Jim Harper 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (51) comment rss

  • On the post: Barnes & Noble Claims That Public User Names Are Private Info; Refuses To Restore Blog With Comments

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2012 @ 07:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not So Obviously Stupid

    I think the issue is not general privacy, but what B&N promised in its privacy policy.

  • On the post: Barnes & Noble Claims That Public User Names Are Private Info; Refuses To Restore Blog With Comments

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2012 @ 06:54am

    Re: Re: Not So Obviously Stupid

    I don't know if that charge sticks to Mike, but there are Internet users who demand strict privacy protections as if they're cost-free, then bray against inconveniences and lost benefits that those privacy protections require.

  • On the post: Barnes & Noble Claims That Public User Names Are Private Info; Refuses To Restore Blog With Comments

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2012 @ 06:46am

    Re: Not So Obviously Stupid

    What Carlos might do instead of arguing with the lawyers is to scrape the comments off the site, then marry them back up with the posts, or just scrape all posts, publicly available post data, comments, and available comment data. Pain in the ass, but then the data won't have been transferred by B&N.

  • On the post: Barnes & Noble Claims That Public User Names Are Private Info; Refuses To Restore Blog With Comments

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 12 Sep, 2012 @ 06:42am

    Not So Obviously Stupid

    This has some parallels to the Toysmart case in which a bankrupt dot-com went to sell its customer list, which the Federal Trade Commission alleged would violate its privacy policy.

    http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/07/toysmart.shtm

    The Barnes & Noble privacy policy says: "BARNES & NOBLE DOES NOT SELL OR RENT YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION TO THIRD PARTIES." It doesn't limit that to "private" information or "unpublished" information. ALL personal information, which includes names and arguably handles, which can often be linked back to persons and is thus "personal." A transfer of personal data under contract is arguably a "sale," even if no money changes hands.

    Given the hostility of the FTC to companies transferring data, the B&N lawyer appears to be making the prudent decision.

  • On the post: Announcing The Declaration Of Internet Freedom

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2012 @ 05:10pm

    Re: Re: I got yer 'Declaration of Internet Freedom'

    Don't get too excited, folks. The Jim-Mike Schism is very likely to end if and when the actual meanings of the things said in this declaration translate to actual policy proposals.

    It's question-begging to say of the declaration that it's important to speak out about what Internet freedom means. People know no more about what Internet freedom means after reading this document than before.

    I view it as an attempt to reset who the authorities on Internet freedom are, from folks like the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, who produced a special and timeless plan for freedom in the U.S. (and worldwide, if others will have it) to a group of today's popular activists and thinkers. No, thanks!

    I really like what is in the founding charter of the U.S., even though I'm deeply dissatisfied with (and working daily on) its implementation in certain areas, such as its translation so far into the modern communications environment.

    In the meantime, I've enjoyed this very special airing of grievances!

  • On the post: Announcing The Declaration Of Internet Freedom

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 02 Jul, 2012 @ 03:58am

    I got yer 'Declaration of Internet Freedom'

    I like this Declaration of Internet Freedom better. But the one I really like is the Bill of Rights. With gems like "Congress shall make no law," and, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," I think the original Declaration of Internet Freedom is the bees knees.

  • On the post: Cable News Finally Realizing That SOPA And PROTECT IP Are Bad News

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 19 Dec, 2011 @ 04:17am

    From the Irony Department...

    Each time I watch the video---concerned by the preview image which has me looking like a muppet---I get a Pfizer anti-counterfeiting ad that uses the loaded term "rogue website."

  • On the post: The Rise And Fall Of Bitcoin… But Is It Really Over Yet?

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 29 Nov, 2011 @ 08:38am

    Let's Think About Currency

    I've been interested to see how much of the Bitcoin discussion is driven by its value as an investment vehicle. It's as if there's a forthcoming IPO or something.

    Currency is a product that allows people and societies to avoid the transaction costs involved in barter. Some dimensions of currencies' utility include: liquidity/mass adoption, stable value/inflation resistance, surveillance resistance, seizure and theft resistance, convenience/speed/light weight, and a few other things I haven't thought of or remembered just now.

    Bitcoin is better along some dimensions (e.g. highly inflation resistant, prospectively very convenient, and fairly surveillance and seizure resistant) and worse along other dimensions (highly illiquid as yet, and not very theft resistant - see 'cybersecurity,' including BitCoin7; MtGox was a close call, I guess). A lot of these things are technologically and socially determined, hence the "as yet"s and "propsectively," so I find the #Bitcoinfail meme at least premature. Status quo bias probably produced a #bottledwaterfail meme back in the day...

    A notable theme here in the comments is that money requires central management. Study your history and you'll see that money came into existence spontaneously and without central management, and that fiat currency (i.e. centrally managed, with value established first by decree or law) always fails to maintain its value. The chart looks pretty much the same from the first fiat money issued in China thousands of years ago right up to Zimbabwe: a long slow decline, a hastening of the decline, sometimes a little recovery, then the value falls through the floor.

    The value of money, just like everything else, rests on consensus. I think the question of where Bitcoin should be valued vis a vis other currencies and things will be socially and technologically determined by its "viscosity." If it's *only* used for transactions, it will have a low value compared to other things because it might be held for the hour or two it takes for a transaction to register and for the Bitcoin to be sold again. If it ends up sitting in people's wallet files (let's hope they know how to secure them), it will have a higher value compared to other things because there will be "less" of it around. Where it comes to rest doesn't matter. At scale, its value will be stable.

