compujas’s Techdirt Profile


About compujas

compujas’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 10th, 2017 @ 9:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Vagueness [was Re: Re: Re: ]

    The police using loudspeakers should not be considered a disturbance because they were performing their duties in the enforcement of regulations.

    Also, saying "There was noise, but most of it was produced by the police" is not necessarily clear. Were the protesters making a lot of noise, but the police were the only ones understandable because they were much louder with speakers, or were the protesters very quiet, and absent the police there would've been minimal noise. The former is them performing their job in an appropriate manner given the high level of noise by the protesters. The latter is potentially the same due to the size of the crowd, but also potentially overkill and unnecessary.

    Is my interpretation the only reasonable way to read it? Not likely, but that's why I said **I would interpret**, and not **it means**. Interpretation is a large portion of the job of the judicial branch. Should the policies and legislation be written more clearly? I would argue yes in almost all cases. However, it is difficult to do that most of the time because it requires being far more specific in what cases it applies to, which then removes the judicial latitude to consider all factors. Writing laws explicitly tends to catch more people in the webs, where being more loose potentially allows bad apples to fall through. I would prefer to err on the side of letting a few guilty people go than punishing a few innocent people, especially in cases like these where there is no physical harm done.

  • Aug 10th, 2017 @ 7:56am

    Re: Vagueness [was Re: Re: Re: ]

    From that, I would interpret

    substantially interferes with the protected free expression rights of others, including protests and demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in and listen to...

    to mean that if you are shouting down a speaker, that is infringing on someone else's right to listen to. Is it not? I would still see it as permitting peaceful protests outside the venue, again, as long as it does not impede or prevent attendees from reaching the venue (ie. blocking the entrances or walkways).

    In my eyes, the key for First Amendment is that it doesn't prevent anyone from speaking their mind or protesting, but it also can't allow those people to prevent others from listening to others. A protester shouting down a speaker to the point that the speaker cannot be heard by the audience is violating that rule. Just like all other rights, you are only entitled to those rights to the extent that you are not infringing on the rights of another.

  • Aug 10th, 2017 @ 6:18am

    Re: Re:

    I guess I'm not clear on which this bill is trying to cover then. If it's to stop "shout downs" or protests outside the venue, then it's wrong. If it's to stop them inside, then I have no problem with it.

    In general, from several comments above, it seems like some people have no problem with protesters being overly disruptive at an event as long as they agree with the protesters. I disagree with that and think that inside an event, whether public or private, you should have to be non-disruptive and respectful of the rights of others who may hold different opinions than yours and are interested in listening to the speaker.

    Outside the event is a different story and you should be allowed to protest the event on public property. That said, I personally draw the line at preventing people from being able to get to the event (like happened at some campaign events last year where protesters blocked off roads and sidewalks preventing people from getting to an entrance for the event).

  • Aug 10th, 2017 @ 5:29am

    (untitled comment)

    At what point does a "shout down" go from free speech to disruptive? Consider a case where a government representative (legislator, president/governor/mayor, etc.) is speaking to a crowd. It could be an executive signed a bill, legislators debating, holding a town hall, whatever. These are public events by current government officials (as opposed to something like campaigns or election debates, which are usually private and not subject to 1A coverage). Given that these are public and involve the government, does anyone believe that people in the crowd would be allowed to protest by shouting down the speakers without being removed and reprimanded? If not, then why is this any different than doing it at a public school gathering/event? If it's a private school, then all bets are off in my opinion since they are in control of who is allowed or not allowed to attend, both on stage and in the crowd, similar to a concert or sporting event. But public schools are government entities and public places and therefore subject to government powers/restrictions.

  • May 3rd, 2017 @ 10:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Zillow = bad

    Can't you claim the house as the owner and fix the information?

  • Apr 27th, 2017 @ 5:22am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Mass storage can be a security risk if you're bringing personal files in that have viruses and then opening them on government machines.

  • Apr 25th, 2017 @ 10:08am


    My guess would be industrial espionage. They're less concerned about employees stealing anything than someone walking in off the street and stealing data/designs/process/etc.

