Whatever’s Techdirt Profile


About Whatever

Whatever’s Comments comment rss

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 9:45am


    "NYPD Using 'Nuisance Abatement' Law To Convince Citizens To Lose Last Remaining Shred of Respect for The Law, Give No More Fucks Whatsoever About Continued Life or Safety Of Even One Single Cop"

    Most of the people involved stop giving fucks years ago. This isn't like some nice upstanding neighborhood with super low crime rates and sweet children who go to school, mow lawns for extra cash, and spend time with their family every evening playing board games.

    This is a city with high crime rates, insane levels of drug activity, gang activity, underage drinking, and just endless amounts of criminal activities.

    Is this the right answer> Nope. But the reasons they are doing it are real and the solutions hard to come by, unless you want to put a police officer in every licensed business in New York City.

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 9:37am

    Re: The "Chilling Effect..."

    The issue however is that there are plenty of other possible explanations.

    First and foremost, what was and what was not happened before and after those dates. Not Snowden, but other issues, such as terrorist activities. Was one month more active than others?

    It's also very possible to draw the conclusion that is the Snowden leaks were the cause, then perhaps some of the drop is people who feel they might have been outed being more careful. With all of the pages, all of the names, all of the people involved, it's quite likely that Snowden's leaks may have run them to ground for a while.

    A true chilling effect would have been perhaps 50% drop off. 5% seems more like certain people being more cautious because they don't want to draw any more attention to themselves at that key moment.

  • May 1st, 2016 @ 8:46pm

    Re: Re:

    Yet nobody forces you to use them. Cut the cord!

  • Apr 30th, 2016 @ 7:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Not really.

    "clearly auguring the same rule for any compelled disclosure of the
    sequence of characters constituting an encryption passcode. See United States v.
    Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 43 (2000); Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 210 n.9
    (1988); see also id. at 219 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."

    That isn't FACT, that is a lawyer's plea to the judge.

    That a door or a safe could be forced open in a reasonable time (minutes) means that forcing the issue is not the best (or perhaps only) solution.

    The argument against forced decryption is very weak. Without a method to compel disclosure in a case where there is enough evidence to suggest a hard drive or device may contain evidence of the crime creates too broad a protection for the accused. It would allow everyone to use single character passwords for zip files (as an example) and suddenly make them magically exempt from the law.

    As we move to using digital devices more and more in every day life, and more and more communication is done vie text message, email, social media, giving a pass to anything encrypted in any manner is just steps towards creating a Utopia for criminals, who will encrypt their conversations, encrypt the hard drives that save the data of those discussions, and thus never have to be concerned that any of their discussions or chats will be used against them.

    You have to consider the implications before just giving it a pass. SCOTUS gave a pass for things that could be easily worked around, but encryption is not so easily dealt with. Our ability to encode is higher than out ability to decode.

  • Apr 30th, 2016 @ 7:08am

    (untitled comment)

    I think that something that has to be considered is what a cable box does for a given system. It is the locking door, the point that controls access and measures use (such as PPV). It's the locking door to the system.

    What the FCC wants to do is take control of that lock, and allow someone else to install whatever they want on their door, hoping that it in fact locks properly and reports access.

    Can you imagine the government mandating that the locks on every business in America be installed by the customers, and they can hold they key?

    It may force some cable companies to have to change the way their systems operate, changing the cable box from a trusted gatekeeper device into untrusted user equipment.

  • Apr 29th, 2016 @ 6:59pm

    (untitled comment)

    Considering Techdirt essentially ignored Prince (except to call out his copyright concerns), it's funny to see you climb on the "get traffic" bandwagon writing about him today.

    I guess artists only matter when they die and can score you some Google search traffic.

    How sad.

  • Apr 29th, 2016 @ 7:31am

    Re: Re: Read the 5th, and get back to me...

    "Being able to provide the password is itself evidence though, and can both be used against the accused and used to link the contents of the device/account to them."

