Whatever’s Techdirt Profile

what_ever

About Whatever




Whatever’s Comments comment rss

  • May 3rd, 2016 @ 9:56am

    Re:

    You just hate it when I'm right... sucks to be you.

  • May 3rd, 2016 @ 9:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think you need to Google Karen Chester to read some of her other "nuggets". Let's just say she swallowed a full dose of the techdirt koolaid.

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 8:20pm

    Re: Re:

    There is no adhom. The authors have a clear anticopyright and antiIP slant, they have come out against anything and everything copryight, from GEO IP to copyright terms and so on. The documents they produce look like Techdirt 101, as it they just took notes off the site and turn them into graphics. It's pretty lame.

    "If TD ever mentioned something ever it must be wrong.."

    I never said that, stop building strawmen. TD often slants things to their preferred view, taking random bits of information and factoids and generating the classic truthiness. Claiming that a 5% drop in wiki searches is absolute proof of chilling effects is classic! Pumping up a couple of anti-copyright crusaders who happen to have landed on an Australian government commission is pretty classic too, especially when the content reads like Mike wrote it (can you say consultant? Smells like it!).

    So no, TD isn't always wrong - they just tell it slant.

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 7:15pm

    Re: Re:

    Nope, just in the same manner you don't swallow slanted pro-copyright stuff, I don't swallow the slanted anti-copryight stuff. The authors of this interim report are as one sided as possible, it's unlikely they considered anything other than their own pre-formed opinions in making the report. It's pretty sad actually.

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 7:14pm

    (untitled comment)

    Karen Chester and Jonathan Coppel - two people in the mix over there who write this stuff alone. Anti-copyright and anti-IP people fresh from the Techdirt school of twisted facts...

    Sort of hard to take them seriously at a certain point, their "ideas" are nothing but a rehash of everything said here. I am guessing both of them read and post here.

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 4:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: The "Chilling Effect..."

    No, I don't say that they are illegal (or should be). I am saying that some people may not want to make such a search because it would attract attention to their activities. It would be like a policeman with a radar gun on the side of the road: The only ones who are "chilled" are those who feel they are breaking the law. Everyone else keeps going like there is nothing.

    Moreover, the drop in searches could be related to many other things. The report author used a very short period of time and a very small drop to try to prove something that isn't easily provable. Did Kim Kardashian release something that week? Did a major celeb die? Was there a major sporting event, election, earthquake, or a million other things that might have happened?

    It's a 5% drop, not suddenly the whole world avoiding a subject.

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 4:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: The "Chilling Effect..."

    Yes, but this "report" doesn't point out any true chilling effect. 5% decrease could be attributed to something else being the topic of the week that people spent their time on. It really is such a small number. If the graphs were full size (IE, no bottom and top trimming) you wouldn't hardly be able to see any change at all.

    "When under suspicion you don't stop you just hold pattern unless you want to call undue attention to yourself!"

    So that is what you did. Perhaps others decides to go to ground.

    The point is that the report doesn't point out "The Chilling Effect Of Mass Surveillance Quantified" as much as it points out that informed criminals perhaps choose not to be so obvious.

    It cuts both ways, and proves absolutely nothing, except that perhaps the Techdirt staff is a bit gullible.

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 4:15pm

    (untitled comment)

    It all seems wonderful, until you realize that this interim report was lead by Karen Chester, same commission member who says VPN users who get Netflix from the US aren't breaking copyright, and wrote a draft report against geo blocking.

    I thought it stank too much of a single anti-copyright person at work, and I was correct.

    Celebrate the "victory" of having one of the choir regurgitate your talking points. :)

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 9:45am

    Re:

    "NYPD Using 'Nuisance Abatement' Law To Convince Citizens To Lose Last Remaining Shred of Respect for The Law, Give No More Fucks Whatsoever About Continued Life or Safety Of Even One Single Cop"

    Most of the people involved stop giving fucks years ago. This isn't like some nice upstanding neighborhood with super low crime rates and sweet children who go to school, mow lawns for extra cash, and spend time with their family every evening playing board games.

    This is a city with high crime rates, insane levels of drug activity, gang activity, underage drinking, and just endless amounts of criminal activities.

    Is this the right answer> Nope. But the reasons they are doing it are real and the solutions hard to come by, unless you want to put a police officer in every licensed business in New York City.

  • May 2nd, 2016 @ 9:37am

    Re: The "Chilling Effect..."

    The issue however is that there are plenty of other possible explanations.

    First and foremost, what was and what was not happened before and after those dates. Not Snowden, but other issues, such as terrorist activities. Was one month more active than others?

    It's also very possible to draw the conclusion that is the Snowden leaks were the cause, then perhaps some of the drop is people who feel they might have been outed being more careful. With all of the pages, all of the names, all of the people involved, it's quite likely that Snowden's leaks may have run them to ground for a while.

    A true chilling effect would have been perhaps 50% drop off. 5% seems more like certain people being more cautious because they don't want to draw any more attention to themselves at that key moment.

  • May 1st, 2016 @ 8:46pm

    Re: Re:

    Yet nobody forces you to use them. Cut the cord!

  • Apr 30th, 2016 @ 7:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Not really.

