MarcAnthony’s Techdirt Profile

marcanthony

About MarcAnthony




MarcAnthony’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 14th, 2017 @ 2:00pm

    Moral responsibility

    I agree that there's a moral responsibility here, however, I think that the responsibility is for cryptographers to protect others from idiots in government that believe they have a right to eavesdrop on every communication, especially in the absence of wrongdoing. Cryptographic enthusiasts should be educating their fellow citizens on how to best secure private information, as the campaign against encryption is actually a war on personal liberty.

  • Jun 7th, 2017 @ 4:05pm

    (untitled comment)

    Tim Cushing wrote: "...there's nothing at all in the law preventing employers from using DNA data to screen out potential employees who might be a net loss on company-provided insurance plans."

    I have a quibble with this statement. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act protects against premium increases and denial of health insurance benefits by employers. It also prevents them from using genetic test results as the basis for hiring or firing decisions. This isn't to say there aren't ways to discriminate without appearing to use such information, but there is something in the law to prevent that particular problem, and the EEOC would act on your behalf, if you can prove discrimination.

    That said, I think the boilerplate agreement is just awful and facially unconscionable, as it is completely one-sided. It also denies the author of expressed DNA—namely you, the testee—a copyright interest in your cells' work product without any consideration.

  • Mar 23rd, 2017 @ 10:15am

    Re: Re: All rights reserved

    He has stated he has forgotten the password and is being held in contempt. It's all over the news. Perhaps you should follow a story before trying to correct someone.

  • Mar 23rd, 2017 @ 8:05am

    All rights reserved

    I'm not sure how you can "fail to preserve" something that is inalienable; you have the RIGHT to not testify against yourself—it's not an opt-in arrangement. I believe I read that the defendant in this case has already stated that he has forgotten the password, so any conclusion that he knows it is no longer forgone. Continuing to mete out punishment for a lack of production further implicates the right to remain silent; if he now produces the password, he will be testifying to the fact that he committed perjury.

  • Sep 22nd, 2016 @ 9:13am

    cruel and inhumane

    Is there some exemption in the eighth amendment for cruel and unusual punishment by the military? I don't know if this situation is that unusual for army prisoners, but these conditions are indisputably torturous and surely constitute human rights violations.

  • Aug 12th, 2016 @ 2:37pm

    Monkey selfie allegory

    If a monkey can’t hold copyright on a picture that it took if itself because it’s not recognized as a legal entity, then how can money be a defendant? Where is the personhood? Where is the due process in presuming the money acted in any way—let alone criminally? The ludicrous majority opinion in this case is dangerous for the world; it shows that the judiciary has devolved into the unthinking hammer of the US government, rather than a forum for justice.

  • Aug 8th, 2016 @ 8:41am

    Re:

    As for keeping names and addresses, that is what a census is. Historical census returns are invaluable for the study of...

    Perhaps it's different in other countries, but the intended purpose of the census in the US is for the apportionment of representation. You can pass information to your descendants without census mission creep or governmental assistance. Kids would probably value a family tree that was created and passed down by an ancestor more so than census data that was collected without their forebears' informed consent, and it would probably be more accurate than the BS responses that will be returned for the Australian census.

  • Jul 1st, 2016 @ 10:00am

    Liberty is not State interests

    Generations of Americans have risked their lives to preserve Liberty, so let’s throw that concept right out the window and just fork over our communication security and privacy interests on demand? Let freedom ring.

  • Jun 1st, 2016 @ 6:09pm

    What third party?

    If a provider that you have a business relationship with turns over information without a warrant—especially location data they are legally compelled to collect for 911 service—and does so with no resistance, then they are not third parties; they are de facto agents of the government.

  • May 19th, 2016 @ 9:26am

    Viva la status quo

    Oversight isn’t just being undermined, it’s being systematically neutered because actual oversight challenged institutionalized illegal practices. PLCLOB was the turd in NSA’s punchbowl.

  • May 18th, 2016 @ 5:43pm

    Inquisition II

    Any conclusion that is forgone is a non-argument; evidentialism requires proof. It’s possible the guy is guilty as sin, but he is clearly being denied due process by being confined without charge. The growing use of the foregone conclusion doctrine, coupled with the All Writs Act, is nothing short of the second coming of the Inquisition—the State just knows that you are guilty; this is not history we should suffer to repeat.

