btr1701’s Techdirt Profile


About btr1701

btr1701’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 17th, 2014 @ 11:54am


    > It's difficult to see how a bill that is
    > supposed to be about protecting people's
    > privacy actually has this clause that will
    > effectively decimate privacy for many individuals

    It'll do a lot more than just decimate their privacy. I'd say they're losing a lot more of it than 10%.

    (Maybe the word you're looking for is 'annihilate'?) ;-)

  • Apr 17th, 2014 @ 11:46am


    > implying the US has ever been a democracy...

    It hasn't. From its inception, the US has been a constitutional republic.

  • Apr 13th, 2014 @ 12:49pm


    > if a cop is outfitted with a recording device AND
    > it isn't operating to spec. THEN his testimony in
    > court is automatically declared to be less trustworthy
    > than someone else's. If it just so happens that his
    > antenna was missing, then his testimony is stricken
    > from the record.

    Wait, what? That doesn't make sense. First you say that an unrecorded cop's testimony should be given lesser weight, then you claim it shouldn't be stricken altogether. You're all over the map here.

  • Apr 13th, 2014 @ 12:44pm

    Re: Re:

    > Welcome to Change. The only change I have seen from
    > this administration in particular is one to zero accountability.

    I assume you're talking about Obama?

    What does the president have to do with the regulation of local law enforcement?

  • Apr 13th, 2014 @ 12:42pm


    > instead of running away from it, took a very good
    > step in the right direction

    Except it's useless. It took me two seconds after reading this:

    > > To guard against officers removing the antennas
    > > during their shifts, Tingirides said he requires
    > > patrol supervisors to make unannounced checks
    > > on cars. know how the cops are avoiding the inspections. Every one of them likely has a personal iPhone or other kind of smart phone. They're all texting each other the location of the supervisors so everyone knows when to screw the antenna back on. And since they're doing it on their personally owned phones, no record is being kept of the comms that the department can access.

  • Apr 13th, 2014 @ 12:38pm

    Re: who cares who watches the watchers?

    > Don't get me wrong: if I had my way, every police officer
    > would be under recorded AV surveillance every second
    > of every day.

    And then you'd be just as bad as all the NSA big-government spy crap that's going on.

    I mean, you really think you have a right to observe a cop, when he's off-duty, in his own home, monitor his/her communications, watch him with his family, in his bedroom with his wife, etc.?

    I take that back. You wouldn't be just as bad. You'd be worse.

  • Apr 11th, 2014 @ 12:13pm


    I've never understood these jurisdictions that purport to regulate people's names. It's not like the parents can't actually call the kid whatever they like. If they put a government-approved name on the birth certificate, but then proceed to call the kid Wikileaks every day of his life, his name will effectively become Wikileaks. It's how he'll be known to everyone around him except for some government databases and who cares about that?

  • Apr 1st, 2014 @ 2:34pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    > Cease their assets and call it something other
    > than 'eminent domain'. Call it payment for what
    > is owed.

    I'm assuming you mean "Seize their assets"?

    In any event, it doesn't matter what they call it, the 5th Amendment says the government can't just take private property without paying for it.

    HOUSE OF CARDS fulfilled its contract with Maryland for the tax credits they've already received by shooting the first two seasons in Maryland. If Maryland wants them to stay, HOUSE OF CARDS is asking for a new deal. Maryland is not coming through with a new deal, so HOUSE OF CARDS wants to shop around elsewhere. That's perfectly acceptable behavior, and certainly nothing that should subject private citizens to property confiscation.

  • Apr 1st, 2014 @ 1:14pm


    > The one thing about eminent domain is that
    > it must be done for a public purpose.

    Not anymore. Not after Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), quite possibly the worst Supreme Court decision in the last 50 years.

    Now the government can take private property from one person and hand it over to another and that counts as a "public purpose".

  • Apr 1st, 2014 @ 1:11pm

    Re: Re:

    > You should be booing him. Eminent domain
    > is a necessary evil at best. Using it to
    > punish a company is unacceptable.

    Agreed. Of two evils here, the idea of the state seizing (stealing) private property because the owners of it aren't doing what the government wants is abhorrent. It exhibits a clear lack of respect for the fundamental rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution and even introducing it should be grounds for the removal of the politician that thought it up.

    On the other side of the equation, all HOUSE OF CARDS did was ask for tax breaks? Do they deserve them? No. Should they get them? No. Which is what Maryland should tell them. But they're free to ask and asking isn't even in the same universe of bad as the seizure amendment.

  • Mar 31st, 2014 @ 12:35pm


    > One does not have the right to yell "FIRE" in a
    > crowded theater.

