Roy Wilson 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1093) comment rss

  • On the post: House Passes Net Neutrality Bill, McConnell Promises It Won't Survive Senate

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 11 Apr, 2019 @ 12:21pm

    Re: Re:

    Voter Memory was calculated at two weeks decades ago. Which basically means that if you can keep away from negative headlines for the two weeks before Election Day, whatever you've been up to before then won't be at the top of voter's minds when they hit the polls. I'd shorten it from two weeks to a single week now. The internet speed of dissemination means Joe Voter is getting hit with a thousand more "news articles" than they were getting from print and TV. When trump was still kicking the crap out of all the "official" republican candidates, there were more stories about him than could be kept up with - many on the order of space alien conspiracy. None of them with any standing, just throwing out every ludicrous statement anyone against him getting the nomination could think up in the hopes some idiot would believe them. That went super-viral just before Election Day. And it drove any actual negatives about him from the minds of the voters.

  • On the post: Tennessee Senate Unanimously Passes Actual Anti-SLAPP Bill

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2019 @ 12:40pm

    Re:

    Simple. Just show them how it helps THEM to gain money, power, and status.

  • On the post: Legislator Irritated By A Journalist Decides State's Government Should Start Regulating Journalism

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2019 @ 12:00pm

    Re: Anyone with a camera can be considered a journalist

    Every College and University the world over which offers Degrees in Journalism would disagree with you, as would everyone holding such a Degree and working in that field. How about anyone with a pencil? A tape recorder? A burnt stick to draw pictures on the cave wall with? "The fact people like you feel only a select few can tell the news shows how out of touch you are with how human communication." Nice diversion. The question was JOURNALIST. Not anyone with a means of recording an event. And those "recorders" tend to be called "Reporters", not "Journalists".

  • On the post: Legislator Irritated By A Journalist Decides State's Government Should Start Regulating Journalism

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2019 @ 10:51am

    Hate to say it, but...

    ...he's got a point.

    If you want to pass laws "protecting" a special group, you've got to legally define that group.

    What's a "journalist" in the eyes of the Law? I've asked before, and never gotten an answer. Someone in this chain of comments says it's anyone with a cellphone.

    If we adopt the Elbonian Shield Law, it has to say what legally constitutes an Elbonian. Someone from the mythical land of Elbonia? Someone from any mythical land, of which Elbonia was just an example? Anyone with an elbow? Only people with TWO elbows?

    If a "journalist" doesn't have to reveal sources, if I'm called on to reveal my sources, can I pull out a cellphone and claim "journalistic privilege"?

    IMO, the simplest "proof" would be your prior year's tax returns. If under Profession: you've listed "Journalist", good 'nuff. If you've listed ANYTHING else, no, you're not a journalist, you're a busybody with a cell phone...

  • On the post: UK Now Proposes Ridiculous Plan To Fine Internet Companies For Vaguely Defined 'Harmful Content'

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2019 @ 10:41am

    Of course the list of violations is vague...

    ...It's NOT censorship, an attack on free speech, protections for The Chiiiildren, or any other such.

    LOOK at it.

    Do just about anything on the internet and you're in violation.

    What happens to violators?

    THEY GIVE MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT.

    It's a TAX - cost of doing business. But to CALL it that won't fly, so it's to "Fight Terrorism!" - by giving the government money....

  • On the post: Colorado Net Neutrality Bill Heads To Governor's Desk For Signing

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2019 @ 03:39pm

    Re: Oh the poor babies...

    I'm waiting to see how Pai tries to sell it to the SCOTUS that States making such laws is illegal, and they should be struck down...

