beltorak’s Techdirt Profile


About beltorak

beltorak’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 18th, 2014 @ 12:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Martyr Syndrome

    None. Those laws were broken for your own good, Patriot.

  • Apr 18th, 2014 @ 9:56am

    Re: Re: Excellent analysis

    > Most don't take it that seriously, and rightfully so; needle in the haystack theory plus the fact most of us don't do much that is interesting probably play a role.

    And that is entirely the wrong way to look at things. The reason that these programs are dangerous is not because they will catch some small time crimes, because for the most part the theory is right - there is way too much noise. The problem is that we go from a culture of "rule of law" to one of selective enforcement and petty revenge. If for whatever reason you end up on someone's radar, they can go back in time and string together any number of those innocuous needles you dropped over your lifetime to make you look suspicious of anything "horrible" enough to justify putting you on the no fly list, or carting you off to a secret torture camp, or targeting you for a drone strike.

  • Apr 18th, 2014 @ 9:55am


    > Due process, anyone?

    "No thanks. I'm good."

    - the government

  • Apr 18th, 2014 @ 9:46am


    I prefer "The People's Constitutionally Democratic Republic of the Americas" myself. PCDRA just sorta rolls off the tongue and lets the world know that we, like the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, are at least named accurately.

  • Apr 17th, 2014 @ 3:36pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    original consent doesn't matter:

    > Even if the original photograph was done "consensually" note that you need consent for that specific disclosure. In other words, if you retweeted that image, you probably violated New Jersey criminal laws.

    Please, read before you write.

  • Apr 16th, 2014 @ 8:04am

    (untitled comment)

    But it's not just "people", it's "the people", and as others have pointed out "the people" refers to a specific group, namely those that are mentioned in the preamble - "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union..."

    But I like the reason for the argument. There are certain rights that we should never abridge. Otherwise you can go back and look at the amendments to start committing atrocities with impunity. For example, an excerpt from the first amendment to highlight the problem of always equating "the people" with citizens:

    Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble....

    Foreigners with valid visas having a get-together after mosque (can't break up the religious ceremony itself because that part of the first doesn't mention "the people") or in front of home depot? Gather up a few cop buddies and go hose them down till they depart. Perfectly legal.

    tl;dr you can make the argument that "the people" should be broadened in some senses, but I think that for the most part it does clearly mean "citizens".

    For someone trying to use the argument that the founding fathers payed closer attention to language having an education that covered latin and greek, you missed the use of the definite article.

  • Apr 11th, 2014 @ 11:10pm

    Re: Re:

    nonsense. the proper role of the library of congress is to make cell phone unlocking illegal because copyright.

  • Apr 9th, 2014 @ 11:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think that would be too difficult - the trick relies on having the light turn on without the victim (*ahem*, excuse me) interviewee being able to define when it came on. If it appears and disappears with any regularity or predictable pattern or in conjunction with other observable events, the ... honored guest can attempt to apply the scientific method to discover when the light appears and disappears. Being able to reason out a causal relationship behind a variation of any aspect of one's environment - no matter how trivial - can help the ... chosen individual regain a sense of some measure of control over one's environment. When breaking someone's will (*cough cough*, pardon me) engaging in an enhanced debate to enlighten someone [ha! puns!], it is important to instill a sense of powerlessness (*eek*, forgiveness, i beg) remove any inducements to irrelevant mental strain that could distract our charge from the topic at hand.

    Alternatively, if you could somehow recognize exactly when the ... recipient of our attentive ministrations can begin to see all five lights, begin a new dialogue at some point in the future (after a slightly longer, but not definably so, intermission) arguing that there are only four. It may be necessary to invent some plausible reason to abruptly remove yourself from the conversation and terminate this most recent interview. Have one of your ... employees page you with an urgent matter, appear slightly distracted when you start out, and be sure to leave before the individual can fight through the momentary confusion and challenge you on your apparent reversal. Attempts by the individual to point out any inconsistency in your assertions should always be met with increasingly irritated denials; e.g.: "there have always been four lights". It may also be helpful to, in the few interviews immediately prior to the assertion reversal, be vague about the specific number of lights an focus more on the incorrectness and stubbornness of your interlocutor.

    Note that this trick may only be usable once.

  • Apr 9th, 2014 @ 8:57pm


    > Mine will simply no longer allow it to run.

    Me being pedantic here; but SSL certs don't "run". They might (metaphorically) "fly"....

  • Apr 9th, 2014 @ 8:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Disagree

    > where we clearly need to revoke a large number of certs "just to be sure"

    Try "all of them that were issued in the last two years" (those that are still active anyway). And that doesn't fix the problem - which is the "client's" use of a broken version of encryption software, which is completely out of their hands, and could still happen again if (say) my cert was revoked, i obtain a new one right now, but continue using the broken openssl version! StartSSL has no way of knowing if a client leaked their SSL key.

    But they should absolutely revoke it for free, waive the fee if the client acknowledges having used the broken openssl version, or if necessary at least defer the fee until the client requests a reissue. And add a new opt-in checkbox asserting that the client has verified they are no longer vulnerable to heartbleed (and similar issues - i doubt i've seen the last one one of this kind in my lifetime).

    But I'm starting to see a whole host of counter arguments and corner cases, so really the only simple and honorable thing to do is not charge for revocation. The real solution, as Moxie Marlinspike pointed out years ago, is to move away from the CA model.

  • Apr 9th, 2014 @ 8:39pm

    Re: Re: declares intention to commit corporate suicide

    > A quarter-century later, people are still getting hacked by buffer overruns, including Heartbleed....

    Heartbleed is worse than a buffer overrun. Actually, from what I understand, it's more of a buffer underrun - the buffer allocated is larger than is needed for the response, and the result is that the buffer contains "extra data" that is or was in memory at that location. The amount of data written to the buffer is not sufficient to wipe all the left over data. If they had done the sensible thing - which is to zero out the buffer - the problem might have been ignorable (who cares if you get an extra 64k of nulls back?) or caught more or less immediately because key portions of memory (such as the encryption key needed for future operations) would no longer be available.

  • Apr 9th, 2014 @ 8:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I usually hear "starting from". "As low as" seems to me to say that someone, somewhere is only paying $49 a month. "Starting from" is easier to justify. Sure, the price "started from" $49, then we "were forced" to add taxes, and taxes, and fees, and fees. So it started from $49 and ended up at $120.

  • Apr 8th, 2014 @ 7:35pm

    (untitled comment)

    wait, let me get this straight. if i am brought before a court to testify, and they know i have been working to cover up my past wrong doings, then it's the prosecutor's fault if i perjur myself?

    that. is. awesome.

  • Apr 8th, 2014 @ 7:20pm

    Re: Unrelated to national security?

    so you are positing that they were just keeping tabs on their old friends of the friends to make sure they were still towing the line and not suddenly out to damage the image and reputation of the upstanding and patriotic workers in the more clandestine governmental organizations thereby unfairly besmirching the pristine reputation of these fine united states? well that obviously makes it a national security issue! we can't have the world distrusting us now, can we? barbarians at the gates! 9/11 all over again!!

  • Apr 8th, 2014 @ 7:09pm

    (untitled comment)

    does snowden not pay attention to the news? the only email system safe from the NSA is the NSA's!

  • Apr 7th, 2014 @ 11:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Solution to bizzare Youtube copyright claims....

    I believe, if you read the TOS, the very act of uploading already asserts that you have permission to upload; either because you own the copyright or have permission from the owner.

    How would this "I attest, under risk of loss of account, that I own all copyright to the uploaded content or that I have readily available proof of license to the content uploaded." feature work? A checkbox? what's to stop the actual (accidental or intentional) infringers from checking that box? In which case it may as well always be checked, because if you don't have the permission to upload it then you are not allowed to upload it!

  • Apr 7th, 2014 @ 10:09am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I've always thought that if I were the cardassian, seeing picard's unbreakable resolve, i would have put up a fifth light... especially for the last "enhanced interrogation" interview when all the cardassian's desires were focused on the single remaining goal of breaking picard before the end.

  • Apr 7th, 2014 @ 9:59am

    Re: To see if the law and youtube rules are fair, lets reverse this situation.

    quick ddg search on "how to use youtube contentid" turned up which says

    > YouTube only grants Content ID to content owners who meet specific criteria. To be approved, content owners must own exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community.

    in other words, "money" measured by the proxy "owned content".

  • Apr 7th, 2014 @ 9:52am

    contracts and promises

    there's no difference in effect, but there is a legal difference. the same difference between 1) an implicit understanding between two parties and 2) a contract. the latter is legally enforceable - you can engage the legal system for restitution when violated. the former is more like an informal conversation: "so you'll do this for me?" -> "sure, no problem". sure, there is such a thing as a verbal contract, but what's the legal bar for classification as a contract? how many "broken promises" have been taken to court? I'm pretty sure that the yt/contentID system was created (or can be argued such that) it avoids being classified as a contract.

  • Apr 1st, 2014 @ 6:36pm

    Re: Re: Education is the answer

    > Copyright length is like if a home builder built a house and then thought they should be able to make money on it forever, like rent, or a fee each time it is sold, for example.

    Actually it's a lot more like they want a fee every time some one steps into the house for whatever reason. Or turns around in the driveway. Or walks along the side walk and accidentally steps on the lawn. Throwing a party? There's a tax on each head....

More comments from beltorak >>