anonymousanonymouscoward 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (3524)

• On the post: Trump Campaign Non-Disclosure Agreements Again Being Challenged In Court

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2020 @ 12:40pm

  Re: Imagine that...

  Seems to me the thing his NDA's point out is that if you get close enough to Trump, you really learn to hate him. Those are the ones he wants silenced.

• On the post: #NoRightsMatter: US Postal Service, Law Enforcement Team Up To Seize 'Black Lives Matter' Facemasks

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2020 @ 06:45pm

  Your either for our authoritarianism, or your a traitor.

  "This was multiple levels of fucked up, both in terms of what happened and who was involved. It's not clear which law enforcement agency seized the masks but it all started with the US Postal Service's "inspection" unit (USPIS), which apparently flagged the items as somehow illegal and/or dangerous."

  I wonder what was said to the USPIS person to get them to perform this seizure, and who said it? Then, what was that USPIS agent thinking that this was OK. One would think that inspectors would have a better grasp of the laws than say delivery persons?

  However, I suspect that the 'government' will claim that it is classified due to their actions being all about putting down an insurrection, and it is need to know, and that the people suing them have no need to know as they were the people putting on the insurrection. It won't be the first case to find out how heavy handed the government will play this, but I think it might be an important one.

• On the post: No, California Law Review, Food Plating Does Not Deserve Copyright Protection

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2020 @ 06:29pm

  Why don't we try and copyright nature, not a picture, but nature

  I'll go one step further. The likelihood that two plating's of the same dish are identical are rather low. I mean identical in that plate #1, served at the beginning of the meal period and photographed, and plate #2 served at the end of the meal period and also photographed. Then when those two photographs are compared that differences cannot be discerned is nigh on impossible. (If you doubt me, try plating a banquet for 500 and get every plate to look exactly the same, even if they all get the same meal). That then means that each and every plate would have to have its own copyright applied for. And, with an average of four months to obtain the copyright for either of the plating's, the 'fixed' part would be rancid.

  Then there is the idea that, for example, a dish garnished with say a basil leaf, would require that each and every basil leaf be an exact duplicate of the others is shear lunacy. Nature does not work that way.

  So let's try to be a bit more reasonable. Let's say that it's the 'design' of the plating is what is being copyrighted and that that allows for some wiggle room that allows for differences that nature produces and the fact that one service plated while the 'artist' is fresh and the other when the 'artist' is tired. Then what are we left with? The main part of the dish goes in the middle, or left, or right, or top, or bottom and the garnish goes opposite, or next to, or on top, then those 'aspects' of plating would become unusable for any other chef, and eventually, when all the compass points have been registered other chefs would have to move on to square plates, or bowls, or oval plates, or specially design table ware that is unique to their restaurant. Then when all of those have been claimed, are the rest of restaurants just out of luck?

  Now let's consider the length of copyright. Life of the chef plus 75 years. The restaurant industry would have to close down. Oh, then there are all those corporate copyright holders who will want to get their hands on these brand new copyright forms, everything must be owned, doncha know. How about a chef who works for a hotel? Is it then a work for hire? If yes, then the only way a chef's creativity get the protection is if he owns his own restaurant and works for himself.

  This is an industry that gives competition to the worlds oldest profession for longevity, and it hasn't needed copyright so far. Just what is the pressing need for it now?

• On the post: Nextdoor Is Courting Cops And Public Officials Using All-Expenses-Paid Trips To Its Headquarters

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2020 @ 06:50am

  Screw Corporate Sovereignty and their NDA's

  It should be illegal for public officials to sign an NDA when it has impact on their official duties, even tangentially. The hubris of the Nextdoor NDA forbidding public officials from following court orders without notifying them first is an indication of why this should be clearly stated, by legislation, to be illegal.

• On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2020 @ 12:30pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Eye for an eye isn’t going to get us what we w

  "How many more election cycles do we have to go through to get all of these problems fixed? "

  Depends, on several things. The first of which is can we get people to think for themselves rather than toe a party line? While I think the next presidential election is lost, regardless of who wins (unless there is a dark horse Democrat who comes out of nowhere) that will take at least two, presidential elections. But the congress controls the money and that can have great influence on what the Executive does or doesn't do. The Senate only replaces one third of itself each time with six year terms, and the House gets two year terms, so complete replacement will take some time. However, statements can be made with judicious selections this next time. Politicians can be told the writing is on the wall, do for us rather than against us or else. But not unless we get many, many more people to think for themselves.

