AB 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (90) comment rss

  • On the post: How Low Can Drones Go?

    AB ( profile ), 22 May, 2013 @ 12:29pm

    Re: Re: According to..

    Right now they have very little societal value so that would be fine, but there are a lot of potentially valuable uses for drones (using them for deliveries, home security systems, etc.) which will continue to emerge as the technology advances. Do we really want to eliminate that value? Especially since that won't stop the bad guys.

  • On the post: How Low Can Drones Go?

    AB ( profile ), 22 May, 2013 @ 07:50am

    Re: Re: According to..

    And, yes, that would restrict low flying drones to following the roadways which is a perfectly reasonable limitation which does not interfere with their usefulness.

  • On the post: How Low Can Drones Go?

    AB ( profile ), 22 May, 2013 @ 07:47am

    Re: According to..

    Do drones qualify as 'aircraft', and do we want them to?

    I think a simpler solution would be to expand property lines to include a bubble 50 or 100 feet above the ground making it possible to trespass even while hovering above the ground. Then simple trespass laws take it from there. Including the property owner's option to permit or deny entry as desired, and the ability of authorities to override those limits if needed.

    It's a matter of respect as much as anything else. Like anyone else they are welcome to take pictures from the roadway, but not from the window ledge.

  • On the post: How Low Can Drones Go?

    AB ( profile ), 22 May, 2013 @ 07:34am

    Re:

    But they have a much harder time getting a clear view through a window. Only a drone can do that effectively.

  • On the post: If You're Going To Illegally Seize Citizens' Cell Phones, At Least Make Sure You're Grabbing The Right Ones

    AB ( profile ), 21 May, 2013 @ 05:49pm

    Re:

    Your previous post was reasonable, but not this one. I haven't seen any comments here claiming she wasn't 'asking for it'. I wouldn't even berate his reaction except for one thing: he reacted WAY to soon, and with WAY more force then was necessary! The other officers looked like they wanted to throttle her too, but none of them gave in to that desire. They just ground their teeth and carried on doing their jobs. If they were my police I could be proud of them for that. At least until they were given the opportunity to attack. Instead of joining him they should have been restraining him. That would have shown excellence. At the very least they should not have supported his actions. That made them no better then any vigilante mob. Any other group of citizens who reacted for those reasons would be in jail now.

    If you want to try helping the police try encouraging good behaviour rather then defending bad behaviour. Don't just sit around and whine about what others are doing, go video tape them doing good deeds and post those on YT.

  • On the post: If You're Going To Illegally Seize Citizens' Cell Phones, At Least Make Sure You're Grabbing The Right Ones

    AB ( profile ), 21 May, 2013 @ 05:30pm

    Re: Re:

    "what do the same cops do when things get even more heated? beat someone to death?"

    Yup. Maybe it's something in their training...

  • On the post: If You're Going To Illegally Seize Citizens' Cell Phones, At Least Make Sure You're Grabbing The Right Ones

    AB ( profile ), 21 May, 2013 @ 05:25pm

    Re: Re:

    Seconded!

  • On the post: If You're Going To Illegally Seize Citizens' Cell Phones, At Least Make Sure You're Grabbing The Right Ones

    AB ( profile ), 21 May, 2013 @ 04:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Precisely. Under normal circumstances (like back when police simply did their jobs) I might have ignored the officers actions simply because she really did 'deserve what she got'. But I can't believe the officer isn't aware of all the camera issues and false arrests lately, and that means he needed to obey the law despite her provocation. Also, from a purely professional point of view, he should have simply continued to ignore her. Just as she was within her rights to be obnoxious, he was also within his rights to ignore her. Eventually she would have either given up and left or crossed the line and physically interfered (however trivially) with their work. Then - and only then - would he have had the right to act as he did. With the added bonus that the video would have supported him rather then her.

    Like it or not, the police need to get over their collective camera phobia and get on with doing their jobs in a serious and professional manner. That would be the quickest and easiest way to put this whole camera thing behind us.

    Btw, I wouldn't like having her follow me around with her camera and attitude either, but if I turned around and punched her as quickly as the officer reacted, I would end up sitting in a jail cell for assault. It would take a LOT more provocation then that to make it justifiable. Is it really that unreasonable to expect an on-duty police officer to have even greater self control then an ordinary civilian?

  • On the post: Lots Of People Don't Turn Off Their Devices When They Fly

    AB ( profile ), 17 May, 2013 @ 01:31pm

    Re: One sided

    Anybody out there have their completely unshielded computers die when they leave their cell phones, tablets, and other devices on while sitting within 3' of it?

    Also, according to jeneaston who looked it up and posted above, the reason for the ban has nothing to do with the plane's safety.

  • On the post: Lots Of People Don't Turn Off Their Devices When They Fly

    AB ( profile ), 17 May, 2013 @ 01:17pm

    Re:

    That's reasonable. And interference really was an issue for a short time back then.

  • On the post: Lots Of People Don't Turn Off Their Devices When They Fly

    AB ( profile ), 17 May, 2013 @ 01:06pm

    Re: Re:

    That is actually misleading. What you hear on the speakers isn't interference with the electronics but rather interference with the magnetic coils. And new cell phones can't even produce that much interference unless there's something seriously wrong with the unit. That means 99.9% of the planes circuits are already immune. Also, virtually every plane built within the last 50 years includes lots of insulation against just that type of interference.

