Cdaragorn’s Techdirt Profile


About Cdaragorn

Cdaragorn’s Comments comment rss

  • Jan 17th, 2019 @ 10:36am

    Re: Amendments

    Proposing a change to the law that disrespects the values upheld by the law you wish to change is absolutely disrespect for that law. The fact that you're following the legal process for changing the law doesn't remove the disrespect for the law from your actions.

  • Dec 28th, 2018 @ 11:54am


    "Compelling state interests" have nothing to do with the rights defined in the constitution. They have to do with the general law-making process. If a law violates a constitutional right, no "compelling state interest" is ever high enough to justify that law.

    Even your attempt to give examples falls flat when you actually walk through them. The DUI example is dead the minute you recognize that an officer must have observed you driving in a manner that leaves reason to suspect you may be drunk. This gives the officer probable cause which allows them to move past some of your rights. This is you giving up your rights, not the state being given freedom to take them from you.

    Your second example doesn't even deal with any constitutional right and is therefore not worth discussing.

  • Dec 20th, 2018 @ 7:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're trying to apply moral wrongs as if they were legal wrongs.

    Of course you wouldn't want someone filming your daughters. Too bad there's nothing you could legally do to make them stop. The cops aren't special because what you're implying with this example is untrue.

  • Dec 20th, 2018 @ 7:47am

    Re: Re:

    It's long established fact that watching private property from somewhere you're legally allowed to be is never a violation of the 4th and is within your legal right to do.

    Intruding upon someone's privacy is not the same thing as someone opening their private areas up for full display to the public. The only possible issue for the government is that it's not allowed to keep those images for very long unless except for any it has probably cause to connect to some actual crime.

  • Dec 6th, 2018 @ 6:17am

    Re: It's called "stealing"

    All you've done here is demonstrate the fundamental flaw in the reasoning behind those who want to find a scandal in all of this.

    Sure, Facebook doesn't "own" that information. Neither does the person those facts are about, though. No one "owns" it. It's just a series of facts about a person. You don't get to own the factual information about when you were born or what you like and don't like or who your friends are. Those are facts, not IP.

    What Facebook does have is access to those facts because that person chose to share them with it. Other companies don't have that and would like to. Facebook has every right to choose to share access to any information they've gathered under a monetary agreement as long as it's following privacy laws.

  • Nov 29th, 2018 @ 7:37am

    (untitled comment)

    "The Government has zero tolerance for"

    The instant anyone says "zero tolerance" I'm convinced that they've tossed any concept of justice out the window in favor of their own personal biases on whatever subject they're talking about. It's always used as an attempt to sound "hard" on some "bad" subject but only demonstrates complete lack of care for the nuances that always exist.

  • Nov 17th, 2018 @ 11:08am

    Re: enforced secrecy, individual verifiability, global verifiability

    You are treating them as if they are binary concepts. We can only either have them completely or not have them at all. The problem is far from that simple.

    Yes it would be best if we could have them completely. Unfortunately we've never found a way to do that. Thankfully the paper system we have in place now does have them to a decently strong degree. While it does have it's problems it largely does accomplish what we need it to well enough that what corruption does exist around it is not able to completely change the end results.

    We should certainly keep trying to find better ways, but the point of this article seemed to be that this proposal is completely incapable of even meeting the current standards, much less making them better.

  • Nov 14th, 2018 @ 12:33pm

    Re: Re: put an end to gun violence in New York once and for all

    There is literally no way you can possibly prove that statement. You're assuming that because tougher gun laws were made during that period they therefore must have had some part in the result. That kind of assumption only leads to bad laws seated firmly in the certainty that you've proven something you haven't even begun to explore.

  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 2:09pm

    Re: Re: SCOTUS and appeals courts say it isn't so.

    You scream morality but fail to explain how your position is somehow moral.
    Only allowing governments ownership of anything is immoral to me. Refusing to let anyone have something because they MIGHT do something bad with it is equally immoral to me. That's a stupid reason to restrict freedom.
    And where exactly is your "obvious harm" evidence from? Gun ownership literally represents a tiny blip in cause of deaths compared to so many other things. The fact that you don't like guns doesn't make them harmful to own.

