Eldakka’s Techdirt Profile

eldakka

About Eldakka




Eldakka’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 12th, 2017 @ 10:30pm

    (untitled comment)

    But the crux of the silliness here is that this is a letter from a "police union" asking a person's employer to investigate an employee for speech it claims is "false and defamatory." It should be obvious that there are legal relief avenues for "the police" if they feel they have been defamed.

    The police union and the police are separate bodies.

    One is a private, civilian organisation who's paying members employment is with the police department. The police is the government body that performs policing functions.

    Therefore it is not the police who have taken issue with Bennett's statements, it is the police officer who has personally taken affront and his union, the police union, appears to be assisting (or working on their own without their member having asked them to assist).

    Since it's the police union that has an issue with a civilian causing problems for one of its members who's employment is as a police officer, why would the police, a different body altogether, get involved?

  • Sep 5th, 2017 @ 5:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Public road, no "right to privacy"

    replying to my own post, edit would be nice ;)

    I wonder if this precedent, that there are privacy concerns with the data, could be used to again challenge the collection in the first place?

  • Sep 5th, 2017 @ 5:43pm

    Re: Re: Public road, no "right to privacy"

    The police can collect records because there is no expectation of privacy, but the public can't see those records, because people have an expectation of privacy.

    That's where I'm getting confused with this whole situation. If they are allowed to collect them because of no expectation of privacy in a public place, surely those raw records also have no privacy implications? Sure, an analysed/annotated database of the records such that the police may have created perhaps have privacy concerns, but not the raw data.

  • Sep 5th, 2017 @ 5:39pm

    Re: Re: Crowd sourced police locations

    I think the issue here would be where you put the cameras.

    If they are on public property (sidewalks etc.) then the local government would be within their rights to remove it.

    If they were attached to, say, utility poles, then again the owner could remove it and/or sue for trespass.

    You'd need to place them in locations where the owner/tenant had given permission to place them.

  • Aug 24th, 2017 @ 7:53pm

    (untitled comment)

    I hope the Supreme Court upholds the review process.

    More than 80 percent of trolls' victims are small and medium-sized businesses,

    IMO that is a pretty meaningless statistic. As far as I'm aware, the vast majority of businesses that exist fall into the SME category. The number of large or enterprise class businesses is relatively small. Therefore, statistically, I would expect most cases to be filed against SMEs, as statistically they make up the largest number of businesses.

    Better stats like equating number of suits per business type (e.g. 0.2 per SME, vs 0.01 per large/enterprise), would be more informative.

  • Aug 24th, 2017 @ 7:41pm

    Re:

    it's the near-complete lack of evidence that the IP address was involved in infringement at all.

    I don't know, I think they have evidence that the IP address was involved somehow, what they lack is the evidence associating what the IP Address did with the defendant.

    Therefore, my solution is for them to sue the IP Address. List the IP Address itself as the defendant and try to seek redress from the IP Address.

    I mean, that's how civil asset forfeiture works isn't it? You sue the property itself, not the owner. Therefore they should be suing the IP Address.

  • Aug 24th, 2017 @ 5:27pm

    Re: Re:

    I disagree.

    Lawyers do not bring law suits, plaintiffs do.

    If a lawyer tenders their expert advice that the case is a loser, and that their client might have to pay the legal fees of the defense, but their client wishes to proceed anyway, why would they decline?

    The plaintiff has the right to be heard, has a right to bring even frivolous cases before the court, and has the right to be smacked down by the court for bringing a frivolous case.

    As long as their lawyers advice is sound and realistic, then the lawyer is not at fault if a plaintiff decides to ignore the legal advice and proceed to court.

    But, if the lawyer doesn't advance the likelihood of losing, of having to pay the defendants fees, then the lawyer should be sanctioned.

  • Aug 13th, 2017 @ 7:10pm

    Re:

    At one time, many of the various publishers and journals were independent organisations. So it wasn't as much an issue during the 19th and early half of the 20th century, when most of these journals got established and became the 'key' or go-to publisher.

    But in the latter quarter of last century, and so far this century, there has been much consolidation in ownership, with Elsevier gradually buying up the journals and becoming a monopoly or near-monopoly publisher of often well-established, prestigious journals.

    It has been hard for many of these tradition-bound universities and research institutions to wean themselves away from, in some cases, century-old prestigious journals.

  • Aug 9th, 2017 @ 8:36pm

    This will be interesting to watch

    I don't and haven't used Hotspot Shield VPN, never even been to their website. However, on another article on this issue (on ars), there is a user comment:

    It says right in the TOS that they might inject ads or redirect certain sites to interstitials in order to make revenue.

    Now if this is true, it will be interesting to see how this plays out with respect to TOS and other various agreements, which ones take priority and so on.

    Another thing worth considering, is that Hotspot has both a free and paid for service. Which conditions apply to which services? Do the various quotes in this article about the companies statements about not logging, not passing on information etc. apply to only the paid service and not the free service, or does it apply to both?

    I can see it being that free version has the above TOS, where they will inject stuff, and that the privacy protections only apply to the paid version and the above TOS doesn't.

    So it could be a case of confusion, people applying paid-for-terms/statements to the free service, or it could be they are completely dodgy...

  • Aug 9th, 2017 @ 5:49pm

    Re: Re:

    Most people would probably love if they could go to one place and pick and choose the "channels" they want.

    There is, if you are willing to come to the Dark Side, muhahahaha.

    If you do have several subscription services, the tools developed for the pirating community, that can go out to various different services (different torrent sites, different netnews sites, etc.), and pull it all back for you, aggregating it to your own local single end-point, offer a much superior service to accessing the various subscription services. Sad, isn't it?