  • On the post: Former Intelligence Officials Sue The Government Over Its Unconstitutional Pre-Publication Review Process

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2019 @ 03:33pm

    Re: Less 'check and balance', more 'rubber stamp'

    No, the Judge HAD Clearances, and knew what was involved in disclosure. You work for the CIA. You retire and write a book. It's NOT vetted, and you end up like "Ishmael" in court. The Judges hasn't been read in on all your operations. The Jury most certainly hasn't. How can you PROVE that the entire book isn't disclosing Classified information to people who aren't allowed to KNOW if it is or not? Worse yet, you mention ME by name in the book. We WERE just having a drink at the end of the day. First off, I don't want to be stabbed with a sharp umbrella. Secondly, I don't want Agency personnel following me around, tapping my phones, and harassing everyone I know because you MAY have given me classified material at that bar, over that drink, which you just publicized to the entire world. There are VERY good reasons to disallow people with access to Classified materials from publishing books AT ALL. Since the Vetting is required, the people doing the vetting will see my name in your book, pull the files for whatever you were doing at the time, see that I wasn't involved other than as someone having a drink with you. And when your book is published, anyone reading it will know that as well. So you haven't endangered ME. Hell, just saying we had a drink in a bar in Karachi or the South Bronx in a given year will have people wondering WHY we were in either of those places.

  • On the post: Former Intelligence Officials Sue The Government Over Its Unconstitutional Pre-Publication Review Process

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2019 @ 03:25pm

    Re: USA v. "Ishmael Jones"

    JoeCools suggestion was even worse - send the manuscript to a publisher outside the US. IOW, saying "Pretty please may I be charged with Espionage and maybe even Treason?"

  • On the post: Former Intelligence Officials Sue The Government Over Its Unconstitutional Pre-Publication Review Process

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2019 @ 03:23pm

    Re: Re: I doubt this will go far...

    "no amount of reading of the contract could have revealed that the government was going to use the review process to undermine certain political opinions and promote others." Seriously? EVERYTHING a Government does is political, by definition. There's a pile of language in the paperwork for a Clearance regarding exposing through publishing without permission. Not vetting, explicit permission. I'm jaded about this kind of nonsense. My suspicion, based solely on the above article, is that they're simply bent out of shape that they couldn't release another "tell all" book about trump eating cheese burgers in bed or paying Russian hookers to urinate on him, or whatever claims they wanted to make that specifically could not be denied or confirmed BECAUSE they'd had Clearances. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people have signed those same contracts and documents without a court challenge when they retired.

  • On the post: Former Intelligence Officials Sue The Government Over Its Unconstitutional Pre-Publication Review Process

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2019 @ 01:45pm

    Re: Next step

    Easy way to end up in Federal Prison.

  • On the post: Former Intelligence Officials Sue The Government Over Its Unconstitutional Pre-Publication Review Process

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2019 @ 01:44pm

    Re: Re: I doubt this will go far...

    Their contract specifically requires vetting by the relevant agencies. Until a Classified item is De-Classified, nobody holding a Clearance can talk about it - even if it's on the front page of the Times. This suit isn't about ANY of that. It's about people trying to break the Contract they agreed to in order to get their (former) job. To make money from what they learned at that job.

  • On the post: Former Intelligence Officials Sue The Government Over Its Unconstitutional Pre-Publication Review Process

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2019 @ 01:01pm

    I doubt this will go far...

    Giving up the right to publish "memoirs", revealing classified materials, etc. are part of the job, it's one of the many things you agree to, under contract, when hired for ANY position requiring a Clearance. IIRC, it's also part of the National Security Act, the US version of Britain's Official Secrets Act.

    You won't get anyone working for the DIA or any intelligence agency to comment on the documents Snowden released, as they've never been officially de-classified. Any who do so stand to lose their jobs, pensions, and face possible fines and jail times as well.

    I'm sure blue and at least two of the brain challenged AC's will start screaming that the contract restrictions are illegal. Of course, they won't have any suggestions on how the government can keep secrets if contracts don't work, they'll yell the government shouldn't have any secrets.

    Maybe it's a generational thing. I honor my word, I READ contracts in full before I sign them, and I do NOT sign them if I disagree with any clause or feel that they're "illegal". If someone tells me something in confidence, I NEVER repeat it - to anyone.

    The people filing the suit are simply pissed that they missed making MORE money not being able to release when they wanted to.

