anonymousanonymouscoward 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (3524)
-
On the post: Cops And Paramedics Are Still Killing Arrestees By Shooting Them Up With Ketamine
-
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Detecting Sarcasm Is Not Easy (2018)
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2020 @ 06:59pmRe: I'm sorry
Not for an algorithm, or for that matter some of use here on Techdirt. Without that /s sometimes it is really difficult to tell, when statements cleave close to the line.
-
On the post: DOJ Tries To Step In To Trump Defamation Case To Get It Dismissed; Claims His Statements About Alleged Rape Were Part Of His Presidential Duties
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2020 @ 09:03amRe: Someone doth protest too much
Probably more than some truth, and damned that pesky concept of statutory limitations or we wouldn't be having a conversation about defamation and the quirks of sovereign immunity, but would be talking about a criminal accusation where the 'request' for DNA would carry a whole lot more weight.
-
On the post: T-Mobile Merger Approval Violated Every Last One Of the DOJ's Updated 'Antitrust Principles'
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 10 Sep, 2020 @ 07:23amHow far do those commitments go?
"The modernized Merger Remedies Manual reflects our renewed focus on enforcing obligations in consent decrees and reaffirms the Division’s commitment to effective structural relief,” ..."
Does that 'focus on enforcing obligations' go to the extent of the DoJ accepting liability for failing to follow their own rules? Are they going to accept responsibility when their behavior differs from their 'supposed intention'? Will they use these 'modernized remedies' to go back and undo the (not mindless as there was an agenda being enacted) harms created by their lack of conformity to their own 'principles'?
No. To all of the above. Which leads us to thinking about why we should take anything espoused by the DoJ seriously...that is until they use their 'non justice oriented powers' to drag us into court.
-
On the post: FISA Court Decides FBI, NSA Surveillance Abuses Should Be Rewarded With Fewer Restrictions On Searching 702 Collections
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2020 @ 02:19pmRe: Re: California Company specializes in FISA Abuse
I should probably add integrity to that last line, but it seems to be deficient in many politicians.
-
On the post: FISA Court Decides FBI, NSA Surveillance Abuses Should Be Rewarded With Fewer Restrictions On Searching 702 Collections
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2020 @ 02:17pmRe: California Company specializes in FISA Abuse
It is difficult to limit abuse of power to one party or the other, as both have made use of power when it was/is within their grasp. The abuse of power has to do with the way power impacts people, some more than others, but that has nothing to do with political affiliation. It has to do with psychology.
-
On the post: FISA Court Decides FBI, NSA Surveillance Abuses Should Be Rewarded With Fewer Restrictions On Searching 702 Collections
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2020 @ 11:20amRe: The Rubber Stamp 'court' strikes again
What would one expect from a court that wouldn't be found to be constitutional if it ever came to a legitimate test?
-
On the post: French Government To Make Insulting Mayors A Criminal Offense
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2020 @ 05:36pmWhen will history repeat?
I don't understand. How will this maneuver help the French government toward their inevitable surrender? Won't this prolong the interim agony?
-
On the post: GOP Senators Release Latest Truly Stupid Section 230 Reform Bill; Would Remove 'Otherwise Objectionable'; Enable Spamming
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2020 @ 10:47amMisinformation
Just who will define misinformation? If them, then anything that denies their viewpoint, or calls bullshit on lies they tell will be misinformation. If an objective reasonable person, then their lies and bullshit (a.k.a. actual misinformation) will be called out, like it is now.
The problem being that if any of these § 230 (ahem) reforms passes (which are all likely unconstitutional) it will take years for it to pass through the courts to be found so, and then it is a serious question that it will be found so. I bet they will start with anyone who complains will have a lack of standing.
In the meantime, think about the damage that will have been done. It is highly possible that they know this and the actual plan is in that damage they could do to cement themselves into positions that will be difficult to be undone.
-
On the post: Government's 'Reverse' Warrant Rejected By Two Consecutive Federal Judges
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2020 @ 02:20pmRe:
Shhhh! You'll spoil the super secret deception. Expect your doorbell to record several armed top men in suits. Top men.
-
On the post: Content Moderation Case Studies: Stopping Malware In Search Leads To Unsupported Claims Of Bias (2007)
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 04 Sep, 2020 @ 05:23pmAccuse vs warn
The first line of defense is denial. The second line of defense is accuse the accuser. At some point, one listens. Then they do what is necessary to confirm or prove those accusations unwarranted. As Google learned, the approach is paramount. Glad they learned it.
-
On the post: E-Voting App Maker Voatz Asks The Supreme Court To Let It Punish Security Researchers For Exposing Its Flaws
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 04 Sep, 2020 @ 10:04amOtherwordingly
Voatz: Those holes in our system were not supposed to be revealed. Without those holes, how else could we convince the proletariat that their use of our system in this election was on the up and up, even with the predetermined outcomes contracted for. It is a contractual matter, but those portions of our contract are Trade Secrets and under NDA agreements with those officials in West Virginia who arranged our appointment and may not be disclosed. So researchers who attack our system to expose holes in our system should be executed (strikethrough protocol disabled), um, erm, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the most expanded interpretation of the most holy CFAA law.
