Coyne Tibbets’s Techdirt Profile

coynet

About Coyne Tibbets




Coyne Tibbets’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 12th, 2018 @ 2:16pm

    The movie company explains

    Copyright protects our right to profit from our original dramatic work, and unflattering reviews like this one sure as f*** will kill our profits. Of course it's a copyright violation!

  • Feb 12th, 2018 @ 5:21am

    Depends who it is for, of course

    Encryption is only evil if used by the criminal element, AKA the great unwashed. Of course that does not include their majesties in law enforcement or federal government.

  • Feb 7th, 2018 @ 8:03pm

    Effective frequency

    Ajit Pai's FCC has repeatedly and comically claimed the contrary in the apparent belief that repetition forges reality (or at the very least fools the gullible.)

    Ever hear of effective frequency? Pai figures he just needs to repeat this a few more times, and everyone will believe it.

  • Feb 7th, 2018 @ 7:52pm

    The bane of capitalism

    And yet, those legacy players continue to push to make the internet into more of a broadcast medium -- to restrict that competition, to limit the supply of creators and to push things back through their gates under their control.

    There is nothing that capitalists hate more than competition. Especially competition that operates on a shoestring, so that monopolists can't under-cut the price.

  • Feb 7th, 2018 @ 7:44pm

    We can do better

    The next time they're running a search like this, let's see if we can get them six million matches.

  • Feb 7th, 2018 @ 7:17pm

    Defamation by claim of defamation

    It occurs to me that someone should experiment with defamation by claim of defamation.

    According to the Wikipedia article:

    Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed.

    Okay so let's propose an example. Joe publishes a Blog article. Bob doesn't like the article so he makes a false complaint to the blog host that it is defamatory.

    Per the above, Bob has defamed Joe. He has made a claim that is false and he has made it to someone other than Joe. So Joe should be able to sue Bob for defamation.

    If a few of these idiots pursued the falsely claiming defamation, maybe other idiots would think twice before doing that.

  • Feb 6th, 2018 @ 4:52am

    Re: Re: Get it over with

    I think you're overrating some of these people's intelligence. There are a lot of people who never got the moral of the story about The Golden Goose.

  • Feb 5th, 2018 @ 7:48pm

    Get it over with

    I cannot figure why governments bother pussyfooting around with Google. Get on with it. Confiscate their stock, confiscate all their money, jail their management, burn down their infrastructure, distribute all the money to other companies, and get it done with.

    Stop pretending that isn't what they really, really want to do.

  • Jan 29th, 2018 @ 7:47pm

    Who you calling sooty?

    What about the Senate's refusal to implement whistleblower protections? Talk about the pot calling the kettle sooty...

    (This pathetic hand wave involving the GAO sure isn't a whistleblower protection. It isn't even a good hand wave...)

  • Jan 29th, 2018 @ 3:31pm

    Who will actually build it?

    Russian contractors? Chinese contractors? Israeli contractors? Mexican contractors? Pirate Bay?

    Pretty sure it won't be US contractors.

  • Jan 29th, 2018 @ 12:38pm

    Re: Re: Universal tax on language

    So is anyone planning to go observe the hairless hunting bird franchise compete in the largest swineskin match of the year?

  • Jan 29th, 2018 @ 4:44am

    Universal tax on language

    You would think that the NFL would realize that this is a losing battle. Let's say they trademark "The Big Game"...well then people would be calling it "The Huge Game" or "The Ultimate Tamale." The NFL is going to have to trademark the entire human language--not just English, but all the others too. And that still won't be enough.

    I think the only solution would be a universal tax on language. Say something, write something, and you must pay a fee to the NFL. Do you think they would be happy with that?

  • Jan 25th, 2018 @ 12:28pm

    (untitled comment)

    I'm confused. You say that Rupert Murdoch was asking for Facebook to give him money, but then I see that he's talking about Facebook giving money to trusted publishers. Wouldn't that be money to anybody but Rupert Murdoch?

  • Jan 25th, 2018 @ 8:51am

    Define "bad"

    I am not so sure that 2% is bad.

    Suppose that, instead, the number was 25%. I would think that that would be an indication of a problem. Perhaps that the judges were being unreasonable, or more likely that the police were bringing warrant applications that were deficient.

    I expect the police to apply for warrant applications based upon probable cause. They should know what that is, and shouldn't be asking for warrants if they don't have it.

    But if the police do have probable cause, it's going to be pretty inevitable that they're going to get a warrant. After all, the judge is not supposed to just deny warrants willy-nilly, either. So should police applications be rejected 5% of the time? 2%? I'm not sure.

    Yes, it would bother me if it were 1-in-1000. But 2%? To me that sounds like a well-designed system being used by serious, responsible people.

  • Jan 22nd, 2018 @ 7:47pm

    To infinity and beyond

    NSA: "Oops!'

    Judge: "You guys are pressing the limits of my judicial patience. But I will overlook it this time."

    NSA: "Oops!'

    Judge: "You guys are pressing the limits of my judicial patience. But I will overlook it this time."

    NSA: "Oops!'

    Judge: "You guys are pressing the limits of my judicial patience. But I will overlook it this time."

    NSA: "Oops!'

    Judge: "You guys are pressing the limits of my judicial patience. But I will overlook it this time."

