allengarvin 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (97)

• On the post: Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2020 @ 10:18am

  Very nice summary!

  It might be worth adding a section for when someone says "tech gets immunity that no other industry gets", which I know you've covered before. Bookstores, newspapers publishing wire service stories, radio and television for content created elsewhere--even if not a blanket grant of freedom of liability, decreased liability is quite similar to the goals of 230.

• On the post: Court Explains 1st Amendment To Tulsi Gabbard In Dismissing Her Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Google

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 05 Mar, 2020 @ 10:31am

  Re:

  Different lawsuit. That one is yet to be summarily dismissed. This one was about Google's temporary suspension of her account last year.

• On the post: Trouble At The Law Firm Filing Patently Ridiculous Lawsuits On Behalf Of Tulsi Gabbard

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2020 @ 06:46am

  "As I have said from the day we launched, this firm is the legal industry equivalent of the Navy's SEAL Team 6 or the Army's 75th Ranger Regiment," said Pierce"

  He's trained in gorilla lawfare, and is the top griper in the entire US ABA.

• On the post: Federal Court Blocks Unconstitutional Arkansas Law That Prevents Plant-Based Food Companies From Using Meat Words

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 27 Dec, 2019 @ 09:54am

  Re: Re: Yes, but...

  "As far as champagne, the US does not protect that Term. That is why wineries in the santa rosa and napa regions can sell their sparkling wines as champagne. The EU regulates the term champagne as region specific, but the US does not regulate those terms." The US does regulate it since the mid 2000s (this was following years of demands from France), but grandfathered in companies that had previously used the term, which is a lot. Unless something has changed recently, no new wine makers get to call their products "champagne".

• On the post: Chooseco Chooses An Adventure In Bullying Indie Game Devs Over Trademark

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2019 @ 12:45pm

  Re:

  Trademark, as mentioned. And it wasn't simply one company for many years. It was just one two men, Edward Packard and R.A. Montgomery. It's been a trademark since the late 70s. There were a lot of competitors in the early 80s, when the brand was well-known and a big money maker, but they all used different series names, because, you know, trademark. Crossroads Adventures was one, which mostly licensed SF worlds of established authors like Zelazny and McCaffrey. TSR did "Endless Quests". There were others that I can't remember.

• On the post: Court Tosses 82 Pounds Of Marijuana After Deputy Fails To Even Pretend His Traffic Stop Was Anything But Pretextual

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2019 @ 04:18pm

  "The rental car was only doing 60 mph in a 70-mph speed zone"

  That crime is far worse than carrying 82 lbs of marijuana. If you're not passing someone, GET OUT OF THE DAMN PASSING LANE!!

• On the post: Senator Mark Warner Repeats Senator Ted Cruz's Mythical, Made Up, Incorrect Claims About Section 230

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2019 @ 01:39pm

  The NYT does have someone that understands 230

  Just let Sarah Jeong proof any article that even mentions 230, before it's published.

  She gets it right: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/opinion/section-230-political-neutrality.html

• On the post: Telcos And Rupert Murdoch Pushing Nonsense Story That Google Helping Keep Your Internet Activity More Private Is An Antitrust Violation

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2019 @ 05:16pm

  Re: Re: Re: Weak Sauce

  Right now DNSSEC is a bit of a failed protocol. The key size requires a fallback to TCP, and so many of the places I've worked or seen don't allow tcp over 53. For years, you'd see it recommended in security best practices, usually because the only traffic that would go over tcp on 53 would be zone transfers. And of course, DNSSEC is only designed to protect integrity, not confidentiality. DNSSEC makes a lot more sense in DNS over https than it does in the DNS protocol.

• On the post: Telcos And Rupert Murdoch Pushing Nonsense Story That Google Helping Keep Your Internet Activity More Private Is An Antitrust Violation

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2019 @ 12:00pm

  Re: Re: An internet of only http?

  Ah, yeah I wasn't thinking at all of peer to peer filesharing, but FTP is a dying protocol, and it deserves to die. Debian shut down their FTP servers a couple years ago, for instance. It is an annoying, horrible protocol because of the separation of data and control channels into separate connections. It's always been hard, because of that, to make it work properly with firewalls, natting, and access lists. It becomes a really serious problem if you encrypt the control plane, because you're left leaving blocks of ports wide-open, or limiting the numbers of connections. Seriously, I've been cursing FTP for decades now. For downloading, it provides no advantages over http downloads, and for uploads, that functionality has been largely replaced by http uploads, dropbox type services, or to a lesser degree for specialized apps, webdav.