    No different from provide a key for a locked room, storage unit, or safety deposit box, or providing the combination to a safe.

    None of those would a 5th amendment violation. Why would this be? Is there some sort of digital magic here?

  • Apr 29th, 2016 @ 7:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Again, you assume (a) I download, and (b) you would magically get something into my house, and (c) the police would have reason and probably cause to be investigating me.

    Sorry, you are just reaching way to far to try to make a point, and failing.

  • Apr 29th, 2016 @ 7:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "When you finally learn the value of your constitution "

    It's not my constitution, thanks.

    Aside from a good rant, you didn't really address the point: how does a "locked" hard drive differ (in legal terms) from a locked box or a locked safe?

  • Apr 28th, 2016 @ 10:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "You make it sound like they have that evidence against this former Philadelphia Police Department sergeant, which is not what I'm reading."

    First off, remember that you are talking probable cause for a warrant and not "beyond a reasonable doubt" required for conviction. The bar is quite low, and that could include what would be considered hearsay or evidence that might not by itself be enough to justify a conviction.

    In any case like this, you have to go back to understand how the end up at this guys door rather than somewhere else. There are any number of items that could lead to this, any or all of those points together can reach the level of probable cause. It's not enough for an arrest, but it is enough to execute a search warrant.

    The guy isn't in jail for child porn. He's in jail for failure to follow valid warrant, essentially contempt of court. His fifth amendment rights here are not more at issue than for someone who fails to provide the combination to a very, very, very strong wall safe. The existence of the hard drivers, combined with the other evidence that lead to the warrant means that there is probable cause to search those hard drives. Nobody can deny that the drives exist, and his insistence that he has magically forgotten the key seems to suggest more of an obstructionist move than a memory lapse.

    It's easy to scream "fifth amendment" and try to grant computer equipment some special status not attributed to local file cabinets, safes, storage lockers, or safety deposit boxes. The reality is that except for the complexity of the key system, they are all in fact the same.

  • Apr 28th, 2016 @ 9:47pm

    Re: Re: Gotta Disagree Here

    "Again, all ISPs / Cellular carriers should be mandated, by law, to have sufficient infrastructure and bandwidth to provide for 125% of their customers paid for bandwidth being utilized 24 hours a day, 365.25 days a year."

    Same old problem - you confuse connection speed (the peak speed at which data can move) with amount of data you can move. Your LTE connection speed is upwards to 50 meg per second, but there is nowhere near enough bandwidth / airtime for every wireless device to run at full speed 24/7.

    The business models don't work if they have to have 100% all the time paid for. Your home internet connection would much more expensive if they have to do that, and you guys are already complaining about those costs!

  • Apr 28th, 2016 @ 5:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "And in that case, I can arrange a drive in your possession to which you have no password, and I can arrange that it allegedly has child porn and state secrets, and that you know the password and just ain't talkin'. And I can do that to any no-name shlub I want."

    Yup, and can you make me hang around CP sites and download stuff too? Come on. Are you going to show me buying the drive, having it in my possession, and using it?

    Don't be silly.

  • Apr 28th, 2016 @ 4:22pm

    Re: Re:

    It's all fine and nice, but entirely misses the point.

    One of the tricks played in the story is to move the bar for the standard of a warrant. Tim tries to make it "beyond a reasonable doubt" as he tries to portray the police testimony as weak, yet the real standard is probable cause. In this case, if you replaced "computer hard drives" with "locked box under bed" nobody here would even have the discussion, they would want the evidence seized and accessed, and the perv tossed in jail.

    In simple terms, there is more than enough probable cause here to get a warrant, and failure to comply with that warrant puts the guy in contempt of court. Contempt of court is a very open ended thing, and yes you can remain locked up until you comply or until the warrant is otherwise satisfied.

