Rogue CBP Agent Decided To 'Drain The Swamp' By Tracking Down A Journalist To Sniff Out Her Sources
Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

This Week In Techdirt History: July 8th – 14th

Techdirt

from the looking-back dept

Sat, Jul 14th 2018 12:00pm -

Five Years Ago

This week in 2013, as dissection of the NSA leaks continued, we began to take a closer look at the secret FISA courts — which the DOJ didn’t want anyone knowing about, even as a former FISC judge explained that he quit the court because it was out of control. We began to understand more about just how much the agency could learn from metadata, and saw the emergence of the silly argument that Facebook usage means people don’t care about privacy. The NSA faced cultural backlash, with recruiters smacked down by university students and a disinvitation from the DEF CON conference. Then, the leaks revealed the NSA’s cozy relationship with telcos and Microsoft — collaboration the agency cutely referred to as “team sports”.

Ten Years Ago

This week in 2008, it became more and more clear how the entertainment industry was trying to use ACTA to sneak through copyright extension, and we balked at the capitulation of some computer makers to the RIAA’s demands by disabling sound recording capabilities. We saw a mixed ruling in a case over limitations on the DMCA’s anti-circumvention clause, a ruling from a German court saying that open WiFi owners are not responsible for file sharing done by users, and a massive backlash against Sweden’s internet spying bill.

Fifteen Years Ago

This week in 2003, we saw an important ruling in favor of displaying thumbnails of copyrighted images. The RIAA launched an expected lawsuit against a Spanish site that claimed to offer legal downloads, a group of webcasters was threatening to sue the RIAA if they won’t renegotiate royalty rates, and Kazaa failed with its wild swing at an antitrust lawsuit against the entertainment industry, while we took a look at the growing industry of folks getting rich by selling anti-filesharing services.

Filed Under: ,

70 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “This Week In Techdirt History: July 8th – 14th”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
70 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Wow, it seems the “tone police” has really thin skin. Pressure getting to be too much, milk-toast? You write as if you had steel tipped leather boots for everyone else, but you are just SO tender at even the most gentle critique. No, we’re not going to write it for you, we just want to read something worthwhile.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 really thin skin

Didn’t Mike just write about the importance of being able to “avoid the tyranny” of the mob (the Techdirt mob) by being anonymous? There is a long history of mob rule on this site, as well as rampant censorship. One of the few redeeming qualities here is the anonymous posting, which is done both by “anonymous cowards” and falsely named individuals, who in fact are Techdirt phonies (as many readers have repeatedly pointed out).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 really thin skin

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A frequently cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

And NO society is more intolerant than Techdirt.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 really thin skin

In my opinion Jones is a Liar
o He implies knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an untruth.
o Even if the speaker states the facts upon which he bases his opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Nobody wants this site dead. What Harder, POTUS, FLOTUS, the Email guy, Brett and others want is for this site to take responsibility for it’s product. When you say and widely publicize terrible untrue things about people (any people), and they call you on it, just apologize and take it back. That’s all. I once heard from a very experienced guy, who argued all the way to SCOTUS, some words of wisdom: Sometimes you just have to say you are wrong, they are right, and apologize. That’s all anyone wants from Techdirt. Not so much to ask, considering. Take responsibility, that’s all.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Oh, and I think the Email guy might appreciate a little money to compensate for his lost business. Trust me, he’s incredibly reasonable, always has been, always will be. Great guy, actually. Straight shooter, above-board, upstanding, authentic, honest, proper, on the up-and-up and legitimate. Not extravagant money, just make him whole again, that’s all. Simple. Easy peasy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

There, I was wondering when you were going to default back to your sad little gimmick of replying to yourself for attention. Way to bring up the mystical "lost business". Sounds about as mystical as the list of thousands of people "hurt" by Techdirt, which turned out to be nothing more than Janice Duffy’s obsession over Wendy Cockcroft. Neither of the two even live in America, so why you’d even get your panties twisted over that is anyone’s guess, given how constantly "American" you are.

As for the rest of your claims, here are some nice quotes:

“I’m the darkie you can’t control!” he cries. “You’re talking to me as though I work for you! You’re talking to me as though I am below you.” Then, shouting over a woman, he starts in on Warren’s Native American ancestry and accuses her of being brainwashed. A bystander, also filming the encounter, grows concerned for the woman’s safety and asks somebody to call Lexington Police, but the two sides soon scatter.