• On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2020 @ 11:23am

  Re: Excellent points all, sir

  As is being pointed out by Scott Greenfield Qualified Immunity elimination won't be the panacea many think it will be. First off, it merely protects officers from civil suits, not from prosecution. Then, if one wins the civil suit, those officers tend to be indemnified by the municipalities they work for. So yes, they should be prosecuted, and we need to take a serious look at how prosecutors go about their business when so many horrific actions by police are not found to be horrific by grand juries (under the control of prosecutors) or by courts with regular juries where the prosecutors control how evidence is presented. Prosecutors have absolute immunity, so we need to handle them differently. They call those different things elections.

• On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2020 @ 11:14am

  Re: Re: Eye for an eye isn’t going to get us what we want.

  Being cool headed means you work on the next election cycle rather than lose your cool and rant about things that can only change at the next election cycle. We had a shot at ridding ourselves of Trump (though I am not certain Pence would be better, different maybe, but not better), and our representatives let us down. Election cycle.

• On the post: Italian Public Prosecutor Says Project Gutenberg's Collection Of Public Domain Books Must Be Blocked For Copyright Infringement

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2020 @ 06:48am

  Re: "...the Italian Public Prosecutor..."

  What makes you think they could get that right?

• On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2020 @ 10:53am

  Eye for an eye isn’t going to get us what we want.

  The following was written prior to the above article, and prior to reading the post mentioned in that article. I tend to go a bit further than that post and suggest additional actions. I don't suspect that everything I mention below will come to fruition, but the fact remains, the outcome is in the hands of the citizenry, when they vote. The most difficult task will be to influence those hardcore vote the party line voters into thinking for themselves.

  If one of the purposes of the protests is police reform, there is a lot of shooting ourselves in the foot going on. There are things that will reform law enforcement, and things that will not only just piss them off, but make the argument for stronger policing. Violence will beget violence, and it seems that for at least the shot term, non violence also begets violence. That has to stop, and I think that like more speech is the cure for bad speech, more non violence is the cure for more violence. To that end here are some does and don’s that I think could make a difference. First the don't s:

  Things that help the police state are:

  • Rioting

  • Looting

  • Attacking police officers

  • Attacking police stations

  • Attacking police vehicles

  • Not only will those actions tend to enrage those that legally carry guns and other weapons, but have a tendency to hold the citizenry accountable as they will be the ones who pay for the damage done.

  • Over arming/equipping law enforcement agencies

  And now some do’s:

  Things that will help reform the police state are:

  • Peaceful protests, and more peaceful protests when the police attack peaceful protesters

  • Make reasonable arguments on social media, send many emails to representatives, make your interest in peaceful resolution a top priority, make your representatives aware that you will work against them if they do not act in the peoples interest rather than the interests of special interest groups

  • Reducing the power of public employee unions (to my mind elimination would be better, but then the legislators would have to introduce some strong but reasonable laws that cover public employment fairness)

  • Holding the upper echelons of agencies accountable for the actions of their subordinates

  • Hold prosecutors and their grand juries accountable for failing to discipline police officers

  • Make clear that while a presumption of innocence exists until someone is found guilty, a badge does nothing to add to that presumption

  • View tough on crime political candidates with a very cautious eye, but be careful that their opponents are not just snowflakes on a crusade to help just those whom they see as being under served as opposed to everyone being under served. (aka overly woke).

  • Force the Federal Government to uphold its responsibility to protect civil rights, which means get the DoJ and FBI to do their jobs. In order to accomplish this means that appropriate choices need to be made at election time. Since it seems that neither of the two leading presidential candidates will have the will or capacity to accomplish this, then the choices made for congressional positions will become more important. Congress holds the purse strings. If the President won’t do the job of protecting citizens, then cut off the money until they do.

  • Protecting officers who report or prevent other officers who do bad things

  • Get the courts to punish judges who allow perjurous testimony from police officers to stand as well as making perjury a fire-able offense.

  • Create a Federal Law Enforcement license required for all law enforcement personnel, even at the municipal level which is automatically rescinded upon termination and reviewed with a bias toward rescinding upon an officers suspension.

