JarHead 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (36) comment rss

  • On the post: Leaked Documents Show US Drone Killings Racking Up Collateral Damage, Damaging Future Intelligence Efforts

    JarHead ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2015 @ 04:52am

    Why do they hate us

    Yeah, and then the American PEOPLE asks "Why do they hate us so much". While I don't agree nor condone it, I can understand why many outside the US see the US as a whole is justified target, be it civilian or military, and prone to war mongering persuasion. US foreign policies seemed hell bent to creating more enemies than friends, and in the eyes of those who live where their survival depends on how closely they watch the skies for yet another US attacks, US civilian is as guilty as those who actually pulled the trigger, if not more. At least the military didn't ask "why do they/you hate us so much".

  • On the post: European Commission Wants Collection And Retention Of Passenger Data For Everyone Flying In And Out Of Europe

    JarHead ( profile ), 29 Jan, 2015 @ 04:22am

    Seems to me the western world is making itself a perfect target for terrorist of any stripe. All it takes is one successful attack and all the cockroaches come scurrying for cover, making things worse for all the citizens. Sometimes needing less than a successful attack. Any impact is amplified hundredfold.

    What a perfect target

  • On the post: Thailand Coup Leaders Insist Their Orders To Censor The Internet Are Not Actually Censorship

    JarHead ( profile ), 23 May, 2014 @ 02:55pm

    Hmm, one news source I've read said there's TV blackout as well, except for military prepared broadcast.

    So much for the people's movement, when the people "expressly" demand no voting/election whatsoever to be taken place to replace Yingluck.

  • On the post: AT&T Warns FCC Of A Parade Of Horribles That Wouldn't Actually Happen If FCC Reclassifies Broadband

    JarHead ( profile ), 12 May, 2014 @ 02:20pm

    ...to be statutorily required to take reasonable measures to prevent disclosure or use of information, such as IP addresses, websites visited, customer location information and other data, and they would be precluded from using this information without customer consent.

    Am I the only one thinking that this is actually a good thing, or am I reading it wrong? Is AT&T really pushing for no privacy over the net, and/or really supporting/arguing for what the alphabet soup are doing?

  • On the post: Appeals Court Doesn't Understand The Difference Between Software And An API; Declares APIs Copyrightable

    JarHead ( profile ), 09 May, 2014 @ 03:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: This is truly astonishing.

    Maybe I'me wrong about what this, but my understanding of the case is a battle over using a particular language.

    Let me illustrate. Let's say "walking/ to walk". According to webster it means "to move with your legs at a speed that is slower than running". The involved procedures are (extremely simplified here):

    1. Raise one leg
    2. Shift balance of the body to one side (forward/backward/to the side)
    3. lower the raised leg
    4. Repeat 1-3 for the other leg

    So the difference between API and libraries within the software dev world goes like this:

    Libraries:
    Walking = (from the above) Step 1, step 2, ...

    API:
    Walking = to move with your legs at a speed that is slower than running

    Now, you've said "The literal expression is protectable, the idea/method/function/etc. is not, and there is a gray area in between.". And you also said "But it was (correctly) undisputed that the API could have been written (by its original author) in many different ways while achieving the same purpose and performing the same task.".

    What you've said applies to what "Library" is, cos it is (in terms of software dev)
    1. literal expression of an operation
    2. could have written/arranged another way

    but it is not apply to API once it is set, cos it is
    1. a definition/description
    2. couldn't have written another way as to avoid confusion.

    Point 2 above is where Alsup's interoperability kicks in. Imagine someone have a copyright/patent on the word/verb and meaning of "walk", and can deny anyone else from using it or setup a toll on it. Everyone else who want to stay within the law then have to come up with something new every time they want to convey "walk". This will lead to comprehension nightmare.

    Hence it boils down to whether someone can copyright/patent the english language (for example, any other language apply) and preclude everyone else from using it. I dunno if someone could "legally" do it, but if it is, it's utterly ridiculous and dangerous, not to mention defeating the purpose of having a language in the 1st place.

  • On the post: How The US Gov't Destroyed The Lives Of A Muslim American Man's Entire Family After He Refused To Become An Informant

    JarHead ( profile ), 07 May, 2014 @ 11:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Reading the post, I think you're inaccurate. He's not saying that the US, as in the US government, is beyond criticism. There's indeed an implied criticism to the US government in that post.

    What I think he's saying is that the US people is beyond criticism. I think this is way worse than saying just the US government is beyond criticism. The implied message seems to be that the US people is a distinct higher species that the rest of the human race, which fits nicely to American Exceptionalism sentiment.