“I want to start off by asking everyone, how many of us really want to beat Elizabeth Warren?” Every hand in the room shoots up. “Can we use weapons?” shouts the woman sitting next to me, both arms high above her head. “You said beat her.”

Yeah, that’s "upstanding", "above-board" behavior. Pandering yourself to ticking time bombs who foam at the mouth and resort to public harassment, and losing your shit when Ars Technica asks you about Ray Tomlinson. If that’s being a gentleman then I have pyramids in Egypt to sell you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Well, I do sense some foaming at the mouth going on, but I sense it in your writing, not the Email guy. As for the “lost business”, I’ll bet if you asked the Email guy nicely (are you capable of that?) he could explain it to you, in detail, with specific examples. Harder wouldn’t take the case if that wasn’t true, I’m sure about that, Harder is a salt-of-the-earth kind of guy. As for the crowd that came to see the Email guy, they sound like they liked him, as indicated by “Every hand in the room shoots up”. He (that Email guy) must be a persuasive fellow to get that response. That sounds like people are ready to vote for him, wow. Why does that upset you so much? Regarding your quote about weapons, are you sure? Maybe she was a democrat and said “Can we use deception?” Could that be it? Everyone knows the left uses deception, there’s no debate about that, right? Maybe she was one of those sneaky lefties that show up to incite problems, like they did at Trump rallies. Did you see that expose about it? Very interesting, really. Deception is a terrible weapon. The truth is better. Just ask that Email guy the truth about how he was damaged. Or do you not want to hear the truth, and to just continue your foaming-at-the-mouth deceptive rhetoric?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

And I’m sorry, I hit “submit” too soon – a coupla questions: (Bright light shining): If “all the hands” in the room shot up (interesting choice of words) that meant your hands and the hands of the Ars Technica person too, right? So, were you both deceptive agents of the left trying to “fit into” the crowd of people you disagree with and falsely behaving as they did, or is your reporting inaccurate? Would you care to revise your statement of events as they occurred? Are you a lefty-spy or a dishonest reporter or both?

Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Ayyadurai is responsible for his own “lost business” by having gained that business under false pretenses. His gig at MIT, for example, only existed for the period that he had had them duprled into thinking he was a bigshot Email inventor. Once his deception collapsed, they wanted nothing to do with a phony.

Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

since then his speaking engagements have been canceled, the funding for his EMAIL lab has evaporated, and his contract to lecture in MIT’s bioengineering department has been revoked.

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/2012/05/30/shiva-ayyaduri-email-us-postal-service/

With "then" in that quote referring to his deception being discovered.

Why, they demanded to know, was the Institute affiliating itself with someone of such questionable character? Within days, MIT told Shiva that it no longer wanted to be associated with the EMAIL Lab. Several MIT professors also gave off-the-record quotes to Gizmodo, calling Shiva an “asshole,” a “dick,” and a “loon.”

Bonus: an other incident where there is zero blame on any outside critics; just the consequences of his own actions:

So he wrote a 47-page memo, “CSIR-Tech: Path Forward,” and e-mailed it to some 4,000 scientists. The memo opened, bizarrely, with a poem dedicated to the agency’s scientists, who dream “to become next generation of innovators/That great India so sorely needs/To break from draconian past/And vainglorious visions/Seeking press and limelight of ‘I.’” From there, he described an organization with a “culture of sycophants” that was prone to “deflections and cover ups.”

Shiva says he was fired three days after sending out the document, and was kicked out of government housing and had his e-mail account turned off. His offense was violating an Indian law against sending “slanderous” e-mails.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