    The alternative currency game is a long game that could take off incredibly quickly when the dollar and Euro make their way down the fiat money value curve. It's good to think ahead about what might happen in that event. Having a true online currency might be (and cause) a pretty cool shift in world history at that point.

    So Bitcoin (and the underlying concept) are really interesting, important, and barely thought through yet. Here's hoping I get around to writing the definitive paper on it before the big monetary collapse!

  • On the post: EFF Drops Bitcoin Over Concerns About Legality

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 21 Aug, 2011 @ 12:37pm

    Re:

    I own Bitcoin personally, so I have the potential liability that EFF shied away from. I'm not particularly worried, by the way.

  • On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2011 @ 04:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?

    No. It's really not. If someone walks up your driveway and won't leave on your command, you don't get to assault or batter that person. You violate their still-existing rights if you do. And if you shoot the person, you will go down for murder exactly as if you shot them in a public street. With "right to life," you refer to the narrow case (that's one case, not "many") when deadly force is used in defense of the home. I believe the rule survives in some states, and narrowly tailored it's one I support, but the right to use deadly force in defense of home is not part of a general waiver of all rights that occurs when someone commits a trespass. Back to the books (which I must say with some irony because you haven't cracked the books in the first instance ;-)

  • On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2011 @ 04:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?

    You might be surprised to find that even parents aren't given all-day every-day access to schools. With "and not summer break" you appear to admit that a school is not a beach or public park, wide open to anyone who has the notion of stepping foot on its soil.

  • On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2011 @ 10:12pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    If the principal is to face the consequences of his actions, as you say, and among those consequences is appearing in civil court, as you say, just who else is going to bring him to civil court than the kids whose images he made into a titillating movie-show? You dismissed their grounds for suit and backed their suit in the same comment.

  • On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2011 @ 10:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?

    My experience as a public school student was that schools are generally open to the students who attend them, to parents at times, and to teachers, administrators, staff, and coaches. Strangers to the school are escorted off the premises if found.

    Do others believe that school property is open to visitation by anyone regardless of purpose? I doubt it, considering what it would that do to the functioning of the school.

  • On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2011 @ 06:24pm

    Re: Re: Presence of a video camera doesn't invalidate rights.

    Under the privacy torts, there is not an "all bets are off" rule, as many commenters here think. If you've done something wrong or odd, even in a public place, someone else doesn't get to advertise it as far and wide as they please. There is a limit to how far and wide they can advertise it, and the principal of the school arguably exceeded that limit.

  • On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2011 @ 06:13pm

    Re: Re: Wrong Court

    I would say that the case does get stronger if there's a child pornography conviction. It would show that the community regards people of that young age deserving of protection, even from their own actions. Revealing the intimate behavior of a vulnerable person is more outrageous than of a non-vulnerable person. Stronger case.

  • On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2011 @ 06:10pm

    Re:

    You should read your own post. You dismiss the case, saying that the students should have to deal with the consequences, and also say that the principal should be brought into civil court. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Better to remain silent and let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

  • On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2011 @ 06:07pm

    Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?

    A school is not accessible to everyone. And where on earth do you get the idea that you lose privacy rights if you trespass? The penalty for trespass is not waiver of your tort rights. Better to remain silent and let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

  • On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2011 @ 03:43pm

    Re: Wrong Court

    +1

    Damages are an issue, but I can see a high-schooler being mortified and deeply affected in the quality of her life and relationships by this kind of exposure. The law of the state dictates whether some kind of physical manifestation of mental or emotional injury is required.

  • On the post: Student Sues Former Principal For Privacy Rights Violation In Showing Surveillance Video Of Her Having Sex

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2011 @ 03:38pm

    It's an Arguable Case, at Least

    I'm not sure I would scare-quote "privacy rights" here. The common law cause of action against disclosure of private facts could well apply.

    It'll be an open question based on the specific location and time whether it was a public place. If it was a public place or semi-public place, that doesn't necessarily mean that everything that can happen there is fair game for taping and replaying for an audience that doesn't have a legitimate interest in seeing the footage.

    Surveillance cameras are meant to secure school grounds and students, which could imply a limitation on the use of the footage to such purposes. Indeed, the principal had at least an ethical obligation to protect the students, including from each other (and their mutually irresponsible actions), which he did not do. Instead, he used the surveillance camera footage to exploit these young people's ardor for the entertainment of himself and others.

    This is not something what would be laughed out of court, and the principal's behavior is so bad relative to his official position and responsibilities that this case has a pretty good chance of success on the merits if the plaintiff's version of events is substantially true.

    This seems like a privacy case, much more real than "who is tracking me so they can advertise to me based on my interest in golf."

  • On the post: DOJ Uses Congressional Hearings About Protecting Mobile Privacy To Suggest Mobile Users Deserve Less Privacy

    Jim Harper ( profile ), 11 May, 2011 @ 06:07am

    There are more ways this hearing went off the rails...

    I summarized them here:

    http://techliberation.com/2011/05/10/privacy-not-a-focus-of-senate-mobile-privacy-hearing/

Next >>