    "Handing over a password or decrypting a device is not 'allowing an investigation', it's handing over potentially self-incriminating evidence("

    It would be no different from producing the combination to a safe or the key to access a lockbox that contains incriminating evidence. If you consider the hard drives to be no different from a locked box, you can understand how this guy ends up locked up for refusing the courts valid order - and that order is entirely just.

  • Apr 28th, 2016 @ 10:49am

    (untitled comment)

    "throws a fit"

    Really? Apparently you have never had children, otherwise you would know what the phrase means. This is barely a solid foot stomp.

  • Apr 28th, 2016 @ 10:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So!

    I agree, in court cases video evidence can often lead to a pretty swift conclusion. However, the police here are talking about the volume of requests for video, and the costs related to that. It doesn't seem that all of those requests are to directly show the video in court.

    Can you imagine if every traffic stop (which depending on location might have two cars, 4 cops) leads to 4 videos being requested? The amount of money to pull this off would be insane.

  • Apr 27th, 2016 @ 8:01pm

    Re: Re: Sponsored by Golden Frog? What a disgrace.

    It only takes a few seconds to start turning up stuff on Golden Frog dmca and other things...

    https://www.reddit.com/r/torrents/comments/17g53i/if_you_thought_you_were_safe_using_golden _frog/


    http s://www.goldenfrog.com/copyright

    Read them carefully. It means that Golden Frog can and does track your activity and connections, and can associate a DMCA notice (and as a result any other legal action) to you and your account.

    The point of a VPN is to be encrypted and to by anonymous. Golden Frog appears to fail on at least one of those areas. So Techdirt taking ads (these are ads, nothing more and nothing less) from a company that doesn't seem to meet up to the Techdirt ideals is pretty funny.

    Mike Masnick, would you care to comment on this? What is your personal feeling about Golden Frog, and why are they the only company paying for this special spamvertising activity?

  • Apr 27th, 2016 @ 6:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missed it

    "I can also find them facing millions of dollars in lawsuits as a result of the people they abuse and even kill, which is the reason for the cameras in the first place. Guess which situation I think is better? Hint: the one where they may be dissuaded from killing people."

    Hi idiot. Nice to see you have no grip on the real world.

    The sad reality is that payouts on lawsuits are handled very differently from annual police budgets. That means that while you or I can stand way back over here and see perhaps a better solution, reality is quite different.

    Also, you can go back and read a book called "Unsafe At Any Speed". The basic concept is that it's cheaper to pay off the occasional lawsuit than it is to fix problems, and that only changes when there is enough pressure to make it happen. It's sad but it's likely still bottom line better for a police force to pay out a lawsuit every couple of years than it is to deal with all of the hassles created by the combination of body cameras and FOI requests.

    "Spain's a tax haven?"

    if you stayed in the UK, you would have paid more than that. There is also the question of where your income is counted, assuming you have any. 40% of NTFM is not too much, is it?

  • Apr 27th, 2016 @ 5:56pm

    (untitled comment)

    In another story, congress critters promise legislation just before the election cycle, after which everything on the order sheet will be dropped and a new session started without your "consensus legislation" on the docket.

    Don't fall for the hype. It would take a year or more to get this one done and the current critters only have about 5 more working months. DOA?

  • Apr 27th, 2016 @ 5:33pm

    wah wah wah

    So you are crying becuase the all you can eat buffet is closing, or at least costs a lot more than it use to? That's classy!

    I think you need to go back and read Google's most recent results to understand that all you can eat internet isn't a money making concept. Google has only rolled out in what should be the most profitable situations, and they are still losing their ass big time as an ISP. As consumers continue to demand more connectivity and more throughput that requires significant investment to create, something has to give to pay the price. Google can get away with it by burying hundreds of millions of losses under their billions of ad revenue. A normal ISP cannot just randomly spend that much money with no hope of a reasonable return on investment.

  • Apr 27th, 2016 @ 4:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't log off an troll people. That's your schtick.

    I must have hit a nerve... FoP seems to really get your goat!

More comments from Whatever >>