That was an interesting article, thank you for the reference. Seemed to present a lot of interesting points, some positive, some negative. My own opinion is that there are a lot of shenanigans going on at Universities with a lot of issues, it seems to have turned into a left-wing ideological garden of lunatic revisionist ideas with a sprinkle of “anti-facist” weirdness and deception. About MIT, I haven’t heard the kind of lunatic fringe stuff I heard at Berkeley, but in any case, I tend to discount the opinions of universities a bit. At a high level, I agree that the Email guy is not the same kind of stable genius that POTUS is, but hey, who is? There is only one Trump/POTUS, and no one could really hold up to that comparison. In the article you reference (unlike Techdirt articles), they definitely present two sides to the story, and let the reader form their own opinion. Is it defamation to call this fellow a fraud, a charalatan and a liar? That’s a rather sticky legal question that I expect may take time to resolve. It looks to me like Harder is funded all the way to SCOTUS, and I am sure I know how POTUS and FLOTUS feel about defamation and who they will put on the court and why. Does it really provide any benefit to society to publish the nasty vitriol that Techdirt publishes? I don’t think so, I think it is an aberration of journalism that should be held accountable for the harm they cause. Time will tell if society in general (and SCOTUS in particular) side with my opinion or yours.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

Is it defamation to call this fellow a fraud, a charalatan and a liar?

The university called him "slanderous". If you’d like to claim that the university defamed him too, go ahead by all means.

Does it really provide any benefit to society to publish the nasty vitriol that Techdirt publishes? I don’t think so

And to think you claimed you didn’t want this site dead. You’re a poor liar, Hamilton.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

Techdirt repeatedly stated the Email guy is a Liar, and thus defamed him:
o Even if the Techdirt shouts “opinion!” And states the facts upon which they base their opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if their assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact.

Did Techdirt provide ALL the facts? Are they SURE they are right? Then prove it to a jury.

This from SCOTUS (the ultimate authority on the issue of defamation). The actual truth of the situation with Techdirt is that they need to convince a jury that the Email guy is “a liar, a fraud and a charlatan”. It is incorrect as a matter of law to dismiss before trial on this basis.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

Look, just because I am absolutely smitten with Melania does not mean you should discount my opinions on other issues. She is the most lovely, sweet, intelligent (she speaks almost 100 languages) poised and principled First Lady this country has ever seen. She told my herself (in a dream) that she thinks Techdirt is a bully and should say they’re sorry to the Email guy and others. My adoration does not discount my opinion on any subject except her. While I admit I am blinded by her beauty and charm, and still hope for a token from her (maybe a hair tie or a handkerchief), that should not reflect in any way on my profound and deeply insightful legal opinions.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13

“that should not reflect in any way on my profound and deeply insightful legal opinions.“

A-hahahahaha you’re as delusional about that twat as you are about all the rest of the bullshit you spew.

Spoiler alert she not gonna fuck you no matter what colour you wish your skin was.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

Not sure what’s creepier, the amount you seem to know about Shivas legal strategy, or your sickening obsequiousness towards people who hate brown people, or your presidential slashfic habits. Either way it will be fun to watch you gnash your teeth and rend your garments when you lose again.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

No, I think lawsuits are terrible things, only to be considered as a last resort. The only guaranteed beneficiaries of a lawsuit are the attorneys, the rest is “up in the air”. However, lawsuits are preferable to violence in order to redress a grievance. They are pretty much the worst thing in the civilized world, with the exception of the alternative, that is, to take the law into your own hands. This is true of many things American – taken from one view, they are absolutely terrible, unless one considers the alternative, which is assuredly worse. I have no idea what you are saying about “DMCA vote”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

You know, the more I study defamation law, the more I think you are making a case FOR defamation of the Email guy. What’s important (even after the SCOTUS opinion) in the eyes of serious legal analysts is context. Your context, that he “gained business under false pretenses” is really serious. You are talking about money and value and reputation and business. You are not talking about hyperbole, or how reasonable people may disagree in a heated debate. You are making factual accusations that go directly to monetary value and deceitful intent. You want him to be punished for what you see as his deceit, you are encouraging others to not trust him or do business with him. That’s really serious. Are you really really sure of yourself in this case? I think you’d better be, the damage you are intent on doing is unmistakeable.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Ok, Leigh, since you asked what I’d like to see changed, I’ll tell you. How ’bout we leave the opinion of whether I’m being a dick to Mike, since this is HIS site, after all.
First, I’ve been an avid and VORACIOUS reader of Techdirt for MANY years, refreshing the page dozens of times a day desperate for any new content added to the site. I’ve been such a reader since the days when EVERY article was written by Mike. I’ve welcomed the additions of Tim, Timothy, and Karl because, like Mike’s, their articles have a definite viewpoint and opinion which makes them interesting to read. However, you must have come from a newspaper with the most restrictive editor known to man because your articles are dry and flavorless. I understand that this particular feature is especially difficult to make interesting because it’s all old news, but Mike always found a way to make it relevant to today, rather than just a dry recitation of old facts. The especially interesting part is when he would, on occasion, add to the bottom of the article some little blurb like, “This week in 1366 this guy invented this thing that would eventually become the basis of this wonderful thing we all use today.” Since you’ve taken over the article, those have completely vanished.
So I say again, can someone else please take over this feature until Leigh can unlearn all the horrible habits instilled in him by his horribly restrictive former editor? I’m getting tired of having to check the author before I read the post.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