• On the post: Telcos And Rupert Murdoch Pushing Nonsense Story That Google Helping Keep Your Internet Activity More Private Is An Antitrust Violation

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2019 @ 09:35am

  An internet of only http?

  It's tangential, but this could make an enormous leap to an all-http Internet--that is, traffic traversing from AS to AS--that is nothing except http. And in a few years with http/3, perhaps nothing but UDP.

  I'm sure other protocols will continue to exist inside individual AS's for a long time (though, http/2 is replacing diameter in the 5G packet core).

  The Internet really only bears a very superficial resemblance to what it was 30 years ago.

• On the post: Being Designated A 'Hate Group' By The SPLC Isn't Defamation, Says Federal Court

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2019 @ 07:34am

  Re: 1st

  You can be sued for anything. That doesn't mean it's going to ever make it to trial or judgment. For that, you need to present a valid claim--and that must be consistent with the 1st amendment. Since the first amendment protects opinions, the court, a state actor, cannot impose a liability on you for that opinion. Here, no valid claim was found to have been presented, so the case was tossed. The SPLC still had to spend a fair amount of money on lawyers to argue that. Fortunately, they had the funds to do so. Not everyone does. A proper federal anti-SLAPP law would give procedural advantages to everyone sued when it's clear on its face there is no claim.

• On the post: Don't Let The Bret Stephens Bite: NY Times' Hypocritical 'Free Speech' Columnist Flips Out After Being Called A Bedbug

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2019 @ 12:13pm

  The saddest part about this

  I'm mainly disappointed only Stephens is being made fun of. Where's the well-warranted disdain for David Brooks??

• On the post: Self-Made Millionaire Loses Lawsuit Over Facebook's Removal Of Videos Of People Urinating

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 25 Jun, 2019 @ 09:45pm

  Except Facebook is basically a public utility, like electricity. I have a constitutional right to pee on a 345 kV wire.

• On the post: Self-Described Feminist Loses Lawsuit Against Twitter For Banning Her Account

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2019 @ 10:32pm

  Re: Re: Re: "Stone" admits wishes to be RULED by corpo

  See: "Where it makes sense, corporations have always been people in the US."

• On the post: No, Your Kid Isn't Growing Horns Because Of Cellphone Use

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2019 @ 10:30pm

  Grrr

  Dammit, I've been increasing my mobile usage the last 6 hours in an attempt to speed my horn growth.

• On the post: Self-Described Feminist Loses Lawsuit Against Twitter For Banning Her Account

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2019 @ 11:51am

  Re: "Stone" admits wishes to be RULED by corporations!

  Corporations are not "persons" as defined in the Constitution This supposition is broadly wrong. Corporations are legal persons under the law, both at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and now. See Blackstone's final chapter, that uses that literal term in the first paragraph. And more broadly, under US federal law, the Dictionary Act states:
  the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals And, see the 1819 Supreme Court case, Dartmouth College v. Woodward, which established that corporations enjoy some of the rights of persons under the constitution (in particular property and contract rights). Where it makes sense, corporations have always been people in the US.

• On the post: Today In Bananas Copyright Law: Court Urged To Rule That A Banana Costume Is Not Infringing

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 28 Apr, 2019 @ 03:53pm

  This is my banana!

  This is my banana. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My banana is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my banana is useless. Without my banana, I am useless. I must peel my banana true. I must peel faster than the monkey who is trying to steal my bananas. I must eat it before he eats it.

• On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2019 @ 07:11pm

  libel per se

  Uh, no. No, it doesn't. Or, well, libel per se eliminates the burden of proof that the statement is damaging, which is slightly accurate, but libel against a private individual emphatically does not.

• On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2019 @ 07:06pm

  Re: racism

  But it doesn't matter for defamation--calling or implying someone is racist is not a statement of fact. It's an opinion. You need false statements of fact to sustain a defamation claim. That's sorely lacking here.

• On the post: Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation

  

  allengarvin ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2019 @ 07:00pm

  Re: False light defamation

  False light defamation has a higher standard of proof than public figure defamation. They'll have a devil of a hard time making that stick.

Next >>