  • Apr 25th, 2017 @ 10:05am


    Is USB still a weak point if you disable USB Mass Storage? I know that non-storage USB devices can still work even if you disable the ability to use thumbdrives and the like.

  • Apr 25th, 2017 @ 10:04am

    Re: I'm calling bullshit...

    For contactless cards, sure, but many are still contact-based chip cards. The DoD uses contact-based SmartCards. Also, aren't contactless cards inherently less secure due to the fact that you don't actually need to make physical contact with the card?

  • Apr 21st, 2017 @ 7:52am

    Re: Re:

    That sounds like a citation is needed. According to the article "citing evidence in Chelsea Manning's trial, where Assange assisted Manning with password cracking to sweep up digital breadcrumbs". Further, from the linked WaPo article, "Manning chatted with Assange about a technique to crack a password so Manning could log on to a computer anonymously, and that conversation, which came up during Manning’s court-martial, could be used as evidence that WikiLeaks went beyond the role of publisher or journalist."

    Now I don't know if explaining a password cracking technique to someone makes you guilty of assisting them when that person then uses the technique, but I also don't know the details of this particular conversation or how involved Assange was.

  • Apr 21st, 2017 @ 4:11am

    (untitled comment)

    If you assist someone in hacking a government computer, shouldn't you be liable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? I'm following the part about journalists helping someone cover their tracks, but this goes beyond that by doing something that is itself illegal, ie. password cracking a government computer, doesn't it? Or am I missing something?

  • Apr 13th, 2017 @ 5:17am


    I haven't taken the "But they weren't in effect yet" argument to mean we're better off without them. I've seen it more as an argument against why things will suddenly be allowed to get so horribly bad. The rules weren't in effect yet and things weren't bad, therefore without the rules it won't all of a sudden become a post-apocalyptic world. Yes we'd be better off with the rules than without, but the mentality of "OMG, they killed the rules, the internet is over" is way overblown because the rules weren't even in effect yet anyway so cancelling them doesn't change anything but allow them to continue doing what they were already doing.

  • Mar 29th, 2017 @ 8:49am


    He actually didn't vote at all. Isakson (R-GA) is the other who also didn't vote. Had both voted No it would've been a split 50-50, gone to the VP for a tie-break, and the result would've likely been the same anyway. Not a single republican actually voted no.

  • Mar 28th, 2017 @ 12:54pm

    (untitled comment)

    It feels like California and the current administration are in a constant battle to one-up each other with unconstitutional stupidity from opposite ends of the spectrum.

  • Jan 23rd, 2017 @ 9:14am

    Re: *

    Does trademarking something stop someone from using the trademarked term when referring to what the trademarked term was trademarked to refer to?

    In slightly less confusing terms...if President Trump trademarked "President* Trump", would it actually stop anyone from using the term "President* Trump" if they were in fact referring to President Trump?

    Just because Apple trademarked "iPhone", I can still say iPhone if I'm talking about the iPhone. But I can't release a new phone and call it the iPhone because it wouldn't be referring to the trademarked iPhone.

  • Jan 11th, 2017 @ 12:32pm


    Yes, and I think if you do just that (purchase from the manufacturer), there is no upgrade fee, because in VZW's eyes you're bringing your own phone, not upgrading. I think the upgrade fee used to actually be the cost associated with transferring IMEIs on your account. It's understandable if you're buying a phone in the store and requiring an associate to manually do the transaction in the system for you, but with the internet now you can buy the phone from VZW and sign into your account to transfer service to a different phone. It should really just be the cost of doing business, like credit card fees.

  • Jan 11th, 2017 @ 12:25pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    No such thing as what? If you mean wireless carriers are actually operating in a free market, then please, tell the class how a small business startup can get into the wireless provider arena when it requires purchasing licenses for the electromagnetic spectrum from the FCC (the Government part of the government granted monopolies). The last spectrum auction pulled $19.6 billion (with a B) for 5 blocks of the spectrum. How does a small business enter that market without being a MVNO and paying huge royalties to the big boys?

  • Jan 11th, 2017 @ 6:05am


    Yes. How dare these companies want to make money rather than doing the community a solid and providing services for rock bottom prices.