-
On the post: Another Florida Appeals Court Says Compelled Passcode Production Violates The Fifth Amendment
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 04 Sep, 2020 @ 07:40amDisingenuousness amplified
"The Second District Court quashed the order, holding that compelling the defendant to reveal his passcode was not testimonial because the passcode was “sought only for its content and the content has no other value or significance.”"
No other value or significance, except to make available whatever is on the smartphone to whomever wants to troll through it.
"Investigators feel the phone they found at the crime scene belongs to the suspect and contains evidence to support the aggravated stalking charges."
If they know this, then they have another source for the information. If they know this and truly do have another source for the information then why do they need this additional source?
-
On the post: It's Time To Regulate The Internet… But Thoughtfully
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 03 Sep, 2020 @ 07:11pmRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If fools wish to think of Facepuke as a definitive speaker of truth, when Facepuke probably does little actual speaking, but a bunch of dolt users of Facepuke make inept, uniformed, partisan, and sometimes inane statements that get believed over more reasoned and salient speakers, how is that Facepuke's fault? That some people believe what they read or see there over other things has the same basis as people who believe in the new religion that was thought up by some people last week. It is not up to us to tell them which religion they should believe in. Just as it is not up to us to tell Facepuke how to be. Bad speech is fought with more speech. Trying to get peoples focus off of Facepuke and to better forums for speech is an issue. But like the religion questions, do you really think you can convert Catholics to Shinto easily? Time isn't the issue. These same questions will still be there the next presidential cycle. They might be better, they might be worse, but they will still exist. And when Google, Facepuke, and Amazon are all history, guess what, we will have the same questions about their replacements.
-
On the post: It's Time To Regulate The Internet… But Thoughtfully
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 03 Sep, 2020 @ 06:57pmRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I get that Facepuke has more 'power' than it should, but frankly that is only because we give it to them. Some companies have stated to me (on their websites, not personally) that the only way to interact with them is through Facepuke (I make no apologies for the continued use of that derogatory metaphor), I don't, and won't do business with them. I am only one, but that removes some of Facepukes power. When more companies learn about how much potential market share they miss by limiting their market communications to a simplified Facepuke page, then we will see more diminishment of that power. But realistically, if Facepuke is broken up, just what assets will each of the new parts get? One gets the name, another gets the phone number, yet another gets the address, a fourth gets the email address, a fifth gets the track record of sites visited, and so on? It won't be that one fifth of the users go with group 1 and another fifth go with group 2, and so on. It won't be that we can make the mistake we did with the Bell break-up and make regional entities that will then buy each other out until we get one entity again. An it is unlikely that we could find a way to split equal parts of the company in such a way that each new entity has access to all the markets that the original had, with equal pieces of assets which theoretically gives them equal ability to compete against each other, simply because those assets are often not tangible and easily divided. Besides, what if my reason for being on Facepuke is to communicate and share with you, and we wind up with different entities? Or my family is on three different systems? I don't agree that Facepuke, Google, and Amazon are equal threats to those that provide, and prevent, access to the system. They are just players in the system, and while the have built strong positions, those positions are not unassailable. Getting a choice between DSL and fiber access to those players, or none at all because the Telecom spent their government handouts that were supposed to go to building out their infrastructure, but spent them on executive bonuses or investor dividends instead is a much, much, much bigger deal, and needs to come first. The other issue, that those three companies you mention, might be too big to be over taken says merely that you have little faith in the ingenuity of the entire population of the world. Yes they are big. Yes they are powerful. Yes they have lots of money, and more coming in each year. But they are not infallible, and either by user backlash, or an up and comer, they will be tamed...in the long run. That long run might be longer than you wish, but that is the way of the marketplace. There does not appear to be any actual anti-trust issue with any of those groups (though I am not a lawyer nor in any way an anti-trust expert) there is nothing about them that prevents others from doing the same thing. Duck Duck Go, Walmart, and I am not sure about a social media reference as I don't use social media so I am not aware of other alternatives, but I bet there are some. For that matter, there was an article earlier today about Animal Crossings, a game limited to (I think) one platform that is making inroads, though I cannot conceive why.
-
On the post: It's Time To Regulate The Internet… But Thoughtfully
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 03 Sep, 2020 @ 05:51pmRe: Re: Re: Re:
The 'Free Market' still picks the winners and losers. Size does not matter. Your 'kill zones' are a fabrication, which may or may not impact, the up and comers. A Facepuke like site that has more transparency, a better consumer attitude, and a different revenue stream could kill it. Can you say whether or not that is true, that it will not happen? No. Neither can I. But at some point, when Facepuke pisses enough of their 'constituents' off with their ham fisted policies, they could be looking for alternatives. And will. It won't happen fast, but given time. Your argument will be what revenue stream? Who knows? Tell me that in 1998 this revenue stream was considered the end all beat all future. You can't do that either, as in 1998 I don't think they had any inkling of what is happening now. If they had that inkling a bit further back, the Internet, and the World Wide Web would be a much different, and safer, place. With much hope, it will be in the future, though we might need another name for the 'safe' Net.