    If there really is a fire, not only can you yell it, depending on the jurisdiction, you might even have a duty to yell it.

  • Mar 31st, 2014 @ 12:32pm

    Re: Exasperation [was Re: ]

    > “One does not have the right to yell "FIRE" in a
    > crowded theater.”
    > ——Mr Justice Holmes, SCHENK v UNITED STATES (1919)

    FYI, the Schenk case was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. The "fire in a theater" standard no longer applies in 1st Amendment law.

  • Mar 29th, 2014 @ 9:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: But...

    > But in this case, the law is pretty clear

    Yes, and in the case of the DMCA, for example, the law is also pretty clear: that anti-circumvention is prohibited, even to exercise otherwise legal rights. You guys here at TechDirt never just throw up your hands and accept stuff like that because "it's the law is the law is the law". You argue vociferously in favor *changing* the law when it allows for the abuse of intellectual property to stifle or chill otherwise protected rights. That you fail to do so when it comes to this aspect of trademark law is disingenuous.

    The fact is, you guys *constantly* argue against exactly this kind of abuse of intellectual property to censor unpopular speech, but in this one instance, when you apparently approve of the idea of censoring this particular bit of unpopular speech, you just throw up your hands and say, "Well, the law is the law. What can you do?"

    It's just a little bit chicken-shit of you, not to put too fine a point on it.

  • Mar 29th, 2014 @ 9:04pm


    I notice that the UK government's FAQ states that this personal copying right only applies "to copies you own".

    Since we all know that no one actually owns any ebooks, music or film anymore-- they're all just licensed-- that would seem to make this an entirely irrelevant endeavor.

  • Mar 29th, 2014 @ 9:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > Trying to ban DRM would be extremely problematic

    Not only that, banning DRM would be a violation of the property rights of the producer of the film, CD, etc.

    Just as people should have the right to make personal copies for themselves, I should have the right to publish my work in any format I damn well please without the government telling me how I'm allowed to do it.

    If I write a book and want to encrypt it so that only people I know who have the decryption key can read it, it's my right to do that. If I want to put DRM on my DVDs, then that's also my right. What I don't have the right to do is demand the government criminalize any circumvention of that DRM even in pursuit of other statutorily guaranteed consumer rights.

  • Mar 29th, 2014 @ 8:43pm


    > Federal law overrides state law

    Not always. Federal law is only superior in matters of federal jurisdiction, i.e., those matters listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

    In all other matters, state law is superior to federal law.

  • Mar 29th, 2014 @ 8:41pm


    > This would prevent agencies like the FBI and DOJ
    > from investigating closed complaints to see if anything
    > was missed or covered up.

    That's ridiculous. The FBI investigates based on violations of federal law (public corruption laws, etc.). The State of Kansas has no jurisdiction over what the FBI can and cannot investigate and has no legal authority to limit them. Only Congress can do that.

  • Mar 26th, 2014 @ 4:25pm

    Federal Crime

    > The granddaddy of them all has always been
    > Illinois' eavesdropping law, which made it
    > a federal crime to surreptitiously record
    > any public official

    That's just not accurate at all. The State of Illinois has no legal authority or ability to make something a federal crime. Only the U.S. Congress can pass laws criminalizing actions at the federal level.

  • Mar 25th, 2014 @ 11:52am

    Re: Re: Groan....

    Even Al Gore, the Godfather of Global Warming Hype, has admitted he lies about the problem to get attention:

    "Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

    Al Gore interview with “Grist”

  • Mar 25th, 2014 @ 11:43am

    Re: Re: Groan....

    > I'd say a good definition would be the sort of person who
    > can live through three consecutive years of unbelievably
    > harsh winters, followed by an honest-to-God drought and
    > then topped off by a whole summer's worth of rain falling
    > in one long weekend, and still thinks nothing unusual is
    > happening.

    Why is it that local weather anecdotes are only allowed as proof if they prove 'climate change' is happening? If your local weather anecdote refutes that agenda, you're immediately met with "Climate and weather are not the same thing! Learn the science, idiot!" But the moment local weather seems to support the climate change mantra, those same "climate is not weather" people point to it and say, "See! I told you so!"

    Also, the things you listed *aren't* unusual. The earth has experienced droughts, ice ages, and periods of warming for billions of years that *far* exceed anything we've seen in the last 500 years or so. The earth's climate is a chaotic system. Of *course* it will change. You'd have to be some special kind of stupid to expect a chaotic system to remain static merely because that's how you prefer it to be.

More comments from btr1701 >>