Anonymous Anonymous Coward’s Techdirt Profile


About Anonymous Anonymous CowardTechdirt Insider

Anonymous Anonymous Coward’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 15th, 2018 @ 5:59pm

    New Bread Box Need, New Engineers Requested

    I am trying to discern the reason the German Government did not chose an existing secure email program and then just dictate the various addresses to be used? Was there a particular need to build a system from the ground up? Right, some contractor needed the income.

    If a particular system is already secure, and there would be a benefit to it being opened sourced (with the exception of the encryption algorithm) so that security could be further verified, then why would someone actually want to build a new one? That is if there was no profit motivation? Government should never have a profit motivation. Cost savings, maybe, but that would mean that something is cut, not added.

    What is actually needed in such a system? A secure sending unit, a secure receiving unit, and a secure server to store the communication and a secure system for distributing the already secure communication to only those that have the appropriate security clearance to receive them. Hasn't this been built numerous times already?

    Is the issue that those already built systems weren't properly translated into German? Wouldn't it be cheaper to do a better job of translation than start from scratch, and maybe build something not as secure? I don't know the names of the existing systems (as I have no need for, but I know they exist, various governments around the world are complaining about them).


  • Mar 15th, 2018 @ 12:04pm


    "This includes without limitation all relevant ESI (including but not limited to e-mail), banking records, Word documents, spreadsheets, PDFs, reports, articles, books, memos, letters, calendar entries, handwritten notes, text messages, chats, phone messages, phone logs, audio recordings, or any other type of document or communication, final or draft, in either written or electronic format."

    He left out thoughts. Our brains work on electricity, don't they? Memories are stored, aren't they? I want to see the subpoena for those.

  • Mar 15th, 2018 @ 11:48am


    >"The only way Gina Haspel is qualified to serve is if she completely renounces her actions and the actions of the U.S. government in approving torture of detainees and vows that it will not happen under her watch."

    You would accept her word, or would she just pull a Clapper?

    Gina Haspel is in no way qualified to lead an agency, and her previous behavior is the prime indicator.

  • Mar 15th, 2018 @ 10:54am

    Is the new job the same as the old job?

    If Mike Pompeo is actually confirmed by the Senate as the new Secretary of State, when will the first accusation of his acting as a Secretary of State or as a CIA director be leveled? Whether that charge is true or not, it will be leveled at least in order to give some leverage to the ones making it.

    If Gina Haspel is actually confirmed by the Senate as the new CIA director, how many of our current allies will take that as a direct confirmation of this countries endorsement of torture, and lose all remaining respect for our foreign policy?

  • Mar 14th, 2018 @ 3:47pm


    Seems to me that there was a discussion here some time ago about the cost of maintaining those vehicles. Something the Feds don't fund. How is such a tiny department able to pay for the maintenance. What, they don't maintain the vehicles, just sell them?

    Just what are the rules about selling 1033 items? When are the Feds going to do something about this little cabal? Right, homeland security, better to have these guys over prepared, even if the stuff won't work because there is no money to maintain the equipment.

  • Mar 14th, 2018 @ 8:51am

    Re: Re:

    I would put it a bit differently. "for limited times" isn't actually being ignored, but it is being outrageously defined. The whole point of the limitation was to encourage more creative efforts on the part of the creators, who cannot create anything once they are dead.

  • Mar 12th, 2018 @ 5:51pm

    Re: Re: "car seat was not secured and the straps were not adjusted"

    Breea Gross, 18, was driving when the crash occurred and was cited for driving without a license, seat belt violation and three counts of child safety restraint violation. Janice Gross, 40, was cited for allowing an unlicensed driver to drive her vehicle and seat belt violation. Seth Eames, 23, also cited for seat belt violation.

    None of which contributed to the accident, but certainly points some blame for something elsewhere.

  • Mar 12th, 2018 @ 3:30pm

    Can't tell or didn't do?

    What is the difference between the government not being able to figure things out and the government having a whole lot of information about something and not doing anything about it? Can anyone outside of government tell the difference?

    Yes, because sometimes the government is stupid enough to tell us after something happens that they had a whole bunch of information before it happened and didn't act on it.

    Then there are the instances where they just plain lie...erm I mean tell us the least untruthful thing.

  • Mar 12th, 2018 @ 10:00am

    I can see it now

    Captain: Lieutenants, get your squads to nerd harder and faster.

    Lieutenants: Sargents, the Captain tells us that we are not nerding up to speed and quality. Get some discipline in your troops.

    Sargents: Troops, you are hereby ordered to nerd harder and faster. The other squads are ahead of us. You had better get some ideas quick, or there is gonna be some hell to pay.

  • Mar 12th, 2018 @ 9:37am

    Re: Spotify is NO "innovator", it just uses the work of artists.

    Once again you get it wrong. The Constitution allows for the creation of IP legislation. It does not require or demand it. Congress is free to revoke all IP legislation, or parts thereof, as they see fit. Of course so long as we have the current ridiculous funding system they will continue to take advantage of the bribes paid (in the form of campaign contributions and promises of employment after government service) and that will likely prevent them from doing anything in the interest of the public, as apposed to the corporations.

  • Mar 12th, 2018 @ 8:23am


    I was going to suggest that Big Music invest in those companies, but it appears they already have stakes in those companies. What I cannot get around is that they have equity, but are still willing to destroy the company (and whatever equity they have) to get more off the top. All in the name of control?