…but Mike always found a way to make it relevant to today, rather than just a dry recitation of old facts. The especially interesting part is when he would, on occasion, add to the bottom of the article some little blurb like, "This week in 1366 this guy invented this thing that would eventually become the basis of this wonderful thing we all use today." Since you’ve taken over the article, those have completely vanished.

Just as a point of clarification, the idea to add those historical notes came from… Leigh. Not me. I liked it and used them myself as well. But it is also a lot of work to find relevant ones and I can understand why Leigh decided it might not be worth it to do every week. Indeed, this whole post is an awful lot of work, and it was sucking up way too much of my time which is why Leigh agreed to take it over. I think he does a great job with it, and I don’t think it helps to make snide comments.

Constructive criticism is always welcome. Insults and ad homs are not necessary.

Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The especially interesting part is when he would, on occasion, add to the bottom of the article some little blurb like, "This week in 1366 this guy invented this thing that would eventually become the basis of this wonderful thing we all use today."

Um, yeah. That was my idea, and it did not end when I took it over – I did it for over two years of these posts. And it wasn’t on occasion, it was every single week. You really need to double-check your memory on this.

I stopped because, once we started cycling through the years, it became harder and harder to find stuff relevant to Techdirt on any given week that I hadn’t already used in a previous year (and harder to keep track of whether or not I had used something before). A couple times I accidentally re-used ones then realized later, and that was when I decided it was time to drop it.

However, if that’s something people would like to see come back, I can start doing it again.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I find the feature very interesting.

It’s been very interesting to look back five years ago on the defeat of John Steele, Evan Stone, Andrew Crossley, SOPA, ACTA, etc. And then watch average_joe, darryl, out_of_the_blue, horse with no name/MyNameHere/Just Sayin’/The Anti-Mike lose their collective shit.

Keep up the good job, Mike. I look forward to 2022 when we cover the judge giving Charles Harder the response he deserved.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Apply aloe to burn(s)

Love that NSA recruiter article, the burns handed out there were just glorious, and even better was picturing the poor NSA sods realizing that they just walked into a group that, unlike politicians, aren’t just going to take anything they said at face value.

Me: The question here is do you actually think about the ramifications of the work that you do, which is deeply problematic, or do you just dress up in costumes and get drunk?

…

Student B: General Alexander also lied in front of Congress.

NSA_F: I don’t know about that.

Student B: Probably because access to the Guardian is restricted on the NSA’s computers. I am sure they don’t encourage people like you to actually think about these things.