    If you can't abide the terms of an Employment Contract, DON'T TAKE THE JOB.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Says It's OK For Cops To Steal Stuff From Citizens

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2019 @ 03:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Where did law come from?

    Same with Bible Study. Can't comprehend the text? Here, I'll "explain" it to you.... I've seen more idiocy over that "extra" comma in the Second Amendment, usually by people with either only a passing idea of what grammar is, or by being deliberately obtuse "understanding" what ablatives absolutes are.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Says It's OK For Cops To Steal Stuff From Citizens

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2019 @ 03:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a matter of standing.

    In NY, you'd report a theft by a local cop to the State Police, and one by them to the County Sheriff. And you can go higher if necessary, up to the State Attorney General. But to do that you need a lot of press on your side first.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Says It's OK For Cops To Steal Stuff From Citizens

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2019 @ 09:22am

    Re: Re: It's a matter of standing.

    You hit the crux in the last sentence - it made it all the way up to Appeals Court. That said, I suspect there's more to the story, and I'm not willing to dig into it deep enough to find it. What it sounds like happened is the equivalent of the police showing up at your home with a warrant for a firearm. They find the firearm, issue a receipt, and on the way out, the last officer steals your watch. He did not steal it from "the government, he stole it from you*. You don't have Standing to sue, because there's no record of complaint of the theft. It's a separate Action. Cops raid a casino, take $55k in illegal items and issue a receipt. They also take $125k in cash and another $125 in rare coins, without issuing a receipt. The cash and coins have no relation to the Warrant. It's direct theft. They should have been reported to the police as stolen, insurance claims filed (yeah, criminals get insurance policies too), and, with the testimony of which officers committed the theft(s), they should be brought to trial with no immunity at all - they committed the thefts on-duty, but since they didn't issue a receipt or turn the items over to Evidence, it's outright theft under color of law. No immunity attaches. Something else had to have occurred for this to make it to an Appeals court. Or they never reported the theft (probably as Robbery, since the cops are armed...) and went straight to Civil claims. But I can't see even a paralegal screwing up to that extent, or a Judge not mentioning that it was a discrete Criminal matter, not Civil.

  • On the post: Just $6,790 Of $208 Million In Robocall Fines Have Been Collected By The FCC

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2019 @ 12:09pm

    Re: Need to block the calls at their source

    Hmm... I can see some possibilities for cell phones. Two "default" ringtones, one for calls previously OK'd, the other for numbers not in the "phonebook" on the device. Several choices after ending a call not in the book. BLOCK future calls (including from voice mail)
    ADD TO APPROVED phone book
    No Action Also a Whitelist option for the phone.

  • On the post: Copyright Enforcement Service Claims $600 Billion-Worth Of Images Are 'Stolen' Every Day

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 05 Apr, 2019 @ 10:26am

    You're just not...

    ...doing the math right.

    Each view is a theft.

    Average person blinks 1,000 times a minute, so that's 1,000 views per minute stolen.

    Except... Most people have TWO eyes, so the number of views is doubled.

    By their numbers, that's 640,000 Euros per minute per person viewing any given image....

  • On the post: DOJ Warns Academy That Being An Anti-Streaming Luddite Could Violate Antitrust

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2019 @ 11:08am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Which of those items are Antitrust cases?

  • On the post: Federal Court Says Teen's 'Fuck Cheer' Is Protected Speech

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2019 @ 09:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Film at 11...

    How can you not see the difference between following a rules list for a team (or behavior in a classroom, for that matter) and a subjugation of a person's Constitutional Rights? If you agree to do (or not do) something, and then do the opposite, who is in the wrong?

  • On the post: Federal Court Says Teen's 'Fuck Cheer' Is Protected Speech

    Roy Wilson ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2019 @ 09:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Film at 11...

    She broke the rules she agreed to in order to be part of that team. If part of your hiring contract says you'll be fired if you call the boss "Flibbertigibbet" publicly, do you have 1st Amendment grounds to stand on if you're fired for doing so?

Next >>