That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile

thatoneguy

About That One GuyTechdirt Insider




That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • May 25th, 2018 @ 12:44pm

    Re: Re: What about jurisdiction?

    Ah good old 'copyright law harmonizatin', wherein the most restrictive version of copyright laws are passed to other countries(never the other way around), allowing those attempting to change the law to neatly bypass the honest way to do so.

  • May 25th, 2018 @ 11:52am

    Re: Sounds a bit different to me.

    I'll readily admit that this looks shitty but it does not sound like he has bothered giving the U.S. authorities a chance to actually consider the death threats he got for deciding about whether to admit him as a refugee.

    Depending on the immediacy of the threats it's entirely possible he didn't because he didn't feel he had time. It could have been a situation of 'leave now and enter the country illegally', or go 'try to go through the legal process and not being able to leave at all.'

    As for once he was here, he might not have wanted to take the risk of applying for refugee status just in case the answer turned out to be 'no' and he was sent back(the fact that he'd already entered the country illegally would probably not work in his favor there). Whether that worry was a valid one or not, I would find it hard to blame him for not wanting to risk it given the possible outcome.

    Whatever the case though, trying to send him back is, as I noted above, quite possibly literally sending him to his death. He's undocumented and entered illegally, fine, but a death sentence(or at the least indifference to it) seems a tad harsh of a punishment for someone who's apparently been productively living in the US for a decade.

  • May 25th, 2018 @ 11:35am

    Not a problem

    And in his version, web services can’t even avoid liability by implementing upload filters. To protect themselves from being sued, they would need to get licenses from all rightsholders that exist on the planet before allowing user uploads to go online, just in case the upload may contain (parts of) any of their works.

    Far from being difficult, this at least would be trivially easy. I mean all a website would have to do would be to check the content against the global database of copyright owners to see who owns what, contact any hits, and get official permission from each and every one of them.

    Given the multiple(for redundancy of course) global databases of copyright information and the already in place system to make licensing quick and easy this should be an absolute breeze for any and all content, so I fail to see what the fuss is about for this part at least.

  • May 25th, 2018 @ 1:56am

    'Vindictive' is putting it mildly

    Freedom of the Press has the details, but the short version is that Manuel Duran, who fled El Salvador a decade ago over death threats there.

    ...

    However, ICE not only refused to let Duran out of jail, it transferred him to another ICE detention center, and are trying to deport him back to El Salvador.

    I find it rather difficult(read: Impossible) to believe that they've kept him locked up this long and are unaware of his history, so by trying to deport him back to the place that he fled to save his own life they are basically making it clear that they have no objection to quite possibly literally sending him to his death.

    For contrast, consider a case from earlier this year over in the UK. In that one extradition to the US was denied because the defense argued, and the court agreed, that US treatment of prisoners was so bad that they couldn't in good conscious send them to the US to be tried.

  • May 24th, 2018 @ 11:28pm

    Re: the CIA's Stargate program

    They got suckered in by Uri Geller? Ouch. Still, that article did provide at least one funny/interesting line, as apparently skepticism is a superpower even more powerful than that possessed by 'psychic warriors', which is all sorts of funny.

    'The documents concluded that he did better when there were no "sceptical observers" present.'

    Nice to know you can stop/inhibit psychic powers simply by doubting them and being nearby.

  • May 24th, 2018 @ 1:32pm

    Re: Re: 'It's good to be king'

    So she's a 'Trump-hating ultra-liberal'(and DISTRICT JUDGE, can't forget that of course) who despite being out to get him by any means didn't actually punish him in the slightest.

    Got it.

  • May 24th, 2018 @ 12:18pm

    'It's good to be king'

    Court finds that the president and the guy helping him with his twitter account are acting in an unconsitutional manner, doesn't actually tell them to stop, and merely expects that now that they know they're violating the constitution they'll stop doing it.

    'Yeah, you're guilty, but a punishment or telling you to stop breaking the law just seems so extreme, you know?'

    They might as well have quoted directly from Animal Farm in their ruling with the silk gloves they used here.

  • May 24th, 2018 @ 12:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Them today, you tomorrow

    Hmm, you make a good case. I'll grant that it absolutely feels like extortion(that has been pretty clear from the outset), no doubt about that, the question is does it rise to the legal definition, of which I'm not so sure. At the moment I'm leaning towards 'no' due to the public nature of the information and because of what a precedent could mean for other, non-scumbags who published publicly available information that might be inconvenient if known.

  • May 24th, 2018 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re: Mind control already exists

    If someone thinks they're too smart to be fooled, it's a given that they will be, the one doing the fooling just needs to tweak the methods a bit(like say, playing off of their ego).

  • May 24th, 2018 @ 12:05am

    "We had 10...ish... devices, the defendant's among them."

    If they can't accurately track how many devices they have then it does rather seem as though it would be difficult to demonstrate that the devices in question haven't been tampered with and/or in someone else's possession at some point, something a defense lawyer could easily bring up to get any evidence from a device prohibited from being used in court.

    Chalk that one up as another bullet they put into their own foot I guess.