  • Get Congress to redefine Qualified Immunity, Good Faith Exception, basic knowledge requirements for Law Enforcement Officers (they must know the laws they enforce), reform asset forfeiture to require a felony conviction for appropriate behaviors along with the requirement to prove the assets were in fact proceeds of that behavior, and the purpose of policing (protect and serve requirement IS the purpose), and order courts to make the first instance of a Qualified Immunity a clearly established notice that like behavior is not allowed, even if the circumstances are dissimilar.

  • Establish a federal control over the use of SWAT teams, no knock warrants.

  • Walk back those things that allow for warrantless action by law enforcement like the FISA courts, The Patriot Act, third party data is not open season, and the others that allow for snooping

  • Establish safeguards that will expose and prevent parallel construction

  • Forbid law enforcement agencies from signing or following through on Non Disclosure Agreements of any kind, for any reason, with any entity.

  I am fairly sure that I have missed a few items in both the above lists, but it is a start. Replicating, or inducing bad behavior is not going to get us a win. Coordinated, cool headed, rational going after the root causes just might.

• On the post: Net Neutrali-what? AT&T's New Streaming Service Won't Count Against Its Broadband Caps. But Netflix Will.

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 03 Jun, 2020 @ 07:54am

  Another new normal

  This is what one companies depiction of desperation looks like.

• On the post: Just As The Copyright Office Tries To Ignore The Problem Of Bad Takedowns, NBC & Disney Take Down NASA's Public Domain Space Launch

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 02 Jun, 2020 @ 12:41pm

  Re:

  One component of the problems with the whole notice and take down system is that even if the one wronged complains, history has shown that little or nothing happens to the entity that claimed to own the copyright but actually doesn't.

• On the post: Last Minute Addition To Louisiana Bill Hamstrings Community Broadband

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 29 May, 2020 @ 06:23pm

  Re:

  To the existing telecoms and other commercial broadband providers, community based broadband is a threat. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. Besides, from what we hear, the community based systems not only have a better connection, they have better customer service and better prices. Which leaves the existing telecom and broadband providers afraid. Very afraid.

• On the post: District Court Mostly Refuses To Terminate The Litigation Testing The Copyright Termination Provision

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 29 May, 2020 @ 04:14pm

  Re: I guess there's always Takedown claims to Youtube

  To what end? Now if legislators had some integrity the would remove the complications to regaining ones copyright after 35 years. including and especially the statute of limitations rigmarole. Hell, if legislators had integrity they would return copyright to a much simpler time, with much shorter terms, and many fewer rights for those who manage but did not create.

• On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 29 May, 2020 @ 03:18pm

  Re: Re: Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative

  I don't think Trump thinks, or at least doesn't care about how most view what he thinks, but that is not what you said. Read your post again. I think Trump has an agenda, but we don't have Emperors here in the USA.

• On the post: Can You Protect Privacy If There's No Real Enforcement Mechanism?

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 29 May, 2020 @ 03:12pm

  Re: there oughta be a law

  "Joseph Jerome, CIPP/US, is a privacy and cybersecurity attorney based in Washington, D.C. He currently is the Director of Multistate Policy for Common Sense Media."

  Then you would be wrong. Try reading the whole article. All of it, the next time.

• On the post: No, Twitter Fact Checking The President Is Not Evidence Of Anti-Conservative Bias

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 29 May, 2020 @ 02:47pm

  Re: Of course fact-checking is anti-conservative

  "... the whole point of being conservative is to stick with established views and values"

  You should think about that statement. What it says is that to be considered conservative one cannot think for themselves, but must toe the party line. So, who sets the party line. Aren't those people thinking for themselves, which is against the doctrine that you have prescribed in order to be conservative? Or are you talking out of your ass? I bet there are many flavors of conservative, and some of them agree with Trump, and some don't. Some of those flavors of conservative might be called right wing nut jobs by some. Others might be called centrists by some. That you stick all conservatives in the same barrel with the same thoughts tells us that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, and that you have a very skewed view of conservatives. I bet that some conservatives are not bigoted. I bet that some conservatives are pro choice. I bet that some conservatives are pro immigration. I bet that there are other 'tenets' of your conservatism that are not followed by all conservatives. I bet that all of those thoughts cause you to have small coronaries. More power to them.