The looks on their faces must have been priceless.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Well, then consider this: In the world of the Internet, we are all becoming increasingly connected to each other, more so than at any other time in history. How should society as a whole deal with this increased connectivity so that it results in the betterment and not the destruction of society? How do we design a “code of conduct” (which has immense historical precedent) that is appropriate for the modern era? Does it benefit society to publicly exclaim someone is a “fraud a liar and a charlatan”? One might argue that in some cases it does, and in some cases it does not. In fact, in some cases it baselessly injures an innocent party. You could term the modern day baseless attacks as Media Tyranny, where those with the loadest voice drown out all others. I believe that this is the direction that Techdirt (combined with Google) is taking us in, and it concerns me. Techdirt uses multiple voices to “drown out” other opinions, and those it cannot, it censors by hiding their posts. Is this a “code of conduct” that serves society as a whole, or just a small fanatical fringe? Do any of you believe that Techdirt could get elected to anything? I think not. Instead, Techdirt relies on the illicit tools of Media Tyranny to promote their view at the expense of many others, including the Email guy. Who will be next, you, me, your family, your neighbors? Wendy Cockcroft is accused to using Techdirt’s Media Tyranny to threaten and extract money from third parties, is that what we want as a society? Personally, I think we should all strive to use a civil tone, to own our own opinions, and to refrain from using “absolutism” to describe others. Rather than saying someone is a “liar” and a “charlatan”, you can get your point across better by saying “I don’t agree with xxx about yyy” or “I am not persuaded” or “I don’t agree”, then leave other people to their own opinions after expressing yours. That is consistent with freedom of speech. When you speak as an ultimate tyrannical authority and in absolute terms (and throw in fake voices), you should be held accountable, IMHO. If you really believe the Email guy is a liar and a fraud, convince a jury. That will settle the issue in terms that are fair and unbiased (or at least consistent with the public interest). Freedom of Speech has limits, which are good and useful and support the public interest.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I still don’t think I have been able to get my point across to you. I am not Shiva the Email guy, I don’t even know him. I never met him. I am only aware of him from this website, and I certainly sympathize with his distress regarding what was said here about him and how widely it has been publicized. There are forces who would destroy America, and Americans like the Email guy (and me). I love America, I believe in American ideals, I would actually pick up a gun to defend American ideals. I think they are worth it. Tyranny should not be tolerated, promoted, accepted or praised. Techniques like silencing your critics by hiding their speech is Un-American, not so different than burning books or destroying statues. My point is American ideals are worth preserving, protecting, defending, and writing about, even at length and at great personal expense. God Bless America.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

These were the same arguments you trotted out last year, Hamilton. And they’re just as weak as before. Which the judge rightfully ignored at your own peril.

Come back when your “list of thousands of American inventors harmed by Techdirt” amounts to more than Shiva, Richard Bennett and Janice Duffy. For someone who masturbates to his interpretation of the law, this standard of evidence is just embarrassing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Amount of useless back-and-forth is astounding for a TINY site.

Read through any of 5 years ago, will see decline in comments.

Even more in quality than quantity: still plenty one-liners from "Stone", pointless flame wars from "PaulT" (approaching 15,000 comments!) — usually now at the ardently monotonous "no regulation" AC — and incomprehensible "ECA" is still the upper-case-iest every day since 19 Sep 2007. Some of a constantly shifting "usual couple dozen" hit every topic, often 3 or 4 times even without response. — Those and most other "accounts" are so entirely predictable and un-self-aware that seem to be AI.

Then are the "accounts" with inexplicable gaps of years, several of which are yet more oddly down to one innocuous comment per year, neither gone nor engaged. — But hoots for those in due course.

Anyhoo, came across a note and was reminded that when faced with obvious decline, The Masnick sez: "In fact, I’d argue significantly less than 1% of readers comment on the site."

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170317/11360036940/techdirt-gear-action.shtml#c21

SO characteristically Masnick! EVADES instead of STATES numbers that he likely looks at every day!

How about you just simply STATE a number of readers? Don’t hedge that it’s too complex, nor include estimates for feeds to other sites. Just state how many unique IP addresses hit Techdirt on average day. It’d be useful even though TOR means fewer readers. — We need it to gauge whether worth commenting here.

[BTW: wrote this long BEFORE the post was up, and so to me it’s EERY accurate.]

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Amount of useless back-and-forth is astounding for a TINY site.

However, I do think there has been a striking improvement in the tone of comments. Previously, every other sentence seemed to be about “sh*tting the bed” or sexual or otherwise disgusting references. These days, there is still some useless infantile type commentary, but overall, the really disgusting stuff has lessened (IMHO). One thing I am sorry to see is not much commentary from Mike (then or now). Or at least not signed by Mike. For example, I thought the point about defamation and how it relates to context is really important in light of his legal situation. The fact that so many commentators specifically called out how his (the Email guy) business was not legitimate and based on falsehoods and he didn’t deserve to profit from his efforts is really important as to whether this is defamation or not. Calling someone a liar in passing or in a moment of fury is somewhat understandable, but specifically saying he does not deserve to profit from his efforts BECAUSE he is a liar is really different. What do you think, MIke? Care to comment? We’re all interested in your opinion. You are so vocal on so many issues, why not this one? Do you not have any opinion (that’s hard to believe) or are you not sure of yourself (you always seem to be) or have you been backed into a corner that leaves you speechless?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Rogue CBP Agent Decided To 'Drain The Swamp' By Tracking Down A Journalist To Sniff Out Her Sources
Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...