  • May 23rd, 2018 @ 9:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Them today, you tomorrow

    From the same page:

    'mugshots (dot) com is website that publishes the names, booking photographs, arrest information, and the personal identifying information (PII) of individuals who have been arrested.'

    Which of that is 'confidential information'? It's certainly not the name or photos, it's probably not the arrest information as I would guess that's also involved in the mugshots that the state makes public(otherwise you'd have situations of 'Person X has been charged with violating [REDACTED] law')... the only possible match would be the 'personal identifying information', and that's assuming that's something beyond place of residence, phone number and so on, as that sort of stuff is also public information.

    If it's confidential information that's meant strictly for use within the courts/law enforcement you can be all but certain that there would be CFAA charges involved for 'unauthorized access of a secure network'. That this doesn't seem to be the case would seem to argue that the extra information was also publicly available.

  • May 23rd, 2018 @ 9:14pm

    Re: Re:

    Now now, don't you be bringing those 'facts' things to the table, it would completely muck up their hilariously flawed strawman were they in the slightest bit honest.

  • May 23rd, 2018 @ 9:08pm

    Re:

    Huh, I'd always figured he was just constantly attacking the press because he was throwing tantrums that they keep saying mean things. I guess he does have a reason for doing so(though I suspect it's in addition to the tantrum one rather than instead of).

    On the plus side at this point I suspect the only ones who believe him when he says something are his direhard supporters, who would believe whatever he said no matter what the press said, with or without his attempts to undermine them.

  • May 23rd, 2018 @ 3:38pm

    "I object to the act of cooking." "We hired you as a CHEF." "So?

    Is this a backhanded form of resignation?

    Is it? No.

    Should it be? Very much so.

  • May 23rd, 2018 @ 3:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Them today, you tomorrow

    Which would also fall under the 'exception to the rule', as that would involve a need for the picture to be made, if not public, then at least known to the court.

  • May 23rd, 2018 @ 3:32pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Constitutional in the sense of free speech and the exercise thereof, which at times like this can involve free speech by scumbags.

    Yes what they're going with the information they're posting is sketchy as hell, and skirts very close to extortion with their 'pay us to take it down', but at the core they're reposting something someone else(in this case the state) said, which would seem to fall under the cover of free speech and therefore protected.

  • May 23rd, 2018 @ 3:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Them today, you tomorrow

    I don't find anything above at all persuasive as to why a mugshot should automatically be a publicly-available "public record." Fingerprints, too? Photos of victims used in a prosecution? I can see when there should be times a mugshot can become publicly available (e.g. if a convict or arrestee has escaped or jumped bail), but not any reason it must automatically be merely because the government took it.

    That I can certainly see and find persuasive. If there's a pressing need for the public to know about someone, like say an individual escapes custody and there's good reason to believe that they pose a real danger to those around them, then yeah, having the picture available would make sense. Other than that though, what purpose does it serve other than 'name and shame'?

    However, so long as they are public, and the state is making them available, then reposting them would seem to be constitutional, and therefore legal, even if, as noted, 'pay us to take them down' is all sorts of scummy.

  • May 23rd, 2018 @ 3:20pm

    A cow-pat by any other name...

    The fact that some press was let in and others weren't -- and that phony excuses were used multiple times in multiple ways -- suggests an agency that wants to be vindictive against coverage it doesn't like.

    Lie. The word you're looking for is 'lie', as in 'Wilcox, speaking for the EPA, lied multiple times about the actions taken by and on behalf of the agency, and the reasons for them.'

  • May 23rd, 2018 @ 2:30pm

    Re: Re: Them today, you tomorrow

    This isn't 'pay up or we will trash you', it's 'pay up and we'll take down official and public information related to you'.

    Dodgy and slimy as hell, yes. Extortion, given the source and availability of the information they're reposting, not so much.

  • May 23rd, 2018 @ 2:27pm

    Re:

    Seems to me their business model consists of accusing people of crimes (that the state has also accused them of), in a centralized location that is easier for the public to find than wherever the various states publish them, and then extorting them to get it taken down.

    That strikes me as a similar argument that I've seen in other cases, where the one bringing a lawsuit claims that republishing something defamatory(generally in the form of reporting on it) is the same thing as making the defamatory statement in the first place. The state is the one making the accusations, they are merely republishing them with a 'what they said'.

    Now if they were accusing them of different crimes that would of course be an entirely different manner, but if simply repeating what the state has already said counted as a new accusation then the only people who would ever be able to use mugshots and the info related to them would be the state.

    Centalization I don't see as an issue either, as unless the state has taken steps to make it more difficult to find booking info then it seems it's merely a difference in who's running the database with the info in question, the state or a private individual.

    Is what they were/are doing incredibly slimy? Absolutely. The question though is does it rise to the level of extortion, and while it certainly comes across as veering very close to it, the fact that the 'incriminating' information is already made available to the public by the state would seem to undercut that.

    This is one of those cases that leave a foul taste in your mouth. What they're doing is disgusting, but it does seem to be constitutional, which means it should be legal, and as such to defend my rights I'm in the position of defending the rights of some right sleazeballs.

More comments from That One Guy >>