• On the post: Trump's Final Executive Order On Social Media Deliberately Removed Reference To Importance Of Newspapers To Democracy

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 29 May, 2020 @ 11:37am

  Re: Platform or Publisher or both

  You are correct since they have mostly dumped their comments sections. When, or if they still do, they have Section 230 protection for those comments. Now your going to say that letters to the editor are like comments, except they are not. Letters to the editor are screened prior to them being printed, whereas comments sections are not.

• On the post: DC Appeals Court Dumps Lawsuit Claiming Multiple Tech Companies Are Engaged In An Anti-Conservative Conspiracy

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 29 May, 2020 @ 08:28am

  Re: The Public Square in the Digital Age

  Whoops, I didn't know that www.publicsquare.net actually existed. I wonder what they do over there?

• On the post: DC Appeals Court Dumps Lawsuit Claiming Multiple Tech Companies Are Engaged In An Anti-Conservative Conspiracy

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 29 May, 2020 @ 07:51am

  The Public Square in the Digital Age

  It seems people keep conflating the concept of public square with private property. In real life, the public square is easy to define, it (for example) is that public park in the middle of town that is surrounded by private and possibly municipal buildings. One can go into that park and plop down their soap box and proceed to spew out their screed, so long as they don't incite a riot or other illegal behaviors. They cannot do that in those private or municipal buildings.

  On the Internet the borders surrounding the public park are more difficult to discern. The problem is that the Internet IS the public park, but in order to 'plop down your soapbox' one of two things must take place. One is to start your own website/blog/or these days Mastadon instance (where you can make the rules), and the other is to use someone else's website or blog or Mastadon instance. The thing is, that each of those websites/blogs/or Mastadon instances are PRIVATE property, even if they allow the general public in. They are allowed to have rules, and to enforce those rules.

  It's kind of tricky to navigate the concept. The Internet is public, but in order to be on the Internet one has to create a private instance, and to use the Internet one must navigate to one of those private instances. To my knowledge there are no 'public' instances (websites/blogs/or Mastadon instances) on the Internet. There are more popular instances (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and there are less regulated instances (the Chan's, whatever number) but those are all private and operate under whatever rules the owners wish, and like the Chan's sometimes get out of control.

  Then there are government sites, but those aren't public squares either. Those government sites are there to perform some specific function, which might be to pass along information, or it might be to engage in some citizen to government interaction, like paying taxes. But government websites are not going to let you spew your screed there either. They are there for their function/purpose, not yours. That you use it to, say pay your taxes, does not give you the privilege to make your statement about how fair you think their tax rate or rules are.

  That leaves it up to you to start a website that you might call www.publicsquare.net or .org or whatever. If you leave it unregulated then your site might wind up like the Chan's, a mess of screeds or worse. Or you might find that posters are more inclined to an ideology that contradicts your ideology. Then you have to start making decisions, and your 'public square' becomes less public.

  Those who complain about being kicked off popular sites where their message may be heard by more people that their own site that has a limited, and echo chamber like following, are really just upset that their message isn't being taken as the bestest word in town. They want to be heard, and the popular websites are where one might get heard by more people. What better way to spread the word? There probably isn't, and when their words offend the site owners sensibilities they are uninvited. That they can't get the same size following on websites that have like sensibilities as their own is frustrating, I am sure, but taking a step back and rethinking their words doesn't play with their desire to impose their viewpoint everywhere. In their eyes, it's better to point fingers and blame those who uninvited them, often with spurious lawsuits like the one in the article above. Remember, when you form your hand to point at someone or something, there are three fingers pointing back at you. Take the time to consider why that might be.

• On the post: Ron Wyden: It's Time Congress Helped Americans Protect Their Privacy

  

  anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 28 May, 2020 @ 01:02pm

  Re: Mostly agree but..

  I agree with your assessment but think you should go one step further. Letting companies assess their own algorithms will come with the result of 'no bias here'. The bar to allowing outsiders assess those algorithms is that they are 'proprietary' and 'secret business intelligence'. I propose that if an algorithm is having impact on decisions made by others (for example the 'black box' information that isn't allowed to be inspected in court cases) then that veil of 'secrecy' could and should be removed. Once that happens, the issue becomes finding competent outsiders to do the assessment, and that will be difficult because no matter the state of integrity of those outsiders, everyone comes with their own bias.

Next >>