  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 2:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Wow, a twofer!

    Historical records suggest no such thing. Plenty of records by key founders make it very clear their intent was that each individual be free to own guns equal to that of the government specifically so they could act on their own against criminal force or in a worst case against government overreach. The construction of the sentence is very clear and follows that intent perfectly.

  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 2:01pm

    Re: Re: isn't allowed in Brazil and it is quite violent over there

    Says the guy who just picked and chose his evidence to back up his particular faith/ideology.

    Also, your assertion is ridiculously false. Just because they hide it from you doesn't mean it's not there.

  • Nov 6th, 2018 @ 7:38am

    (untitled comment)

    Exactly what was the point in bringing up the religious affiliation of the individuals here? It added nothing to your otherwise excellent points and only seemed like an attempt to discredit something you've personally chosen to dislike without any basis in fact.
    Especially considering a basic study of said religious organization would reveal that said actions clearly go against the basic teachings of that organization.
    Every group has individuals who pretend to follow the groups principles while ignoring them everywhere they go. Pretending that has anything to do with the group is petty and disappointing to see coming from an otherwise decent article. Please refrain from it in the future.

  • Nov 6th, 2018 @ 7:33am

    Re: Re:

    The mutual membership is meaningless. They are also likely both purveyors of similar places like Walmart. That doesn't have anything to do with what they chose to do.

    This can only be a jab at a religion the author has chosen to dislike. It's a pointless and baseless one especially when you actually take a minute to understand the religion in question and realize that these actions go against the most basic teachings of said religion.

  • Nov 5th, 2018 @ 8:36am

    Re: Re: If I pay for 4 concurrent streams...

    Which service provider are you talking about?

    None of what you're claiming is true for Netflix, at least. My family has shared an account and paid for the extra streams to do it and never had even a hint of a whisper from Netflix that we were doing anything wrong. And yes this was across multiple time zones.

  • Oct 31st, 2018 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Why Google?

    The answer to that is pretty easy: Google has the GPS data from all Android phones that were in that area during that time.
    GPS is FAR more accurate then cell tower guessing.

  • Oct 23rd, 2018 @ 10:19am


    It's a classic tactic used to lie with statistics. Anytime a graph does not clearly have 0 marked on it alarms should be going off in your head.

  • Oct 23rd, 2018 @ 9:14am

    Re: The Criminal Justice System

    Failing to convict when the crime cannot be proven is not failing to serve justice, even when the crime actually did happen. It is in fact justice served exactly as it should be.

    Yes it is sad that it is so hard to prove sexually related crimes, but that doesn't make it ok to ignore proper due process on the excuse that it's hard. Nor does it mean the system is doing anything wrong with regard to those crimes.

  • Oct 5th, 2018 @ 8:02am

    Re: Scientologists apparently need to move to Spain

    Hint: all sorts of writings talk about Jesus being born of a virgin long before he was actually born. Trying to figure out who originally came up with the idea is an exercise in futility and pointlessness.
    When crying about "facts", let's keep to facts we can actually prove. It really doesn't help our position to pretend our opinions fit into that category.

  • Sep 6th, 2018 @ 9:36pm


    While you can certainly do anything on a website that you can accomplish in an app, the ultimate reason so many companies go with an app instead is simply because an application on your phone is far superior to trying to do the same thing in a browser.
    The app gives far more control over things like presentation, data usage, and performance. With an app you also don't have to worry about supporting 12 different browsers and trying to force them to present your application the way you want them to.
    The web browser is a very powerful tool for simply presenting information over the internet, but at the end of the day an application running natively is far better for many other purposes.

  • Aug 13th, 2018 @ 12:59pm

    (untitled comment)

    Nintendo is not on nearly as solid a legal ground as is being pretended here.

    Most of the sites I've looked at have clear language saying you are only allowed to download ROM's for games you actually own, which puts the usage of the site well within the realm of fair use.

    But of course Nintendo doesn't have to care about fair use when issuing legal threats thanks to the courts refusing to punish anyone for doing that without having at least considered fair use first.

    Bring on the digital apocalypse.

More comments from Cdaragorn >>