    "clearly auguring the same rule for any compelled disclosure of the
    sequence of characters constituting an encryption passcode. See United States v.
    Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 43 (2000); Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 210 n.9
    (1988); see also id. at 219 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."

    That isn't FACT, that is a lawyer's plea to the judge.

    That a door or a safe could be forced open in a reasonable time (minutes) means that forcing the issue is not the best (or perhaps only) solution.

    The argument against forced decryption is very weak. Without a method to compel disclosure in a case where there is enough evidence to suggest a hard drive or device may contain evidence of the crime creates too broad a protection for the accused. It would allow everyone to use single character passwords for zip files (as an example) and suddenly make them magically exempt from the law.

    As we move to using digital devices more and more in every day life, and more and more communication is done vie text message, email, social media, giving a pass to anything encrypted in any manner is just steps towards creating a Utopia for criminals, who will encrypt their conversations, encrypt the hard drives that save the data of those discussions, and thus never have to be concerned that any of their discussions or chats will be used against them.

    You have to consider the implications before just giving it a pass. SCOTUS gave a pass for things that could be easily worked around, but encryption is not so easily dealt with. Our ability to encode is higher than out ability to decode.

  • Apr 30th, 2016 @ 7:08am

    (untitled comment)

    I think that something that has to be considered is what a cable box does for a given system. It is the locking door, the point that controls access and measures use (such as PPV). It's the locking door to the system.

    What the FCC wants to do is take control of that lock, and allow someone else to install whatever they want on their door, hoping that it in fact locks properly and reports access.

    Can you imagine the government mandating that the locks on every business in America be installed by the customers, and they can hold they key?

    It may force some cable companies to have to change the way their systems operate, changing the cable box from a trusted gatekeeper device into untrusted user equipment.

  • Apr 29th, 2016 @ 6:59pm

    (untitled comment)

    Considering Techdirt essentially ignored Prince (except to call out his copyright concerns), it's funny to see you climb on the "get traffic" bandwagon writing about him today.

    I guess artists only matter when they die and can score you some Google search traffic.

    How sad.

  • Apr 29th, 2016 @ 7:31am

    Re: Re: Read the 5th, and get back to me...

    "Being able to provide the password is itself evidence though, and can both be used against the accused and used to link the contents of the device/account to them."

    No different from provide a key for a locked room, storage unit, or safety deposit box, or providing the combination to a safe.

    None of those would a 5th amendment violation. Why would this be? Is there some sort of digital magic here?

  • Apr 29th, 2016 @ 7:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Again, you assume (a) I download, and (b) you would magically get something into my house, and (c) the police would have reason and probably cause to be investigating me.

    Sorry, you are just reaching way to far to try to make a point, and failing.

  • Apr 29th, 2016 @ 7:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "When you finally learn the value of your constitution "

    It's not my constitution, thanks.

    Aside from a good rant, you didn't really address the point: how does a "locked" hard drive differ (in legal terms) from a locked box or a locked safe?

  • Apr 28th, 2016 @ 10:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "You make it sound like they have that evidence against this former Philadelphia Police Department sergeant, which is not what I'm reading."

    First off, remember that you are talking probable cause for a warrant and not "beyond a reasonable doubt" required for conviction. The bar is quite low, and that could include what would be considered hearsay or evidence that might not by itself be enough to justify a conviction.

    In any case like this, you have to go back to understand how the end up at this guys door rather than somewhere else. There are any number of items that could lead to this, any or all of those points together can reach the level of probable cause. It's not enough for an arrest, but it is enough to execute a search warrant.

    The guy isn't in jail for child porn. He's in jail for failure to follow valid warrant, essentially contempt of court. His fifth amendment rights here are not more at issue than for someone who fails to provide the combination to a very, very, very strong wall safe. The existence of the hard drivers, combined with the other evidence that lead to the warrant means that there is probable cause to search those hard drives. Nobody can deny that the drives exist, and his insistence that he has magically forgotten the key seems to suggest more of an obstructionist move than a memory lapse.

    It's easy to scream "fifth amendment" and try to grant computer equipment some special status not attributed to local file cabinets, safes, storage lockers, or safety deposit boxes. The reality is that except for the complexity of the key system, they are all in fact the same.

  • Apr 28th, 2016 @ 9:47pm

    Re: Re: Gotta Disagree Here

    "Again, all ISPs / Cellular carriers should be mandated, by law, to have sufficient infrastructure and bandwidth to provide for 125% of their customers paid for bandwidth being utilized 24 hours a day, 365.25 days a year."

    Same old problem - you confuse connection speed (the peak speed at which data can move) with amount of data you can move. Your LTE connection speed is upwards to 50 meg per second, but there is nowhere near enough bandwidth / airtime for every wireless device to run at full speed 24/7.

    The business models don't work if they have to have 100% all the time paid for. Your home internet connection would much more expensive if they have to do that, and you guys are already complaining about those costs!

  • Apr 28th, 2016 @ 5:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "And in that case, I can arrange a drive in your possession to which you have no password, and I can arrange that it allegedly has child porn and state secrets, and that you know the password and just ain't talkin'. And I can do that to any no-name shlub I want."

    Yup, and can you make me hang around CP sites and download stuff too? Come on. Are you going to show me buying the drive, having it in my possession, and using it?

    Don't be silly.

More comments from Whatever >>