MarcAnthony’s Techdirt Profile


About MarcAnthony

MarcAnthony’s Comments comment rss

  • Oct 28th, 2015 @ 7:49am

    Re: Unintended consequences?

    The unintended consequence is that the rights of every American citizen are chilled. The respect for human rights is the only real inherent value of citizenship, and that appears to have been unawfully and unethically exchanged in the service of unsubstantiated national security claims and the perception—which appears to have been false, in this case—that someone is a terrorist. If you value your life, you don't dare consider travelling outside of the country.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 8:15am


    There is only one reason for a government to keep trade secrets from its people, and that is that the populace won't like what it sees. The fact that multiple branches of government are colluding to maintain a veil of secrecy is all the evidence needed to prove that they're selling somebody down the river and that they're actively denying those parties' ability to stop it.

    You can't be represented in something about which you don't know, and this flagrant denial of democractic participation mirrors—in degree—the events that sparked the American Revolution. There should be a no confidence vote against all government actors that participate in such shenanigans before civil unrest becomes a very real possibility.

  • Sep 14th, 2015 @ 1:42pm

    Satire or mental health issue?

    If this person is getting a thrill from stirring up the pot by pitting his own aliases against each other, that moves into personality disorder territory. Whatever pathology is behind trolling, it's not a crime. Make-believe is a free expression. I thought the TSA had the imaginary threat market cornered, but it looks like there aren't enough legitimate terrorists for the FBI to concern themselves with either.

  • Aug 28th, 2015 @ 1:23pm

    Re: Illegitimate

    Correction: horseshit.

  • Aug 28th, 2015 @ 1:11pm


    But such is the nature of the government’s privileged control over certain classes of information. Plaintiffs must realize that secrecy is yet another form of regulation, prescribing not “what the citizen may do” but instead “what the citizen may know.”... Regulations of this sort may frustrate the inquisitive citizen but that does not make them illegal or illegitimate.”

    Asserting privileged, secret control over citizens in a supposed representative democracy can only lead to an inauspicious outcome. Such regulations are inherently illegitimate, as they don't jibe with the right to redress grievances. The judge's statement is totalitarian horsehit.

  • Aug 25th, 2015 @ 7:32pm

    ...intimidating a teacher impedes, if not destroys, the ability to teach

    The judge in this case, Dolores Umbridge, simply got it wrong. Intimidating a student with unwarranted suspension impedes, if not destroys, the ability to teach because it causes the student body to exterminate all rational thought and to regard their teachers with well-deserved contempt. The student owes no debt of respect to the administration; he should be free, in his off-campus activities, to criticize the miscreant coaches at his school with impunity. The school has no corresponding right to not feel intimidated.

  • Aug 14th, 2015 @ 11:04am


    It doesn't matter how you look at the comment, Sagehorn lied and cast dispersions on the character of the teacher that the post and comment were referring to.

    Agreeing sarcastically to a sophomoric question is in no way an attack on someone's character. Just FYI: The word you are looking for is "aspersions." Troll better next time.

  • Aug 3rd, 2015 @ 4:30pm

    Re: reason behind this?

    Secret trade agreements presage all manners of problems to come. Why do you think their terms were secret? The smart investor would be buying shares in companies that make pitchforks and torches.

  • Jul 31st, 2015 @ 1:16pm

    Class action?

    The Vizio terms of service are unconscionable. This alleged “agreement” is made under duress, given that their product is unmerchantable by design; according to a response (to my complaint) from Vizio’s own tech support representative, you must consent to their TOS or you can’t even use the intended functionality of the device; no reasonable consumer would buy a TV that could only be used by consenting to onerous and unfairly one-sided terms. Further, the written agreement expressly allows Vizio to modify the terms unilaterally without notification to the other party and does not provide for the ablity to rescind.

  • Jul 15th, 2015 @ 1:28pm

    Learn how to communicate in code, now

    These surveillance mongers would be laughable if their their liberty-destroying agenda wasn’t so dangerous. How long will they whisper this poison before the same twats that authored the Patriot and USA Freedom Acts eventually pass legislation that disallows Apple et al. from offering encryption?

  • Jul 1st, 2015 @ 3:42pm

    Is internet commentary their job now?