    Not that there isn't any risk - a modern plane's system includes many magnetic coils and relays, especially in connection to the various flap and rudder controls. That's why they worry most during take off and landing.

    Realistically, the absolute maximum effect you are likely to encounter is the equivalent of a bit of turbulence, easily corrected by the computer and/or pilots. Seriously, the plane is bombarded by signals from all sorts of sources, can you imagine what would happen if were a real danger? "Hey, I didn't know these planes could do a loop at this altitude! Wait, they ca-"

    Btw, the only relays within 3' of the passenger compartment are for things like oxygen mask releases. So even if you do have a horribly malfunctioning phone, which somehow manages to put out a signal that the relay actually recognizes as valid, you aren't likely to do more then embarrass yourself when the attendant assumes it happened because you couldn't keep your fingers off the equipment.

  • On the post: Lots Of People Don't Turn Off Their Devices When They Fly

    AB ( profile ), 17 May, 2013 @ 12:20pm

    Re: The real reason?

    That makes a LOT more sense then the claim of interference.

  • On the post: Police Follow Up Beating A 'Possibly Intoxicated' Man To Death By Seizing Witnesses' Cell Phones

    AB ( profile ), 13 May, 2013 @ 08:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No Tazers?

    It is usually compared to cancer because the system that used to work efficiently has started to attack its own body.

  • On the post: Pretending That Instructions To Print A Gun Aren't Out There Won't Change The Reality That They Are

    AB ( profile ), 13 May, 2013 @ 02:09pm

    Re: You got away with it once...

    Actually I would compare this with making it illegal to create tourist maps of Fort Knocks because someone might want to rob the place.

  • On the post: Pretending That Instructions To Print A Gun Aren't Out There Won't Change The Reality That They Are

    AB ( profile ), 13 May, 2013 @ 02:01pm

    Re: Weenies both sides: promoting and worry over TOY gun.

    Thank you! It was beginning to look like no one grasped the very basic fact that this 'gun' will explode if you do somehow get it to fire. The person pulling the trigger will get most of the damage. And the target will probably not be hurt significantly even if the bullet actually manages to hit them. You would be better off lining up the bullets and hitting them with a hammer - at least you won't get shrapnel.

    Wait a minute, did I just agree with ootb?!?

  • On the post: Police Follow Up Beating A 'Possibly Intoxicated' Man To Death By Seizing Witnesses' Cell Phones

    AB ( profile ), 13 May, 2013 @ 01:42pm

    Re: Smart moves

    Always upload your evidence immediately, then delete it from your phone before contacting officials or allowing them to 'examine' the data ("Oops, I must not have been recording, but here's my written testimony!"). And never ever give your name or address to the operator when reporting any crime. All they need to know is the address of the activity you are reporting; if they want to find you at least make them work for it.

  • On the post: Police Follow Up Beating A 'Possibly Intoxicated' Man To Death By Seizing Witnesses' Cell Phones

    AB ( profile ), 13 May, 2013 @ 01:30pm

    I feel sorry for the honest police officers. They already have a tough job and now they also have to work with an undeservedly bad reputation. But it is starting to look like either there are very few honest cops, or they are contributing to the problem by not standing up against the bad cops.

    To any police reading this: It is plainly no longer enough to simply report problems to your superiors and expect them to deal with it. In fact it may not even be safe. Your only viable avenue is to take your reports and evidence to the public (ie. the internet) where they can be used as leverage to force your superiors into appropriate action.

    And remember that even destroying the phone is not necessarily enough to destroy the evidence if a serious effort at data recovery is made.

  • On the post: McAfee Patents System To 'Detect And Prevent Illegal Consumption Of Content On The Internet'

    AB ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2013 @ 03:52pm

    Wow! An officially sanctioned keylogger from the second worst anti-virus company out there. Hopefully the various other anti-malware programs will recognize it and prevent all our passwords and login details from being distributed. A small handful already do recognize McAfee as malware.

  • On the post: After Muzzling Librarians And Scientists, Now Canada Starts Making It Difficult For Citizens To Express Their Views

    AB ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2013 @ 08:53pm

    Re: I think this quote sums it up...

    Not really. Many of us have yelled at our politicians many times, it's just that they ignore the public. They have been known to ignore public opinion even in the face of evidence provided by scientists, professors, and professional researchers. There have been exceptions, but the rule is to ignore the sheeple's opinions.

    What's really embarrassing is that some of these politicians are able to keep getting reelected despite their spectacular failures. Not because we like them, but because they are still better then the other guys.

    Imagine if the USA was a semi-dictatorship in which the president had complete power over all the other politicians below him. Who would you vote for then - the guy who failed last time or his opponent who failed the time before that? Especially since Canada only has two or three choices at the best of times, and no write-in options.

    The USA's ability to actually punish a bad politician is something many of us Canadians envy. Here the most we can hope for is to send them home with a fat pension (every politician is entitled to a quite comfortable pension after serving one full term of four years).

    Obviously there are lots of people in Canada, like any other nation, who do just sit and let things happen. But that's far from being the only problem.

  • On the post: After Muzzling Librarians And Scientists, Now Canada Starts Making It Difficult For Citizens To Express Their Views

    AB ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2013 @ 08:28pm

    Re: Re:

    Here in British Columbia we already get charged taxes for internet purchases. Or at least we are supposed to be.

Next >>