btr1701’s Techdirt Profile

btr1701

About btr1701




btr1701’s Comments comment rss

  • May 18th, 2015 @ 1:30pm

    Re: Re:

    > I hope that abstinence is just their public
    > position and they're not actually denying
    > themselves access to digital communications tools.

    They're not abstaining. They're just saying they will keep their current phones (which are not subject to this nonsense) and delay getting a new one until they turn 19.

  • May 18th, 2015 @ 1:28pm

    Concerns

    > Some terms it monitors (both in text
    > messages and searches) would obviously raise
    > concerns in parents

    Why would the words "handicap" and "menstruation" obviously raise concerns in parents? And what kid is going to actually use the word "menstruation", anyway? They'll use "period" or "rag" or whatever the South Korean slang for it is.

    And it seems like the best way to get around this (especially the "nagware" part of the law) is to just not tell the retailer you're buying the phone for your kid. Just say it's for yourself or your spouse or something, and then give it to your kid when you get home.

  • May 14th, 2015 @ 10:47am

    Unconstitutional

    This is so obviously unconstitutional, if I lived in Wyoming, I'd go out and purposely violate the law just so they could try and prosecute me and have it overturned by the court.

  • Apr 24th, 2015 @ 10:16am

    Re: Panic room

    > Logically it sounds like I need to start
    > thinking of installing a panic room as the
    > only legal way to protect myself from this

    It's amazing how many millions of people manage to go their whole lives never having the cops execute a raid/search warrant on their home. Unless you're actually a dealer of illicit narcotics, you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being raided by the cops, yet you believe the only *logical* way to keep it from happening to you is to install a panic room in your home?

    It's apparent that you and logic aren't even passing acquaintances.

  • Apr 24th, 2015 @ 10:12am

    Good Faith

    > The "good faith exception" triumphs again.

    No, actually it didn't, Tim. What triumphed was the part that you *didn't* highlight:

    "the police did not act in bad faith,
    and THE DEFENDANT MAKES NO SUCH CLAIM."

    A court can't grant relief that's not requested. The "good faith" exception might not have triumphed if it had actually been, you know, challenged by the defense.

  • Apr 2nd, 2015 @ 2:41pm

    Re: There's merit to the notion.

    That isn't what Christenson said. He said: "for the SUSPECT's words to be admissible in court, it has to be on camera. Otherwise, its presumed to be perjury."

    So he's not talking about charging the cop with perjury for off-camera statements. He's advocating charging the *defendant* with perjury for repeating anything in court that wasn't captured on camera at the time of the arrest.

  • Apr 2nd, 2015 @ 7:55am

    Re: sounds weird

    > if you cannot do your job right while recording, what you
    > really mean is you just cannot do your job at all.

    That's not true. As I mentioned above regarding the use of informants, the use of an always-on camera makes it impossible to do that (very important) part of the job at all.

  • Apr 2nd, 2015 @ 7:53am

    Re: Presumption of Violence

    > Oh, and if it is a suspect, for the suspects words to be
    > admissible in court, it has to be on camera. Otherwise, its
    > presumed to be perjury.

    That makes no damn sense. You're advocating charging someone with perjury because the cop didn't capture their statements on his camera when they made them?

    So under your system, a cop rolls up on me and arrests me for drug possession. I say I didn't do it but the cop hasn't turned on his camera. When we get to court, I testify that I claimed I didn't do it at the scene but since my words weren't caught on the cop's camera, now I get charged with perjury also?

    Every time I read the comments here at TechDirt, I'm continually grateful that these people aren't actually running anything of consequence in society.

  • Apr 2nd, 2015 @ 7:47am

    Re: Re: Privacy

    Yes, they do, for the reasons stated above-- just because your face is blurred doesn't mean you can't be identified.

  • Apr 1st, 2015 @ 4:33pm

    Re: Re: What magic is this

    > If the city thought you were holding out on
    > them, they would come to your house and inventory.

    Not without a warrant they wouldn't.

  • Apr 1st, 2015 @ 4:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: What magic is this

    > The issue is, most states won't let you
    > have a car registered out of state for very
    > long, if you stay there for x amount of time,
    > where x varies by state but is often only a
    > couple of months.

    California is absurd-- it's two weeks. They apparently expect you to be at the DMV** registering your car and changing your license before you're even done unpacking your moving boxes.

    **And now that we're giving drivers licenses to illegals, the lines at the DMV can literally last up to 12-14 hours long.

  • Apr 1st, 2015 @ 4:28pm

    Re:

    Sounds like people who owe vehicle taxes in Hampton Roads need to make sure they park their car inside their garage or some other private lot whenever possible.