    Further, as was pointed out in the article, despite plenty of opportunity to create their own services, Big Music has failed to do so. Do they really see a relatively small investment in creating a service such a burden? Or is it more their intent to bottleneck the entire music industry so long as they might have some leverage to increase the 'rent'? What happens when that lever breaks?

    We come back to that obscurity question. If their goal was more traffic (less obscurity) rather than more margin (likely more obscurity) they could embrace all these service companies, invest in them, help them to become profitable and spread music further than it currently is spread, which in turn creates larger revenues with fairly fixed costs. The other choice, more margin, will induce lower traffic which means likely less income, but even lower fixed costs, but would also make creating their 'new superstars' more difficult. It appears that they think margin rather than traffic is the answer, and likely because of shorter term, left effort intensive profits.

    Can anyone help them to spell blind? Forrest, trees...nope can't see anything but sand.

  • Mar 12th, 2018 @ 8:04am

    Preempting whiners some more

    "But it certainly demonstrates how the copyright system is so weighted to favor the copyright holder..."

    Holders, not authors or artists. They use their income to get those creative juices flowing. The creative ways they use to subsume the copyrights of others with a promise to make them 'BIG'.

  • Mar 9th, 2018 @ 3:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet another question

    I'm not so sure. Other countries have guns, though not at the same level as us. Yet they don't have the same rate of irrational shootings as us. That leaves us with the dilemma of what the actual difference is. There are some irrational shootings in other countries (leaving out those places that have sustained conflicts for a variety of irrational reasons) but the rate per population seems significantly different.

    I find it hard to place the blame on an inanimate object (the gun) rather than something psychological. Do guns contribute? No argument there, but the gun isn't the instigator.

  • Mar 9th, 2018 @ 3:33pm

    Re: Re: Reporters took time to document this

    It is probably both newsworthy and titillating. A win win for the newsies.

    Now if they only had the right of first reporting so that no other news outlet could report their 'breaking' news and capture ALL the income from that report. A report that is politically important, but belongs in the Sunday edition of a British newspaper in the section where they show some naked breasts.

  • Mar 9th, 2018 @ 3:11pm

    Re: Re: Yet another question

    Oh, of course. The entire diatribe is to place blame. Someplace other than where the blame belongs. I have some ideas about where the blame belongs (parenting for one, but not only) but I am willing to state that I am not sufficient an expert to place any kind of absolute blame. I seriously doubt anyone is. I think it might take multiple experts to properly diagnose an individual. How do we get them that opportunity?

    That does not mean that the issue cannot be resolved. To do so would take years, if not decades. The resolve question comes into what to do over those years and decades. Banning or controlling video games probably isn't one of them. Controlling what one watches on TV/cable probably also is not one of them. Getting parents and other adults who are involved with young people looking for signs, then doing something appropriate about those signs (sending them for more professional evaluation and counseling would certainly be a start, which then brings up cost and what to do about that?).

    Training people what signs to look for, and how to respond is the first issue. Well maybe the second, who to train might be the first.

  • Mar 9th, 2018 @ 2:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Reporters took time to document this

    I'm not sure I would go so far as to making a claim that legislative hearings are always anything more than publicity stunts. Sometimes they aren't.

  • Mar 9th, 2018 @ 2:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Reporters took time to document this

    Hmm, that's the second time I got a double post recently, and none of the things I usually attribute to a double post happened in either case. ???

  • Mar 9th, 2018 @ 2:49pm

    Re: Re: Reporters took time to document this

    I think his point is that the press should be critical of whatever any government person says. Should that criticism be negative? Not always. But the other position is to be a mouthpiece for government rhetoric, and that is not the job of the Fourth Estate. They should analyze, and give voice to a variety of points of view, not just regurgitate.

  • Mar 9th, 2018 @ 2:49pm

    Re: Re: Reporters took time to document this

    I think his point is that the press should be critical of whatever any government person says. Should that criticism be negative? Not always. But the other position is to be a mouthpiece for government rhetoric, and that is not the job of the Fourth Estate. They should analyze, and give voice to a variety of points of view, not just regurgitate.

  • Mar 9th, 2018 @ 2:43pm

    When Wikipedia (now Wikimedia) started...

    ...there were many claims that they should not be taken seriously. In the meantime, the Wiki has been working hard to present more facts and less presumption. I think they are doing a good job at that, and refer to them often. I think their articles should be taken seriously, today, and if there is still some discord about a certain article, make your edit. If that edit is believable and verifiable it will be accepted. If it isn't...go suck an egg.

    I would imagine that there are competing online encyclopedias that would take some issue with what Wikimedia posts, but then those articles are written by (usually) a single subject matter 'expert'. When only one person is involved with the description of some subject matter, there is an opportunity for bias. With many persons involved with a particular subject, that bias has a tendency to be minimized, except of course when Internet 'Public Relations' firms (or whatever they call themselves) become involved. Or, when employees of some company try to sway the narrative about their employers.

    As to the 'right to be forgotten' thingy, let them forget in the EU. The rest of us have a right to know the actual history of some persons actions, and there is (at least today) not one damn thing the EU can do about it.

More comments from Anonymous Anonymous Coward >>