Eldakka’s Techdirt Profile

eldakka

About EldakkaTechdirt Insider




Eldakka’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 26th, 2017 @ 8:05pm

    Re: Thanks

    I agree.

    All gag orders should be required to specify a reasonable end-date. If the "raison d’etre" still exists as that end-date approaches, the onus should be on the government to formally extend that end-date, by filling out the appropriate paperwork, as they are the only ones who know whether they still need it or not.

  • Apr 26th, 2017 @ 7:23pm

    Re: Re:

    The prosecutors will personally be immune from lawsuits.

    But the state will probably not be immune from civil suits seeking monetary compensation for false convictions.

    There are many cases of compensation for people who have been wrongly convicted.

  • Apr 25th, 2017 @ 8:15pm

    (untitled comment)

    Considering the nearly 500 federal government positions that have no nominees yet, who actually thinks that Trump will quickly get around to nominating a new Copyright Register, let alone having that person confirmed by the Senate?

    I'm pretty sure the priority and speed of specific nominations is directly proportional to the size of the campaign contributions.

  • Apr 25th, 2017 @ 8:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Cartoon mouse....and copyright trolls/RIAA!

    if courts were to first require registered copyrights.

    IANAL.

    I'm pretty sure that decision is not within the purview of the courts.

    To sue for copyright infringement, under legislation (i.e. not something within the courts common law or rules of procedure jurisdictions) all you need is a valid copyright, and that does not require registration. I suspect it would be a breach of the Berne convention to require registration to have a valid copyright.

    As far as I understand it, all registration does over and above having a non-registered copyright, under legislation, is allow you to sue for statutory damages, the "up to $150k per infringement" often quoted, from the date of registration.

    Without registration, you can still sue to stop the infringing behavior and for actual damages only. The downside of actual damages is that the plaintiff has to give a $ number that they can back up in court with evidence of the actual damages, actual lost revenue, documentation, accounts, expert witnesses and so on. As opposed to statutory damages which don't require any evidence of actual damages, they can pull a number out of their ass up to the $150k per infringement limit and let the judge decide the final number without any evidence beyond the fact that infringement took place.

  • Apr 25th, 2017 @ 5:34am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I think you have that backwards.

    The Liars are buying congress.

  • Apr 10th, 2017 @ 7:56pm

    Re: Re: Trump explicitly stated that

    Jeeez -- this was a casual Tweet from Trump, not a formal National Security Position Paper.

    When you are standing as a candidate for any high office in government (president, VP, congressman), but especially for president, there is no such thing as a casual anything in public.

    Everything you say or do in public is significant, has consequences, and is analysed for meaning.

  • Apr 10th, 2017 @ 7:44pm

    Re:

    The best way of avoiding a close shave with the Brazilian intelligence agency is to not have a close shave.

  • Apr 10th, 2017 @ 5:44pm

    Re:

    Already happened (sorta): Wi-Fi sex toy with built-in camera fails penetration test

    So, since the vibrator contains a WiFi access point, the TV could connect to it, and stream pictures from the vibrator. So you could be using the vibrator, and have it streaming the video from its built-in camera onto the TV.

    So since the TV and the vibrator are both hackable, you could control the vibrator from the TV with the right hacked firmware, and vice-versa.

    Brings a twist (and thrust) to invasion of privacy!

  • Apr 10th, 2017 @ 5:26pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    And if the TV is connected to your LAN (for say streaming from other devices) it would also have to be on a separate VLAN (or entirely physically separate, but that'd make it hard to stream from other devices like a computer!), and the entire VLAN would have to be blocked from internet access.

    Because if you just use a plain old source IP block, the TV's IP, this attack could, in addition to activating any WiFi on the TV, change its IP address so an IP address block wouldn't work.

  • Apr 10th, 2017 @ 5:15pm

    Re:

    Except that it's active broadcast only, unlike a IMSI catcher which can both send/broadcast and receive.

  • Apr 7th, 2017 @ 8:44pm

    Re: Re: This bill is on the wrong track

    Absolutely.

    Which is why I suggested at the end that it'd be better if it was itself an amendment to the constitution.

    Of course it'll never happen.

  • Apr 7th, 2017 @ 3:38am

    This bill is on the wrong track

    what they should be proposing is a bill that states something along the lines of:

    1) The US constitution, including, but not limited to, all clauses, articles and amendments, apply in full force to:
    i) Any place that is part of US Territory;
    ii) Any place that is administered as part of US Territory;
    iii) Any place that is under the control of US civil or military personnel
    iv) Any place US civil or Military personnel claim or exercise jurisdiction, or appear to claim or exercise jurisdiction, in full or in part.
    v) Any personnel acting in the capacity of or under the authority of US civil or military authority or direction.

