lfroen 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (268) comment rss

  • On the post: Corporate Sovereignty Provisions Of TPP Agreement Leaked Via Wikileaks: Would Massively Undermine Government Sovereignty

    lfroen ( profile ), 26 Mar, 2015 @ 05:07am

    Re:

    > why won't countries simply raise a big middle finger to the corporate sovereignty provisions when they are abused

    They would. You can't sue judge in his own court. That's why nobody takes such posts seriously.

  • On the post: Corporate Sovereignty Provisions Of TPP Agreement Leaked Via Wikileaks: Would Massively Undermine Government Sovereignty

    lfroen ( profile ), 26 Mar, 2015 @ 04:59am

    You have no idea what this "Sovereignty" thing is, right?

    "Sovereignty" as one wise man defined it, is "monopoly to use of lethal force".
    I'm not exactly TPP fan, but how exactly TPP undermine sovereignty, I have no idea.

    Corporation suing government of $country in same $country? Is _this_ supposed to "undermine sovereignty"? Like in:

    >> The TPP would newly empower about 9,000 foreign-owned firms in the United States to launch ISDS cases against the U.S. government

    Maybe TPP is a bad thing. But _this_ is bureaucratic bullshit.

  • On the post: Amazon Quietly Bricked Jailbroken Kindle Devices Last Year

    lfroen ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2015 @ 08:41am

    Re: Re: Two sides of the coin

    Or, I may prefer to live in apartment inside of locked down building, with security on entrance screening every incoming person, where building owner can decide who can come in. See also "military base". I heard that in US this thing is voluntary.

  • On the post: Amazon Quietly Bricked Jailbroken Kindle Devices Last Year

    lfroen ( profile ), 24 Mar, 2015 @ 08:24am

    I don't see how devices became bricked

    So, Amazon fixed bugs which make rooting exploit possible. It is right thing to do, because software is not supposed to be exploitable. That's bug, not a feature.
    Exactly same goes for iPhone, Xbox and so on.

    Author probably should learn what "bricked" means, before embarrassing himself in writing.

    Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, even least technically inclined knows that you can't install stuff on iPhone without Apple's approval. Don't like it - don't buy iPhone; there's hundreds of Android phones on the market.
    Similarly, if one don't like Amazon's locked deal - just you know, don't buy it. Other people may find this "locked down" thing useful.

  • On the post: Why Even Justified Criticisms Of GNU Privacy Guard Miss The Point

    lfroen ( profile ), 05 Mar, 2015 @ 01:39pm

    Criticism is absolutely in place

    Criticism of GPG is definitely in place. It's so complicated to use that nobody bothers.

    >> I suspect that it has saved a good many people living in countries with oppressive and brutal regimes from arrest or worse

    False. Ironically, Mike often bring (valid) point that law enforcement need not to break encryption - tried and true methods are enough. Another side of the coin is that the same methods works for all sides: oppressive regimes including.

  • On the post: Disappointing: Google Not Yet Requiring Phone Makers To Encrypt By Default

    lfroen ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2015 @ 10:25pm

    Nothing "disappointing" here

    Google do a right thing here - leave a choice in hands of those who care.
    Did you ever saw a door manufacturer that _require_ to use a lock? Did you ever saw such a car?

    So why the hell my phone should be different? Can I please choose by myself whether to use encryption, what kind of encryption and what to actually encrypt?

    People don't expect that car/house/suitcase will somehow lock itself. And people know how to turn protection on a phone too. My 9yo daughter somehow knows.

    So let the Google write software and let those who care make decisions.

  • On the post: France Celebrates Its New Reverence For Free Speech By Arresting Comedian For His Speech

    lfroen ( profile ), 14 Jan, 2015 @ 01:39pm

    Free speech != terrorists propaganda

    Hey, Mike, I don't quite think you're getting the message.

    Free speech is not synonym for terrorists propaganda. News for fellow americans - not all speech is equal. And yea, I'm totally agree with arresting people suggesting that "killing for Allah" is good idea.

  • On the post: Cyberattack Results In Physical Damage To German Steel Mill's Blast Furnance

    lfroen ( profile ), 13 Jan, 2015 @ 11:20pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    > It doesn't matter. IF the infrastructure is critical, ...
    In your imaginary world, where money is not a function, maybe. However, here on Earth, cost matters.
    You don't make your house windows bulletproof, and steel door, right? (In case you do, please seek mental help immediately).

  • On the post: Cyberattack Results In Physical Damage To German Steel Mill's Blast Furnance

    lfroen ( profile ), 13 Jan, 2015 @ 10:44pm

    Re:

    In theory - yes. In practice, when you have to control several plants in different places - what options do you have? Even dedicated PPP line is "connected" to Internet - separated by provider router.
    Running physically several disconnected networks is insanely expansive and well beyond budget.

  • On the post: Apple's Insistence On DRM And Other Restrictions Means EFF's New App Is Android-Only

    lfroen ( profile ), 12 Jan, 2015 @ 06:31am

    Re: Not the only problems with the Dev Agreement

    Load of bullshit. There's ton of open source apps for iPhone, ported or not.
    Opensource apps are explicitly allowed in dev agreement.

  • On the post: Google Allegedly Closing Down Russian Engineering Office In Response To Russian Data Laws

    lfroen ( profile ), 13 Dec, 2014 @ 06:11am

    And why data on russian people must be held in US?

    While Russian government probably have its agenda, their argument "Data on russian people stay in Russia" is valid. What makes you think it should be otherwise?

    Oh, I see, it's good old argument of "it's OK when _we_ do it". So no. Tell what you want about Russian government/regime - this law is perfectly fine. If NSA want to spy on me too - please come and get it: hack local datacenter, break into my house and so on. Good luck with that.

