large companies are subject to audits by software vendors (i.e. Adobe, Oracle, etc.) in which they have to show licenses purchased for each active seat. There's a whole new INDUSTRY around maintaining license compliance. An employee bringing in their own software and installing it on a company computer complicates this vastly. That is the environment that the question should be considered within. The large company makes the decision somewhere along the way that your individual efficiency in performing your individual tasks is less important than maintaining auditable software licensing compliance. Since they own the computer/laptop/server, it's their decision. Many times it seems that corporate policies as they apply to the individual worker are obstructive and limiting, but there's a bigger picture to the situation.
I assume you're talking about corporations, not LLCs ("limited liability companies"). LLCs aren't corporations and don't issue shares of stock, and in any event Facebook is a corporation. Information relating to the shares of a corporation is typically outlined in the articles of incorporation, but practices and governing law varies by state and by corporation. Delaware, where most large US corporations are incorporated, requires the certificate of incorporation to list the total number of shares to be issued and the number of shares in each class, as well as information about the "powers, preferences and rights, and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions" of the share classes. See 8 Del. C. § 102(a)(4). Facebook's October 2010 articles of incorporation can be found here, and information about its classes of stock can be found in Article IV.
This question needs more detail. As a cybersecurity professional I can provide some technical context around what I believe to be the situation. While I do not know the legal precedence, technically, IP addresses cannot typically be attributed to an individual person. There are a number of reasons for this. In a local network, IP addresses are not unique. Rather, they are distributed by the DHCP server, and are reassigned at intervals. Forensic attribution to an individual in most environments would require a DHCP log linking the IP to the machine’s MAC address, with time stamps that correlate to the individual’s logon to that machine at the same time. If the IP correlation involves a VPN, it gets more difficult. I would need to know where the log/evidence was obtained to determine what the IPs in question actually correlate to. If the evidence was obtained in local area network of the suspect, the IP addresses are likely assigned by the DHCP server (see previous). If they are obtained after encryption in transit to decryption, then very little can be determined. If they were obtained at the VPN server log, these IPs likely belong to an ISP which in turn may or may not be able to show what machine initiated the conversation. Digital photos often contain EXIF data, which is metadata about the photo. This data can contain details like, device make and model, sometimes location, time and date... If the defendant owns a Nikon such and such and the photo was taken with a Nikon such and such, and was uploaded using a VPN the defendant has an account with, and the defendant was in that location at the time and place of the photo... there may be enough there... but I’m not a lawyer. I believe the discovery should include any EXIF metadata and logs to be used as evidence. You may need a special technical whiteness to educate the court on what can and cannot be determined (technically) given the evidence. Things to consider for such a witness could include: EXIF, forensic certification, network administration experience, VPN, TCPIP, OSI Model, Network Address Translation (NAT). Again, nothing here should be considered legal advise. Seek professional legal counsel.
The fact that something is illegal does not imply that it is illegal to post pictures of it happening. In general, under U.S. law, free speech protects almost all forms of communications subject to a handful of narrow exceptions and this is not one of them. There are many legitimate reasons one might want to post video of a fight (e.g. to identify crime perpetrators for purposes of prosecuting them), but no legitimate purpose is legally necessary. Surely as a platform Reddit cant hide against it being a platform of free speech in this case? They most definitely can. Reddit is also not responsible for user posted content under Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act, even if it were illegal for the person posting it to post the content