  • Apr 1st, 2015 @ 4:26pm

    Re:

    > They can't wait up to one year to get their
    > money and back interest -- when the taxpayer
    > comes in to get their tags renewed they need to
    > use "valuable" LEO time

    I suspect these taxes are city/county property taxes, not state DMV registration fees, and as such won't show up in the state computers when the person renews their tags.

    When I lived in Virginia, not only did I have to pay my state DMV registration fee, but my county assessed a vehicle property tax on top of it. You had to go into the county office and pay for a special window sticker that proved you'd paid your yearly county vehicle tax.

    I drew the line when my city decided it didn't have enough money to spend and added a *third* vehicle tax on top of the other two. Since I was only going to be living in Virginia for two more years, I just ignored it and figured I'd deal with the consequences if they happened to nail me during that time. I knew the odds were slim that they would (and they never did) because I lived in a high-rise with a secure garage and my car spent 90% of its time off city streets and away from the eyes of the enforcers.

  • Apr 1st, 2015 @ 3:09pm

    Privacy

    > A small amount of redaction (face-blurring, etc.)
    > would address the privacy concerns.

    No, it wouldn't. People's voices would still be on the recording. That combined with the content of what is actually said, and with a readily identifiable location in the background (street intersection, landmark, etc.) all would be more than enough to identify the person in the recording.

    Additionally, working informants is a key aspect of policing and way that a significant number of crimes are solved. If the cops can't turn off the cameras, no informant with half a brain will ever talk to a cop again knowing he's being recorded.

    > After all, reality TV pioneer COPS has run for years
    > with minimal privacy complaints and that's all it's
    > ever used.

    That's because COPS requires people sign waivers to appear on camera. Even the face-blurred people sign a waiver. You can choose to let them air the footage with the blur or without, but either way, you have to sign a release or they don't use the footage at all.

  • Mar 7th, 2015 @ 8:02am

    Re: Methinks...

    And the threat of a lawsuit is pretty dangerous if Cuthbert really did have an affair with the other player. If the station or the original tweeter call their bluff and say, "So go ahead and sue us", the players and the actress will open themselves up to discovery and have lawyers picking through their private lives with a microscope. If she really did cheat, not only will all that be made public, it will invalidate their defamation claim, since truthful information cannot be legally defamatory.

  • Mar 7th, 2015 @ 7:58am

    Re:

    > A network must be held responsible for any slanderous
    > information it chooses to broadcast.

    Depends on if it's actually defamatory. If she really did bang the other player, then it's true and by definition not defamation.

  • Mar 5th, 2015 @ 11:45am

    Right...

    > This would give the Grady "Showboat" Judds
    > of Florida law enforcement all the reason
    > they need to send ad hoc anti-piracy task
    > forces all over the US to shut down infringing
    > sites.

    If I was running a server in Idaho and some Florida cop showed up and attempted to shut me down, I'd laugh my ass off, tell him to go pound sand, and have *him* arrested for trespass and harassment if he refused to leave.

  • Mar 5th, 2015 @ 11:43am

    Jurisdiction

    > And it would potentially force any number
    > of site owners worldwide to give up their
    > anonymity. The bill isn't limited to sites/site
    > owners residing in Florida. All it says is
    > "electronic dissemination… to consumers in
    > this state." If a website can be accessed from
    > Florida, it conceivably falls under the jurisdiction
    > of this proposed law.

    No, it wouldn't. If I'm living in California, or Japan, or Italy, I don't subject myself to Florida's jurisdiction merely by putting a website up on the internet.

    That's ridiculous. Florida doesn't have jurisdiction throughout the known universe, no matter what idiotic laws it may pass or what they say.

  • Feb 14th, 2015 @ 9:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Tim Cushing, closet racist?

    > Granted someone always finds a way around because
    > the Internet is so dynamic but eventually when the person
    > is caught they are severely dealt with at my base.

    For gawd's sake, the easiest way around it is to just take out your frakking personal iPhone or iPad and watch all the porn you can stomach on it with absolutely zero oversight or chance of being caught-- from an IT perspective, that is. You could always be physically caught if someone walks in on you while you're watching it.

    My agency's computers are so locked down that approximately 50% of the links on the Drudge Report are blocked on any given day, and those are all mainstream news sites. For some reason, we've blocked the entire country of Australia. If the URL ends in .au, it's blocked. So what do I do? I use my iPhone for most of my daily internetting, especially when I get a hankering for some kinky kangaroo porn.

  • Feb 14th, 2015 @ 9:11pm

    Re: Re: Do the guards also have this same restriction

    They're not above the law in this case. These laws simply don't apply to them because they're not convicted criminals in prison.

More comments from btr1701 >>