    Remember the last time a group of people think that way and do something about it? (-cough- ww2 -cough-)

  • On the post: US Government Begins Rollout Of Its 'Driver's License For The Internet'

    JarHead ( profile ), 05 May, 2014 @ 03:04pm

    Re: Meh.

    Let's say that this ID is only required when accessing govt sites/services. Without an express regulation that this ID cannot be used beyond that, the situation degrade really fast, even without further govt intervention.

    Private sites will then see that the ID can cut the cost of maintaining their own database, and allocate those resources to other things. Before long, the ID became standard.

    Yes, it is not certain that it'll roll out that way, but will you leave things like privacy and security to chance?

  • On the post: US Government Begins Rollout Of Its 'Driver's License For The Internet'

    JarHead ( profile ), 05 May, 2014 @ 02:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Correct me if I'm wrong here, I think what you're talking is like white/blacklisting rights. The end goal is "controlling" who have rights to what, but differs on approach and initial assumptions.

    With blacklisting, the initial assumption is the target have every rights possible. Controls are implemented by having a list which lists the exceptions. If something is not listed on that list, then by default it is assumed the target have that right.

    In whitelisting, the initial assumption is that the target doesn't have any right whatsoever. The list then contains the exception to that rule, that is the rights the target have. If something is not listed, then by default it is assumed the target doesn't have that right.

    The Constitution then can be seen as a whitelist, in which it grants only those rights/powers to the government, which assumed to be inherently powerless/without rights. So it can be said that Constitution grants Powers to Government.

    So how is it not limiting the goverment? In a sense it is, but the term limiting conjures the image that the government can do everything under the sun except those which are listed/regulated in the Constitution. This is a dangerous idea which can drive people complacent/apathy if the government do something outside it's mandate.

  • On the post: Circuit Court Overturns Immunity For Law Enforcement Officials Who Sent An Innocent Man To Prison For 22 Years

    JarHead ( profile ), 02 May, 2014 @ 11:36am

    Re:

    "You are guilty until you grease the right palm(s)"
    FTFY

    Innocence is just propaganda

  • On the post: The TSA Vs. The Fourth Amendment: You're Free To Board A Plane, But You're Not Free To Leave The Screening Area

    JarHead ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2014 @ 05:11am

    Re: Re: Re: You got it slightly wrong.

    So? The only sure way not having any terrorist on board is not having anyone boarding the plane, problem solved case closed. Anything less is the TSA or whatever alphabet-soup.org not doing it's job protecting American people.

    A compromise will be prohibiting anyone carrying anything on his/her person. ANYTHING. So passengers will board the plane buck naked. There's ton of advantages of this rule:

    1. Flying still an option for travel (see above)
    2. The cost of security theater can be significantly reduced, as
    3. Search & grope can be minimized
    4. Scanner use can be minimized
    5. Entertainment value all round, esp when boarding along with supermodels and/or various beautiful people

    I'm amazed why this solution still hasn't enforced yet.

  • On the post: Senate Report Says CIA Repeatedly Lied About The Fact That Its Torture Efforts Were Useless In Finding Bin Laden

    JarHead ( profile ), 02 Apr, 2014 @ 02:38am

    Re:

    The 1st 2 arguments I can understand, though not necessarily agree with, but the last, wow. I hope you're trolling. Torturing for vengeance is morally right? Now I have to wonder what background are you coming from. If you're the one charged for the safety of society, I don't want to be safe anymore. Better face a 1000 jihadist screaming for my blood than face a single person with such conviction.

  • On the post: Court Says Border Searches Of Your Computer Are Okay Because You Shouldn't Keep Important Info On Your Computer

    JarHead ( profile ), 01 Jan, 2014 @ 08:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Another disappointment

    The next question will be how much do you trust the encrypter and the system. To what level the NSA successfully weaken them, either by weakening the algorithm used by the encrypter, or installed malware on the system, or some other ways not known by us at the present.

  • On the post: Judge Says NSA Bulk Metadata Collection Likely Unconstitutional, Issues Injunction

    JarHead ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2013 @ 03:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: automated analysis

    To do a binary search, or any other search more advanced than brute force 1 to 1 comparison, the data/records must 1st sorted, or arranged into some format. That sorting will require an entire database records comparison, at least initially. Later records can then be inserted efficiently without doing that initial brute force comparison.