    The Act specifically states it must be used in accordance with the principles of law. What principle is it where a citizen has to help their government understand encoded works? The State’s characterization of this act as mere production is intentionally misleading. He is being ordered by an entity that is barred from so doing to work against his own rights and realize whatever evidence may be on that drive. Code is considered speech, so such decoding would naturally be testimonial.

  • Apr 25th, 2016 @ 9:43am

    The repercussions of the truth

    Warrantless, haphazard collection is plainly illegal—even if it only affects hundreds of people; Clapper hasn't answered honestly because the answer is "we monitor everyone who sends anything upstream," and that admission would be all the evidence we need to gain standing and legally challenge the program, which begins its unlawfulness at the point of seizure.

  • Apr 18th, 2016 @ 5:22pm

    Battery and manslaughter

    I’m astounded by the glaring negligence and willful ignorance of this cop's roadside cavity search, which is, unmistakably, battery, if not attempted manslaughter. The cop’s untrained pushing, pulling, and squeezing could’ve easily perforated the victim’s colon.

    It’s also amazing that this didn’t end up with someone being killed, because the guy would’ve been totally justifed in using force against the officer. You have the absolute right to protect yourself from assault.

  • Apr 6th, 2016 @ 7:25pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Neither the existence of a locked box nor the desire to keep its contents private is—itself—incriminating. Encryption is also not a "storage" method; the safe analogy fails on many levels.

  • Apr 1st, 2016 @ 8:50am

    NSLs are not laws

    NSL edicts don’t belong in a free society, and their gag orders have previously been found unconstitutional:

    https://www.eff.org/press/releases/national-security-letters-are-unconstitutional-f ederal-judge-rules

    So, what changed? Why are we stepping gingerly to ensure that canary reporting is legal? Of course it’s legal—it’s speech about what should be a public activity. If the government is asserting that its privileges trump our right to speak, then it needs to be disabused of that notion through civil disobedience.

  • Mar 11th, 2016 @ 9:32am

    To the extent that all code is expressive

    To the extent Apple’s software includes expressive elements—such as variable names and comments—the Order permits Apple to express whatever it wants, so long as the software functions.

    The FBI plans to let Apple choose their variable names and make notes in their own code? How magnanimous! I’m sure that the people who died in the founding and service of this country would appreaciate the government’s redefinition of the constituent elements of speech and forcing people to write things that have been relegated to non-expressive status. /s

  • Mar 8th, 2016 @ 8:38am

    Agreeable to principles

    The All Writs Act states that it must be "agreeable to the usages and principles of law;" as we no longer adhere to the principle that slavery is just or permissible, then how is slavery in the service of the State agreeable? That's exactly what law enforcement is trying to do: enslave Apple to be their little deputy because they might possibly help, regardless of their non-affiliation with the events or their willingness to participate. This won't stop at phones. Once this inch is given, they will come for the proverbial yard; this will apply to all devices by any manufacturer—"You made it, so you'll facilitate our access to it and to our specifications."

  • Feb 29th, 2016 @ 6:56am

    It's always in the last place you look

    ...we conducted a search of the locations or entities where records responsive to your request would reasonably be found.

    If the information exists at all, it may have been put somewhere it would not reasonably be found. Whenever I lose something, that's typically where I find it.

  • Feb 24th, 2016 @ 8:35am

    Fair notice

    The judge’s requirement that the action be explicitly in opposition of police activity shows that we need reform in how judges come to sit—and how they can be removed—from the bench, because that's not a cogent or defensible thought. Speech doesn’t have to be words; it can be symbolism that is oppositional, supportive, or even neutral, and the majority of photography is the latter. Ruling that the right to speech is contingent on vocal opposition or “fair notice” to a officer is actually compelling you to speak, where no such duty is owed to secure that right.

    The act of neutrally monitoring law enforcement is, itself, a political statement—we don’t trust you not to misbehave. Even if that were not expressive, at the moment a cop tells you to stop performing a perfectly legal activity, any non-expressive action on your part is instantly converted to an action of recording your opposition to that conduct.

  • Feb 22nd, 2016 @ 9:19am

    Re: Conversation

    The "conversation" that the FBI wants to have is like the conversation we've had over the TPP—the one negotiated in secret with the text locked in a guarded room. Similar conversations are had when two wolves and a sheep discuss what's for dinner.

More comments from MarcAnthony >>