    2) There is no border exception to the constitution.

    3) there is no place that US civil or military personnel can exercise authority or jurisdiction in any civil or military matter that is not subject to the full constitution, including, but not limited to, all clauses, articles and amendments.

    4) SCOTUS has full legal jurisdiction in any and all cases covered in this act, whether preceding, including or following this clause, and can make binding rulings on any such situation that apply to all US citizens, including, but not limited to, the US congress, executive, military and POTUS and to all locations covered in clause 1.

    5) SCOTUS is the sole arbitor of whether any clauses in this act, whether preceding, including or following this clause, apply.

    6) POTUS must not:
    i) make any Executive Order; or
    ii) issue an order as the Supreme Commander of US military forces; or
    iii)make any other direction;
    that is not compliant with any clause in this act, whether preceding, including or following this clause.

    6) The Congress of the US can make no law abridging any clause in this act, whether preceding, including or following this clause.


    Even better, Something like the above should be added as an amendment to the constitution.

  • Apr 3rd, 2017 @ 8:55pm

    Re:

    I don't know, a remote explode sounds like a good security measure.

  • Apr 3rd, 2017 @ 8:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: convenience feature and not a security feature

    Ok, that's done it. My head's exploded.

    That level of security is a bit excessive don't you think?

  • Mar 28th, 2017 @ 5:16pm

    knowingly

    Yes, merely posting or sharing something that turns out to be wrong or "deceptive" related to anyone or any issue related to an election could violate the law.

    IANAL, but I don't think that is correct.

    It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet Web site, a false or deceptive statement...

    I read it as only applying if the poster/sharer/circulator knows it is false or deceptive.

    If, for example, the NYT publishes a story, say "Trump caught in oval office, pants down, bent over desk with National Security Advisor's tongue in his ass", and you share it because it came from the NYT, and you have a good faith belief that the NYT is a reputable news source, and it later turns out to be false, then you wouldn't have knowingly shared a false story.

    Of course, it's still a bad law.

  • Mar 23rd, 2017 @ 11:47pm

    Re:

    It was probably a sex robot and 'did' the SWAT team on the way back to base.

    Well, that would have certainly been more useful than anything else a robot could do in the situation described.

  • Mar 22nd, 2017 @ 6:45pm

    (untitled comment)

    Swiss Government Blows Off Turkish President

    I was reeling in horror and was unable to continue with the rest of the headline for several minutes after reading that much.

  • Mar 22nd, 2017 @ 5:36pm

    (untitled comment)

    The long-term GDP increase for the EU is estimated to +0.76% and +0.29% for Japan under a symmetrical scenario.

    It's important to emphasize that this is "long-term": what this means is that the GDP could be higher by the percentages quoted after ten or more years. The average extra GDP growth per year is therefore an even smaller 0.08% and 0.03% for the EU and Japan respectively. That is, like TTIP and TPP, the predicted benefits that will accrue from JEFTA are likely to be very small, while the risks and possible losses in terms of ISDS fines, say, have been ignored completely.

    With respect to the benefits, they might be small on a total % basis, but in absolute terms a tiny % of a really big number is still a big number.

    Based on Wikipedia's EU nominal GDP numbers for 2016, $16.518trillion, a 0.76% increase is still ~$125billion.

    And for Japan, it's 0.29% of a more modest $4.41trillion, ~$12billion.

    Therefore if, for example, the EU manages to enter into 5 such treaties a decade, each only doing similar sub-1% increases, that could still be heading towards a cumulative trillion dollar extra per year.

    Not small absolute numbers by any means.

  • Mar 20th, 2017 @ 7:32pm

    Re: Re: They'll have broadband but no home to put it in

    Honest question, what's links about the Seattle real-estate market have to do with San Francisco?

  • Mar 20th, 2017 @ 5:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Learning to Love Copyright

    Fake commenting would be to come on here and claim to have evidence that the President of the United States had illegally ordered electronic surveillance his potential successor, when, in fact, that evidence doesn't exist.

    Of course the evidence doesn't exist of illegal spying. That's because I'm sure the President got some legal adviser to provide written, classified, legal advice that it is entirely within the President's power to spy on anyone, anywhere, anytime, thus making it legal spying.

    (And just in case it's not obvious, this is an ironic reference to the John Yoo torture memo)

More comments from Eldakka >>