RoyalWitCheese 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (7) comment rss

  • On the post: Olympics Clarifies Problems With Flickr Photos… But Still Doesn't Make Sense

    RoyalWitCheese ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2009 @ 08:26pm

    The Olympics are a "Newsworthy Event" and as such model/location releases are not required.

    Model releases are required by a publisher (not nessesarily the photographer) when the images suggest a model is endorsing an ideal that may not actually be one the model holds. Portaying someone in a way that's not who they really are is a form of slander which can result in a civil lawsuit. A model release is for releasing liability against the publisher, it clearly states in what manner the photographs taken are to be used.

  • On the post: Bank Sends Confidential Email To Wrong Address, Hauls Google To Court To Figure Out Who Got The Email

    RoyalWitCheese ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2009 @ 06:33am

    +1 for Google

    At least Google's stepping up to the plate for their users' privacy. Many companies would just hand over that info.

    BTW - This would make for a great phishing scam. Spam emails, then get the mail server host to release the names of all recipients.

  • On the post: The Pirate Bay's New Business Model Apparently Working Wonders

    RoyalWitCheese ( profile ), 10 Apr, 2009 @ 09:24am

    VPN

    Sweet, I'm going to use the TPB VPN to talk to all my terrorist friends!

    TPB supports Terrorism!

    Actually I'm gonna gonna use the VPN to connect to Obama's site so I can troll.

    TPB supports Republicans!

    OK, I won't troll.

    TPB supports Democrats!

    OK, not Obama's site, maybe Techdirt.

    And since I'm still here ...

    Techdirt supports me!

    and since you're still here...

    You support me, and my views on Terrorism. Because if you didn't, you would be out banning Techdirt for allowing such atrocities as this.

    "Welcome to the Machine"

  • On the post: High School Girl Arrested For Refusing To Stop Texting In Class

    RoyalWitCheese ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2009 @ 09:23am

    On a further note...

    After being told she was suspended, and that she would be charged with trespassing if she came onto school property during her suspension, she violated the orders and now has 2 trespassing tickets.

    Also her parents believe the school was within it's rights to do what they did and support their decision.

  • On the post: High School Girl Arrested For Refusing To Stop Texting In Class

    RoyalWitCheese ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2009 @ 09:08am

    Re:

    Obviously you failed to read the linked article and even failed to read the original post where it's stated

    - and they arrested her for "disorderly conduct." -

    NOT for texting that you seem to have gleened from both of the articles.

    Your comment confirms your belief that there is "Something wrong with people"

  • On the post: High School Girl Arrested For Refusing To Stop Texting In Class

    RoyalWitCheese ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2009 @ 08:55am

    Re:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

    See School Section

    With 3 people verifying that she DID indeed have a cell phone, it is a Probable Cause situation, which is over and above the Reasonable Suspicion that is required before performing a search of a student.

    Police have the right to a pat down search anyone they stop on the basis of protecting the officer's safety. (The search is performed for finding weapons, not contraband, but if they feel something on your person that they cannot identify as being a weapon or not, they can ASK you to produce said unidentifiable item for them. You have the right to deny producing the item, at which time the officers MAY deem it grounds for a Probable cause search, which would include a strip search)

  • On the post: Some ISPs Push Back On RIAA Plan

    RoyalWitCheese ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2008 @ 06:26pm

    Counterpoint

    Brilliant move by the RIAA. The RIAA is out of every legal battle.

    A letter from RIAA can force the ISP to initiate an investigation against the user, or to send a warning based on no proof.

    ISP's will have either violate privacy or pay, to do a warranted search, for illegal files. If the ISP screws up, all fingers, and lawsuits(at the user's expense), point to the ISP.

    When the mad ISP's come running to RIAA, they'll just say that the User can be unbanned.

    RIAA's long time view of guilty until proven innocent stands, at a cost that's cheaper for them.
    ISP's do all the leg and legal work. And cover all the costs to protect themselves. Which get passed on to the user.
    User's will have to pay to prove their innocence, Have higher cost for internet, and have no ability to go after the RIAA for wrongful suits.

    Verizon can figgure this out, that's why it opposed it. If other ISP's aren't run by someone that can understand this, let them burn.