    Our taxes actually pay someone to post this crap?! Social media doesn't further the goal of transportation safety. Are we subsidizing propaganda or just pissing away funds that eventually require more government thugs to continue stealing every greater sums of money from citizens?

  • Jun 30th, 2015 @ 10:33am

    Re: Re: What about 2 years worth of lost interest/profits?

    He could easily be awarded treble damages for the willful collusion that took place, and that's what he should be seeking. I don't understand why there even needs to be a legal challenge in cases like these. Simply carrying money is not a crime. If the authorities can't demonstrate that the chain of custody for funds relates to criminal activity, they should not be allowed to seize them. The assumption here is guilty until proven innocent.

  • Jun 23rd, 2015 @ 6:05pm

    Re: Constitutionality

    Yes. Legal action is possible. Congresspeople that voted yes on Fast Track may have lost their immunity.

  • Jun 23rd, 2015 @ 9:01am

    Mischievous genie

    As long as this “court” is gauging Congress’ intent based on a question of obviousness, why not also gauge what the authors of the Constitution intended for the people? Surely it wasn’t mass surveillance. FISA’s evil genie allegory is apropos; its track record shows that the NSA is its recognized master, and it will use every iota of wiggle room to interpret their wishes as its command.

  • Jun 8th, 2015 @ 10:00am

    Anticipatory relevance and psychic powers

    The law makes sense for corporations and business records, but it's absurd to apply it to citizens. Prior to a legal action, a computer only contains data—not "evidence." Unless you have precognitive skills, anticipating what may or may not be relevant among the minutiae of that data is impossible.

    I agree that the guy shouldn't have lied, although it seems that he went to the cops and answered their questions of his own accord, so perhaps they were unintentional misstatements. The article indicates that he was prosecuted for clearing his cache not because he had any part in terrorism, but because of alleged "sympathies" for jihad, which sounds a lot like the government is either going after thought crimes or that it has some ESP of its own, considering that, by their own admission, there was no evidence of that.

  • Jun 5th, 2015 @ 1:36pm

    Pragmatism vs. optimism

    I think it’s bizarre to not hate on USA FREEDOM, but I guess some people are silver lining types and others aren’t. I haven't found much of substance in the changes, which further entrench bad practices and allow for six more months of total, illegal seizure, for "transition." Congress, having committed to a course of action, probably considers itself done with surveillance issues for a while, possibly until 2019. The sloppy writings of the legislature are less concerning than are secret courts with their ongoing mockery of representation. The appointment of advocates—made from within the star chamber—only apply to "novel" or "significant" changes, whatever that may be and whomever controls those definitions.

  • Jun 2nd, 2015 @ 5:07pm


    The Act was passed to give the appearance of taking substantive action. Legislators can now claim they struck a fair compromise that balances liberty and security, which may placate some of their constituents.

  • Jun 2nd, 2015 @ 12:17pm

    "There's a perception..."

    NSA defenders are still trying to sell the angle that they are merely 'perceived' as intruding on civil rights, even after being reprimanded for the seizures by a court. There is no evidence that a burden-shifting of these actions to a third party will "presumably take care of that." Regardless of whether or not Snowden appropriated some documents, he fulfilled his oath by putting the interests of the people before his own freedom.

  • Jun 1st, 2015 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re:

    I don’t know, Mike. I’ve lost faith in their intention to respect the law. The NSA has a lot of power, operates in a veil of secrecy, and acts in extra-judicial ways with some regularity; surely they never reasonably believed that some piddling executive order and a clearly unconstitutional rubber stamp court gave them actual legal authority. They’ve also “pushed” so hard and so far that boundaries became practically nonexistent; e.g. Clapper brazenly lied under oath, and, by surveilling the legislative branch, the NSA threw our system of checks and balances right out of the window. We should all take anything our government says about surveillance activities with a well-deserved grain of salt.

  • May 28th, 2015 @ 1:46pm


    When I read Cameron's statement, I cringed, and I don't even live in the UK. It sounds ominously dystopian. He might as well have said: "For too long, your government has tolerated you and your different ideals. Those times are over. You'd better get with the program and conform."

More comments from MarcAnthony >>