  • On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 3: Amanda Palmer And The Art Of Asking

    lfroen ( profile ), 05 Dec, 2014 @ 12:12am

    Amanda? Again?

    Does she pay techdirt for this shit or Mike sleeping with her? Otherwise I can't see why promote this would-be-singer here?

  • On the post: Departing GCHQ Boss Insists GCHQ Isn't Engaged In Mass Surveillance… If You Define 'Mass' And 'Surveillance' The Way He Does

    lfroen ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2014 @ 05:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: But isn't it actually true?

    > Have you seen what the US police regularly get away with these days?
    FTFY

  • On the post: Departing GCHQ Boss Insists GCHQ Isn't Engaged In Mass Surveillance… If You Define 'Mass' And 'Surveillance' The Way He Does

    lfroen ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2014 @ 05:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: But isn't it actually true?

    > is that a fourth language
    While I can read and understand stuff in Latin, I don't even count it among 4 I know. How is your 4th language? Does at least 1 uses non-latin letters?

    >> "Ad infinitum" doesn't necessarily mean forever
    You're confused. To quote wiki: "In context, it usually means "continue forever, without limit". Use a dictionary next time if unsure.

    >> Like I said, you apparently don't understand what you're arguing about.
    Of cause. I'm idiot foreigner which can fluently read in 4 languages, speak fluently in 3 and write without dictionary in 2.
    But what can I possibly know about words in not-my-own-language? Probably nothing. I can not even comprehend what "mass" and "surveillance" mean. I'm sorry.
    Educate me, oh-wise-american, what is the meaning of all this "words" you're using

    >> I mean that you can cancel with the service provider in question at your request.
    Only to go to another provider, which will do same thing. What was your point again? Like I said - you can live without phone. And car. And plane. And refrigerator. And so on "ad infinitum"

  • On the post: Departing GCHQ Boss Insists GCHQ Isn't Engaged In Mass Surveillance… If You Define 'Mass' And 'Surveillance' The Way He Does

    lfroen ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2014 @ 05:29am

    Re: Re: But isn't it actually true?

    > are you ok with someone putting a video camera in your bedroom
    Your argument boils down to claim that "nobody is watching" is false. That's OK as long as you understand it. Because you seem not to.

    Today's law (simple criminal stuff, not some "anti-terror") explicitly allows to put camera in your bedroom if "they really need to" without your knowledge.

  • On the post: Departing GCHQ Boss Insists GCHQ Isn't Engaged In Mass Surveillance… If You Define 'Mass' And 'Surveillance' The Way He Does

    lfroen ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2014 @ 05:14am

    Re: Re: But isn't it actually true?

    > I'll ignore your horrible grasp of the English language
    Yes, please. That's my 3rd language. How is your 3rd?

    >> stored ad infinitum
    Nothing is "ad infinitum". First thing that will end is money. How match is US federal debt in 2014?

    >> Do you honestly not see the difference between a service provider ...
    This difference, as you said is "semantic at best". What do you mean "can explicitly cancel" - while theoretically it is possible to live without phone, it's not very practical by any means.

    >> If nobody's looking, and never will, why do they need the data?
    The argument is about "mass", not about "surveillance", because "surveillance" is what those agencies are supposed to do.
    Answer me (or yourself) - why do US need CIA (or UK need MI6)? Why military+police is not enough? Answer is simple and annoying - because military+police are bounded by law. You want covert james-bond-style operations hidden from public eye because it's very match illegal by any law. By keeping CIA/MI6 finding you're saying "keep going with your stuff".
    It's only when your government have too match() of covert ops, only then you have a problem.

    (    ) put your own definition for "too match"

  • On the post: One Of The NSA's Biggest Critics In The Senate May Lose His Seat

    lfroen ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2014 @ 01:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Unfortunately, not many understand that this is how world works.
    Many thinks that they "deserve" freedom/rights/etc. Freedom and rights are earned, not necessary by blood, but never "deserved".
    After WWII Jews learned the lesson - independance is "bought with the blood of heroes". I would add that it's more rented that bought, and that "blood of heroes" is expected from time to time, or your rent is over.

  • On the post: Departing GCHQ Boss Insists GCHQ Isn't Engaged In Mass Surveillance… If You Define 'Mass' And 'Surveillance' The Way He Does

    lfroen ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2014 @ 04:39am

    But isn't it actually true?

    >> To them, it's not "surveillance" if no one actually looks at the data

    But isn't it actually true? If no one looks at the data, how is it "surveillance"? I tried to understand logic, but found none.
    My phone company also recording call "metadata" - does it "surveillance" too? It probably also log phone location - should it ask for court order?

    Either prove that "no one looking" is false or nobody going to take your "OMG, surveillance" seriously.

  • On the post: How The Rule Of Law Is Actually Undermining Human Rights

    lfroen ( profile ), 30 Sep, 2014 @ 03:44am

    Re: Re: Re:

    So, prohibiting mass surveillance by NSA/FBI/CIA is bad idea?
    Search without order is allowed "by technology" - why prohibit it?
    Killing/stealing - allowed, so why "tho shell not ..."?

    Prohibition is OK when it's aligned with your morals

  • On the post: How The Rule Of Law Is Actually Undermining Human Rights

    lfroen ( profile ), 30 Sep, 2014 @ 01:31am

    Re:

    > What the NSA does is immoral, but legal. What Snowdon did was possibly moral, but illegal. Resolve that conflict, and perhaps you may find your answers.

    There's no conflict here. You do what's moral. And your moral should not be determined by law, but other way around - your law should be determined by commonly_accepted_moral.

    That's why I strongly disagree with "but technology allows" argument: if technology allows something, it doesn't mean it's good idea to do so. All military technologies come to mind, total surveillance, massive wiretapping and so on.

Next >>