  • Aug 9th, 2017 @ 5:32pm

    Re: Can't fix stupid

    This security flaw is so simple, so obvious, that no competent developer would have ever done it that way in the first place.

    This is what happens when the people who come up with the idea, who don't have any real development experience, decide to implement it themselves, or get someone from fiver, rather than hire actual experienced developers.

    How hard can it be? they think. There are heaps of templates out there on the hosting services that do this stuff, let's use one of those, follow the bouncing ball to create a website. And since I'm already being cheap, I'll choose the cheapest, simplest template to use - hey, that one'll do, it was last updated 15 years ago, it's even free, must be good since it hasn't needed any updates! It doesn't matter that I've got no idea what it's actually doing behind the scenes, how it works.

  • Aug 9th, 2017 @ 5:19pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The problem is Becki who runs the social media has no business trying to understand the problem & deciding if it should go up the tree.

    The whole point of having senior co-workers, supervisors, managers, bosses is to have someone to pass a problem on to that you don't understand. You don't need to decide to pass it on. If Becki doesn't understand or have doubts, she should do it without thinking.

    It doesn't take much training to say "if you get a complaint/incident that has any of the words security, hack, accessing other users information, privacy concerns, holes, I can do something I don't think I should be able to or other similar terms, you escalate it." You don't need to understand it if you are low-level customer service, just pass it on to someone more senior for them to assess it. Customer service deals with and handles routine queries and issues - forgotten password, how do i do ..., what benefits does this option give me, how much discount do i get, and so on. Anything outside that should be passed up the tree, because that's what a tree (or pyramid) structure is for.

  • Jul 31st, 2017 @ 7:58pm

    It could be worth challenging

    I don't know what the actual filing fees are, but if you can afford it and they aren't too large (like $100 or something), then it would be worth it to challenge small seizures (the $1, $16, even a a few hundred) pro se to save on lawyer fees.

    The point is to make it cost way more for the police to have seized the money than they are making from the seizure, not to win your money back.

    The cost of the DA's, having to have the police officer or officers in court for a day as witnesses, and so on. Drive up the costs to the police as much as you can, call the police officers supervisors as witnesses over the record of the officer. Even if the judge doesn't let you call such a witness, that'll be a motion that probably requires separate hearing to determine decide, which requires the DA's to be there.

  • Jul 24th, 2017 @ 6:17pm

    Re: I can see both sides

    even though their mobile devices can't support 4K.

    1) Most (non-low end) 4G mobile devices have MHL capable USB ports, which means they can be plugged into TV's to watch the streaming content on an attached TV, therefore the mobile device is being used as content delivery/access, not as the consumption device.

    2) Most 4G mobile devices have the capability of being used as access points for other devices, so even if it is a mobile device, it could be being used as an internet access point for other devices, laptops, etc.

    3) 4G != mobile, it can be, but doesn't have to be. For example, I have a dual-ported router at home that supports using a 3/4G USB dongle as an internet modem, for either primary connection, load balancing connection, or a failover connection. That is not 'mobile'.

    4) Many people in temporary accomodation use a 4G router as their primary internet access because getting landline connections, connection/disconnection/setup fees is quite expensive when only spending 2-6 months in one residence, not to mention installation lead-times that mean it could take a couple weeks to get it installed.

    5) Salespeople (e.g. IBM, MS, CSC, and so on) use 4G dongles or phones as hotspots when doing presentations at customer sites using laptops/projectors/conference systems to access their material or demonstration environments set up on remote services (aka 'cloud').

    6) Residences that find it hard/expensive to get landlines installed use 4G as their residence-wide internet access.

    This is not about mobile devices, this is about the 4G and future xG wireless networks.

  • Jul 24th, 2017 @ 5:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Not Correct....

    pornhub, redtube, tube8 ... (follow the pattern ;) )

  • Jul 24th, 2017 @ 5:39pm

    Re: Re: Can you hear me now?

    Verizon's original motto was "We never stop working for you."

    They've stopped.

    When they say "working for you", they mean as an embezzling employee, an inside man who know's the best way to rip you off.

  • Jul 24th, 2017 @ 5:35pm

    Re: Re:

    We are testing some stuff here so instead of getting your whole BigMac you are getting only the bun because of transportation restrictions. - Said no McDonnalds ever.

    On rare occasions, like once every couple of years, I do get a burger from Macca's that has either the wrong size bun, like a quarter-pounder patty in a big mac bun, or a couple cheeseburger patties in a quarter-pounder bun. Sometimes they do run out of stuff.

  • Jul 23rd, 2017 @ 8:01pm

    Re: Re:

    with a super helpful Wiki link

    Do you mean a HyperLink™ to a article on Wikipedia™, The Free Encyclopedia™, about it?

  • Jul 23rd, 2017 @ 7:39pm

    Re: It was a DDoS attack

    It was a DDoS effect rather than a DDoS attack.

    That is unless you consider the public voicing their opinions and concerns an attack, which is I guess how this dipshit (Pai) sees it, an attack on his authorita!

  • Jul 23rd, 2017 @ 7:25pm

    Re: Matter of time....

    The dark web will become the real internet

    What do you mean by real Internet?

    The web and search-engine indexed sites are a subset of the Internet, not 'the' Internet or the 'real' Internet.

    The Internet existed before search engines and the web. Those are just newer services that exist on top of the existing Internet and only apply to a relatively small portion.

    All the 'dark-web' is is web sites that are not indexed on the commonly available search engines and/or that do not use the standard ICANN DNS root zones. There are many sites out there that don't use any DNS at all (so you need to know the IP Address) or that use alternative root DNS systems.

    Dark Web is a news or authoritarian scare term for what is, in fact, most of the Internet.

More comments from Eldakka >>