6

I got access to this question which got taken down due to a DMCA request.

screenshot for <10k users:
enter image description here

Now, in the timeline, we can see a suggested edit:

screenshot for <10k users:
enter image description here

If we click the link, see the suggested edit from the review queue. This link works for all users, even anonymous users.

There are also close vote first posts review queues entries but these are only shown to 10k+ users.

I have reported this using the contact form as stated in the security policy and got a response saying it has been resolved (ticket 109550 for anyone from SE's side) but I can still access this post so I'm addressing this here on Meta in the hopes of it getting fixed.

ticket closed

Note that I am not the only one who saw that. I think I saw someone else who was talking about a similar thing pretty soon after I initially saw this.

Improve this question
8
  • 2
    If you've access to the link, normally that means you've already seen the post. What's the point of hiding it from such people? If you don't post the link, the post is not accessible is it? It's certainly not searchable.
    – Robert Longson
    Jul 31 at 11:58
  • I think it can also be viewed from the recently deleted section of the 10k tools and the post link might have been shared somewhere (or be accessible from a search engine).
    – dan1st
    Jul 31 at 12:04
  • 5
    It's also in the web archive but... if the goal is to prevent people from seeing it for the first time, broadcasting about it here after you already have a support case open seems... contrary to that goal. You should simply follow up on your support case.
    – Stuck at 1337
    Jul 31 at 12:10
  • 2
    Sure 10K people can view deleted posts. That's so we have oversight to challenge such deletions if they are invalid. There aren't many 10K people though, approximately 0.1% of people have 10K rep. How do we have any oversight that things are happening correctly otherwise?
    – Robert Longson
    Jul 31 at 12:11
  • 1
    Flags also leak the content to mods, which I re-reported last week after reporting it last year in June (along with nudging suggested edits again, which was also reported in 2022)
    – Zoe is on strike
    Jul 31 at 15:25
  • 5
    @Zoeisonstrike Your recent Mod Team post is attached to the ticket that Philippe escalated - so anything mentioned there should get addressed.
    – Catija
    Jul 31 at 15:35
  • 3
    I'm confused here - what is the supposed basis for the takedown request? Does HackerRank think they own intellectual property rights to the specification of the FizzBuzz problem, or something?
    – Karl Knechtel
    Jul 31 at 23:08
  • 1
    It might be some sort of bot/automated DMCA request (But I can only speculate). Then (as far as I understood it, see the answer), SE has to remove the post until the author disputes it or else they are responsible for the post (though I am not a lawyer so take this with a grain of salt).
    – dan1st
    Aug 1 at 7:13

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
21

Let me see if I can clear some things up here.

TL;DR version - The ticket in question had a mistake. Rather than put into a "waiting on other team" status, the ticket was accidentally put into "resolved".

Longer version - The CM handling the ticket provided a response that they had "triaged to the appropriate team" then the ticket was put into a status of "resolved" rather than "waiting on other team".

We have a number of automations that happen depending on various categories, statuses, etc. In regards to the "resolved" status on the community side of support, that automatically starts a countdown of 72 hours in which if a person does not happen to respond with a follow-up question/comment, the ticket is then automatically closed and sends out a notice, as happened here.

When a ticket is put into a "waiting on other team" status, that stops all automated processes within the ticket, effectively putting it into stasis until either a person sends a follow-up question/comment or an agent takes an action.

In the end, this was an unfortunate accident. I have re-opened the ticket, which is now in a "waiting on other team" status while I wait on another team to investigate and fix the issue (ticket 3928). Once the work on that ticket is done, I'll pop back in here and let folks know.

[UPDATE - The fix for this is now live. Please use the contact form to let our Community Support team know if you find an instance where it is still happening. Thanks!]

Improve this answer
13
  • 9
    And I'll weigh in here (thank you, Dalmarus) to say that I escalated this ticket internally so that our legal and product teams are aware of it and prioritizing it appropriately.
    – Philippe StaffMod
    Jul 31 at 15:08
  • 11
    I'm hoping SE's team is doing something about this false DMCA claim? HackerRank owning "fizzbuzz" is absolutely laughable.
    – Cerbrus
    Jul 31 at 15:35
  • 5
    @Cerbrus: I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that if we receive a properly formed DMCA request, we're obligated to act on it. It's then up to the post author to file a counterclaim if they want to contest it.
    – V2Blast
    Jul 31 at 15:43
  • 11
    That's... Absurd. So if an author has long left the site, anyone can just file a false DMCA claim on any piece of code/question? I mean, anyone can see HackerRank has absolutely no claim on the FizzBuzz problem. How is the burden of proof not on the claimant's side?
    – Cerbrus
    Jul 31 at 15:47
  • 7
    @Cerbrus that's just how DMCA works
    – GammaGames
    Jul 31 at 15:55
  • 1
    I seriously doubt that.
    – Cerbrus
    Jul 31 at 16:02
  • 7
    Your doubts unfortunately won't change that.
    – dan1st
    Jul 31 at 16:05
  • 6
    This particular scenario is on level with patent trolls.
    – Stuck at 1337
    Jul 31 at 16:22
  • 4
    @Cerbrus the law itself is pretty absurd. In this case... SE is just doing what it needs to do legally
    – Journeyman Geek
    Aug 1 at 0:29
  • Is this also the reason the revision lists of the answers are still accessible?
    – Glorfindel Mod
    Aug 3 at 15:18
  • 1
    @Cerbrus The person filing the DMCA takedown notice must sign "under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." So, no, it's not that just anyone can file a DMCA takedown notice. They have to have been explicitly authorized by the copyright holder to do so.
    – Makyen
    Aug 3 at 16:10
  • 1
    For more information, I suggest you read 17 U.S. Code § 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online. While it's a bit verbose, you can find the requirements for a DMCA takedown notice in 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3) and the requirements for a counter-claim in 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3).
    – Makyen
    Aug 3 at 16:11
  • Not fixed? The suggested edit in the question is still a reproducible case.
    – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog
    Aug 4 at 19:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .