SomeGuy’s Techdirt Profile

jackofallgeeks

About SomeGuy




SomeGuy’s Comments comment rss

  • Oct 19th, 2011 @ 10:19am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Be definition, if it (the site's security) works, my expectation is that I will get an error screen, not someone else's information.

  • Jun 29th, 2011 @ 11:15am

    Re: 2 extra questions

    Both are offensive to our freedoms.
    TSA has the force of law behind it.
    There's your answer.

  • Jun 29th, 2011 @ 11:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well since you asked..

    You're aware of the fact that (1) ever attempt since 9/11 has been thwarted by pre-TSA tools and techniques and (2) none of what the TSA is doing now would have stopped 9/11, or the underwear bomber, or anything else?

  • Jun 29th, 2011 @ 11:06am

    Re:

    You have to frame the question correctly: What do you fear more, someone patting you down or someone shooting you in flight or blowing up your plane?

    When you frame the question correctly, there is really only one answer - and it isn't giving the terrorists seats in first class.


    I disagree entirely -- I would rather risk serious personal injury or even death than compromise the freedoms and liberties this nation was founded on.

  • Jun 29th, 2011 @ 10:58am

    Re: American gumption.

    I'm with you, Jed.

  • Jun 29th, 2011 @ 10:57am

    Re:

    This is a less-than-compeling argument because the people you're arguing against feel that abuse by a "well-intentioned" government agency is preferable to death from a terrorist organization.

  • Jun 29th, 2011 @ 10:52am

    Re: Well since you asked..

    Imagine a scenario where a new disease is discovered. It's generally quiet, rare, but inevitably fatal. In order to protect us from this disease, the government implements a policy (and accompanying enforcement agency) to periodically inject every citizen with a toxic cocktail of various medicines; this too is intensely painful, but less painful (I assure you) than the disease itself. No further move is made to better diagnos the disease because this preventative measure is accepted as sufficient.

    That is what the TSA is. It is practically the definition of "unnecessary," since in the last 10 years every attempted terrorist act in or around an airport has been thwarted by pre-9/11 tools and techniques. They have only succeeded in convincing us that they're necessary using the phantom of terrorism. Nothing Al Qaeda has done in the last 10 years has caused anything near the anxiety, confusion, and loss of liberty that has been inflicted on us by the TSA.

  • Jun 24th, 2011 @ 10:04am

    Re: Anyone who says these aren't alike is blind, or a moron

    No one stole anything. Broaden your vocabulary so we can have a meaningful conversation based on actual facts.

  • Jun 24th, 2011 @ 9:59am

    Re: Re: Attribution

    Must? No, but it'd be nice. Nevermind that I don't put a lot of ethical weight beind being "nice" to a corporation, but that's not really the point, as we're really discussing individuals.

    Anyways, attribution isn't put there to make sure there isn't confusion, it's there to say "hey, if you like this, you may also like other things by this guy." I don't think there needs to be a legal mandate but again doing so is nice.

    As far as if it was an inspiration or not? -shrugs- Fair point. I think I see enough similarities that I'd be pretty skeptical of a contrary claim, but "evergreens around a lake at night" is fairly generic. As Ryan Bliss points out below, though, there are some key details that hint otherwise.

  • Jun 24th, 2011 @ 9:55am

    Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...

    I think there's some amount of reason in his point: an original piece has more creative input, you could argue, than "just" a photo. A photo has things like framing and lighting and so on, but an original piece of art has all of those things plus the entirety of the subject. I still think I agree more with you than with Ryan regarding how much that matters, but I think there could be a subtle distinction.

  • Jun 24th, 2011 @ 8:26am

    Re: it's all about scale

    This site continues to blithely believe that people will cough up good money when they can get an officially sanctioned "pirated copy" for free.

    In part because this has been shown to be true again and again and again. As counter-intuitive as you may find it, people do cough up good money for things they can get for free.

  • Jun 23rd, 2011 @ 3:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Get off my lawn, you damn kids!

    If you think it's cowardly to attack unarmed civilians, then I think you could call the 9/11 attacks cowardly.

  • Jun 22nd, 2011 @ 10:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That's been true in the past, and you're assuming it's still true in the present and future. I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. Some members may be more active or charismatic, but even that doesn't make them "leaders" in the traditional sense.

  • Jun 22nd, 2011 @ 8:55am

    Re: Righthaven, bar discipline

    I think it's worth pointing out that, as far as I know, there's never been a case of RIAA v. Doe or anything; those cases are always done in the name of the interested labels. This Rightshaven stuff is different.

  • Jun 22nd, 2011 @ 7:53am

    Re: Get off my lawn, you damn kids!

    In reading all these attacks, it breaks my heart people have become too cowardly to stand up for themselves, especially in the arena of trying to get others to do the same.

    I take a different view -- these anonymous acts aren't a sign that people have become cowardly, but indicative of how the world has changed. People can't take a stand for themselves because the playing field isn't level, and these anonymous attacks help put them back on even ground. I don't necessarily agree with their tactics, but I can sympathize to some extent.

    If people stood together, they could take class-action suits against companies trying to cheat them or partake in inappropriate actions. Pooling the funds for legal recourse is much better than one trying to fight alone.

    Unfortunately, I don't think that's true. Even if you can assume an unbiased judge (which I don't think is a safe assumption), regular people do not have the resources necessary to fight a real legal battle against their new oppressors -- not effectively, at least, not in a way that will bring lasting change. Recent history has shown that, at worst, Goliath will get a slap on the wrist and the "winners" will each get $8 retribution for their troubles. Nevermind that Goliath has multi-million dollar legal council on retainer, and the people have to tighten their belts and pool their money to scrape up any kind of representation. It's not a fair system.

    I get people are upset over this stuff, but taking their issues out on innocent people, who use these accounts, is bulllshit.

    I agree, though in a way making the apathetic feel pain is a good way to motivate them into awareness. To say LulzSec is doing that intentionally is giving them too much credit, I think, but I think it's fair to say that they are drawing attention to the things that are going on.

    If anyone from Anonymous or LulzSec is reading this, perhaps you consider this before pretending you're fighting against "The Man".

    In my eyes: you come off more a coward than a defender of rights. Those who defend want their name known.


    Yeah, think of the heroes of legend: Batman, The Lone Ranger, Zorro. They all recognized that credibility came from your words and identity, not your actions, especially not when those actions run afoul of the established law of the land.

    Just my two cents.

  • Jun 22nd, 2011 @ 7:38am

    Re: You all are goofy

    SSNs aren't important because they let you cash a check when you turn 68, they're important because they are the de facto national identification number. Look into what happened to the president of LifeLock before you casually throw that identifier around.

  • Jun 21st, 2011 @ 12:03pm

    Re: I hope this fails miserably

    It is one thing to do this at the airport where everyone now expects it to happen.

    No, it's not. This is as wrong in the airports as it is in the bus stations; saying otherwise is naive and dangerous.

  • Jun 20th, 2011 @ 8:00am

    Re: Theatre just like "The Theatre of war" no less real

    Nothing that the TSA has instituted would catch any threats that wouldn't already be caught be pre-9/11 techniques. The 9/11 attacks themselves would have been twarted by the dors they installed on cockpits ten years ago. By all means search the child, but only if there's a reasonable expectation that the child is a threat. Just because some children in middle eastern market places are stapped with explosives doesn't mean that every child in America is strapped with explosives.

  • Jun 20th, 2011 @ 7:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I think you're underestimating the kind of screening that goes in to clearing air port employees, including employees at the restraunts inside an airport.

    At least, I hope you're underestimating it. As you point out, they pose a bigger insider risk than any random passenger does. The correct response isn't banning restraunts, it's appropriately screening the risk factors.

  • Jun 20th, 2011 @ 7:46am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Meaning you're OK with unreasonable searches before entering the terminal and ambivalence towards possible security risks inside the terminal, if it means guys can goof off after hours? I'm confused.

More comments from SomeGuy >>