-
On the post: It's Time To Regulate The Internet… But Thoughtfully
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 03 Sep, 2020 @ 05:31pmRe: Re: Re: Re:
There is a huge difference in the concept of anti-trust between platforms and infrastructure. One has a whole lot more control than the other. Guess which one. The one that lets one get to the platforms, and their long term prevention for a large part of the US to get true high speed access, often to their co-option of state legislatures) is more of a worry than those platforms. Platforms can come and go. There is nothing holding anyone to Facepuke, except popularity. And that is it. Another platform could come along, present a different face to the world, and take away everything they have achieved. It has happened before, and it probably will happen again. Many times. On the other hand, when one only has limited choices to access the Internet, and those are all very slow and flaky, that is a big problem. Which one would you prefer Mike, Techdirt, or for that matter the rest of us be more concerned about? There is a hierarchy of anti-trust issues to be concerned about. Wouldn't it be great if the FTC took notice, and action, on all of them? But they can't, or won't, so the next best step is to get them to deal in physical areas, rather than ethereal. Infrastructure quality and access is physical. Where you go after that is ethereal. One can live without Facepuke (I do, so do many others) but Internet access, and quality of access (improved by choice of providers) is another matter entirely. Worth the FTC's time and attention, but for whatever reason, that time and attention has not been committed.
-
On the post: It's Time To Regulate The Internet… But Thoughtfully
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 03 Sep, 2020 @ 04:21pmRe: Re: Copyright reform
May I suggest the MPAA and the RIAA and every political organization and others that sends a DMCA notice (even when they don't own the supposedly infringing content or have any actually 'infringing' claim) to stuff they don't like are guilty of this. It exists, and to a large part due to poorly written, and egregious, copyright laws, though there may be other examples for different laws. Take Trump's ridiculous and unconstitutional series of Executive Orders that target social media because they didn't idolize him, which aren't actually law, and since Trump fails to separate himself from his businesses are from corporate entities.
-
On the post: Appeals Court Says Address Mistakes On Warrants Are Mostly Harmless, Not Worth Getting Excited About
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 03 Sep, 2020 @ 03:56pmJust because it happened before, doesn't mean it's right now.
If one of the judges addresses were 7201 Come Get Me Way and the suspected purp's was 7201 Come Get Me Place and the wrong address was selected for the raid, and they came full on, no knock, 4:00 am, swat team in full gear, fully engaged in the first Law of Policing (we must make it home to dinner, don't care about you) with shots fired for 'purp's' possession of a cell phone, then a different outcome might be found.
That judges live in a different world makes them insulated to the real world. They should take the time to at the very least visualize the real world, before they decide things. Yes, precedent should have impact, as well as the law, but when precedent fails to recognize the real world, then they should have the gumption to step up and call bullshit when bullshit has been canonized.
-
On the post: It's Time To Regulate The Internet… But Thoughtfully
anonymousanonymouscoward ( profile ), 03 Sep, 2020 @ 01:57pmWriting regulations for just the Internet just because of the impactfulness of that venue is disingenuous. If it isn't illegal elsewhere it shouldn't be illegal on the Net. Then some things that are illegal elsewhere shouldn't impact the Net (driving laws, for example).
Clarifying existing law for the Internet is a different thing, such as § 230 where the primary clarification is about who is, or isn't a publisher and placing liability where it belongs, the actual speaker.
As pointed out above, eliminating barriers to Internet access (fixing the infrastructure and removing monopolies at the access points) is the first priority, and no new laws need to be enacted to achieve that. Eliminating some (state level barriers to competition) would be appropriate. Enforcing others (such as anti-trust to break up those monopolies) and bringing the FCC back into line with what the people they are supposed to serve want, rather than the corporations they do would also help.
Politicians, however, need to be seen 'doing something' even if there is nothing to be done, and in their own inimitable way tend to do wrong things, or self serving things, or things that make their graft buddies happier (rather than their constituents). So expect a whole lot of useless, harmful, and very likely unconstitutional proposals to come our way.
The one thing, a new thing (or maybe not so new), that I think would be truly beneficial would be to redesign the basic protocols for the Internet, this time with security in mind. Yes I know that it won't work over existing systems, but just as the Internet existed in parallel with the World Wide Web, this new, secure, system could run in parallel with the existing systems as it became more integrated. I might be crazy (probably am) but I think the majority of the changes would take place at the server level, rather than the endpoints, though browsers might need an update. Of course the encryption that would get integrated into such a system would drive some authoritarians up the wall, especially if those encryption algorithms were easily updated, upgraded, open sourced, and without backdoors.
Probably not the only slight
I wonder what the chances are that those injected with ketamine (or their estate or family) are later billed for the injection? I also wonder what the markup on the billing is? Going a bit further, shouldn't the police force that orders the injection be the ones liable for the cost, since those injections don't seem to be medically necessary?