    One can argue if that constitute entire database search. If you argue that search is only done at the time an analyst type in a query, for one record and receive the immediate result (0 hop), you're most likely right, algorithms are devised to minimize entire database search. But then again there are threshold number of seeds and hops that can make the search look at the entire database.

    However, if one is to consider the entire lifetime of a database, then it can be said that the entire database is queried. A search is nothing more than comparing a myriad number of items against a sample item to get a match. Wouldn't the initial construction of the data structure of a database satisfy that definition?

  • On the post: Homeland Security Threatens Legal Action Against Employees Who Read News About Leaks

    JarHead ( profile ), 18 Jul, 2013 @ 10:56am

    Re: How does Reading Become Disclosure?

    It's not the act of reading by itself that can be a disclosure, but it's the how.

  • On the post: Homeland Security Threatens Legal Action Against Employees Who Read News About Leaks

    JarHead ( profile ), 18 Jul, 2013 @ 10:49am

    Re: Re: You're thinking about it wrong.

    Yes, what you've said are true, from the standpoint of most/sane people. However, there are other ways to look at the matter. For people dabbling with classified information, things are not as simple as that. I think Jeremy has eloquently explain how people managing classified information see things, and I found it entirely plausible. Please remember, these people are paid to be paranoid and want all things covered. What they want with these kind of policies are not dumbing down down their employees, nor forcing them to live in a fantasy land, but to stop further leaks.

    I imagine these policies only enforced on workplace network. Those people can still access the said information as long as they're not using something which can be traced back to the workplace network. Rather than including those caveats in the policy, thus further complicating things for the morons-in-a-hurry masses, the policy writer just be done with it and made it like it's all encompassing.

    So, you're right, from the standpoint of most people, it's a dumb move. But Jeremy is also right, from the standpoint of an information manager, it's a smart move.

  • On the post: Eric Holder Answers Question About Kim Dotcom Prosecution

    JarHead ( profile ), 09 May, 2013 @ 09:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Then call it for what it is, i.e. "revenue theft", "benefit theft", etc. Copyright, patents, and trademarks are forms of monopoly. The word "theft" is ill suited to describe actions breaking that monopoly, while "infringement" is more suited.

  • On the post: Eric Holder Answers Question About Kim Dotcom Prosecution

    JarHead ( profile ), 09 May, 2013 @ 08:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I am always glad to show my work. Why won't Mike?

    Then SHOW IT. Just crying that others don't show theirs won't make you right or give you some kind of highground. It only shows that you have nothing and fear the writer (Mike in this case) for the message s/he brings.

    Prove me wrong.

  • On the post: Tor Books UK Says Ditching DRM Showed No Increase In Piracy

    JarHead ( profile ), 02 May, 2013 @ 03:37pm

    Re:

    Well, in the case of guns, it's relatively easier to determine who the criminal is. With digital "piracy", things are much more muddier, cos everyone can be labeled a pirate for doing what would otherwise normal things to do with physical properties but suddenly criminal if it's a digital property.

  • On the post: Private Security Contractors Try To Shut Down Journalist Using Legal Threats And Claims Of Harassment

    JarHead ( profile ), 30 Apr, 2013 @ 04:19pm

    There's a layer of security called "security by obfuscation" which IMO still have a lion's share in many security firm's deployment strategy.

    Have a friend in that business. I know well he worked hard to build good systems, and has many satisfied clients. However he still regard "security by obfuscation" as a major plus.

    So, the reasons of those firms may not be nefarious. Misguided maybe, but the way they try to achieve/maintain it is certainly wrong. Even if it's not an abuse of the law, if obfuscation they want, they sure have to meet/get acquainted with ms. Streisand.

  • On the post: No, The UK Did Not Just Abolish Copyright, Despite What Photographers Seem To Think

    JarHead ( profile ), 30 Apr, 2013 @ 03:59pm

    Does size matter anymore?

    In my experience, stripping the EXIF data could significantly reduce the file size of the image. For some part of the world where inet bandwith is not a premium, the size savings may not matter, but for others where it's a premium, it does matter.

    I can understand why some sites automatically strip the EXIF data. For them to reach the maximum penetration possible, they have to consider the lowest bandwith available to the user. Hence, smaller file transfer is desirable. I also use this technique on some sites I helped develop, and the bandwith saving is huge IMO (some pages reached nearly 9mb savings; but of course I'm combining EXIF stripping with other techniques).

    That was sometimes ago, when such stripping really matters. However, the lower bandwith are now slowly rising. Does the rising made the saving from stripping EXIF matter now IDK, as I quit the web dev arena a while ago.

Next >>