    NSA: "Oops!'

    Judge: "You guys are pressing the limits of my judicial patience. But I will overlook it this time."

    To infinity and beyond...

  • Jan 22nd, 2018 @ 7:28pm

    Re:

    Look, it's very simple: Having reached an agreement with us, failure on your part to pay us forever is a violation of our intellectual property rights in your money.

  • Jan 21st, 2018 @ 6:11am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The public school system is one of the dreaded socialist programs that Republicans hate so much; eventually it must be destroyed. But in the meantime, as much money as possible should be extracted from the system and directed to private companies or religious schools. Because there is nothing like (often unearned) government money to make investors sing; and nothing like religious private school to give the kiddies a proper indoctrination.

    The orange mascot loves the "properly" educated: The people should get an education devoid of any progressive, liberal or "elitist" influences, because any of those might lead them to question the "proper" conservative ideology. Some might view this as "poorly educated," but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

  • Jan 14th, 2018 @ 9:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A service for everyone

    You might want to go and read the story above, since you clearly didn't. What Congress is proposing to pass does not respect your constitutional rights at all, and based on past history the courts will be mute. You declaim that my concept is silly and unconstitutional. But my concept is not different from what the Senators proposed to put into law except that we are shot out of the benefits, if any.

  • Jan 13th, 2018 @ 7:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: A service for everyone

    record every US phone call - unconstitutional A. Like that stops them now? B. You know that the courts have held that they can do this for National Security reasons, so all we need to do and say it's for National Security and the courts will shrug.

    make those calls available to anyone - this will certainly not be abused There would need to be protections, yes, but do we have those now? And I did say suitable protections, without elaborating, but what I meant was subpoenas and legal process. No more than they can now abuse your journal/diary in court.

    Make it mandatory - more power to the power hungry Actually it would reduce their relative power. By mandatory I mean everyone. Donald Trump's calls would be recorded too.

    NSA pays a penalty - taxpayers end up with the bill; everyone would know what the rules are - except those who enforce them No worse than now. I agree this is a problem, but you can't say it's a worse problem with the new rules that I proposed than with the rules that exist now.

    But not all penalties upon government have to be in the form of money, read on.

    say anything illegal - what? Need examples here, like "bomb" in an airport? I worded this badly, better would be: Don't say anything you don't want to hear played back in court. Honestly: would you say such a thing on the phone now? Knowing the NSA is listening? And would pass anything interesting on to the FBI?

    very useful in many way - I imagine it would be (eye roll) Right now, it is useful for NSA, FBI, DOJ, etc., and offers us nothing but oppression. At least we would get some benefit if everything was recorded. More below.

    restrict our freedom to speak freely - First amendment be damned Worse than now?

    it will bring parity - no it wont Parity in the sense of, "Who benefits." Right now, only government and the powerful benefit. The idea is to open the benefits to everyone equally...and also the penalties.

    Not just the NSA and FBI either. You've heard that warning, we all have, that, "This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes." Companies use it all the time for order placement lines. Now suppose you order something pricy and renege...what are the chances that the company will have a recording of your call placing the order? Oh, right, 100%. And, what's the probability after the company shoved a bunch of services on you that you didn't ask for? Currently, zero; power all theirs, no parity. New world, 100%, parity; you lie, you die, they lie, they die.

    No longer will the NSA and the FBI have all the advantages - this is not entirely clear what is intended Clearer now?

    Nope, phone calls prove otherwise - certainly fool proof evidence huh Better than no evidence. More importantly, this is another example of parity. Suppose you're charged with a crime, currently, and the NSA happens to have recorded a phone call that proves your innocence. What are the chances that evidence would be available to you in court, currently? Zip, right? Because, currently, NSA, FBI and DOJ would neglect to mention that there's a recording of the call and too bad for you. (We don't have to guess on this, we have seen examples, right here on this site, of these agencies concealing evidence.)

    In the new regime, the call would certainly be relevant, so you would get a subpoena for it. No matter how bad it is for their case, the agencies could not hide it. Oh I suppose the NSA could claim they didn't record it, but then penalty. And not all penalties have to be monetary, one that comes to mind for this situation is, "Case dismissed."

  • Jan 13th, 2018 @ 4:23am

    A service for everyone

    I'm going to revive a suggestion I made once before.

    Let's demand the Congress order NSA and the intelligence community to record every US phone call in its entirety, and then make those calls available to anyone with suitable legal process. (Email and instant messages as well.)

    Make it mandatory. No more excuses from the NSA that, well we just didn't happen to record that call. Didn't record the call? NSA pays a penalty. No question whether NSA is recording everything, it's their job.

    Why? Several reasons. First of all, everyone would know what the rules are. Your phone is being recorded, if you say anything illegal, it will be known. You have a relationship with an old girlfriend, it will be known. You are a senator making deals under the table, it will be known.

    It should be very useful in many ways even if it does somewhat restrict our freedom to speak freely. But anyone with a brain is already restricted, because only an idiot thinks the NSA isn't already recording everything they say...and won't hand anything interesting to the FBI under the table.

    Most importantly, it will bring parity. No longer will the NSA and the FBI have all the advantages. You work across town in the bar at the time of the murder? No doubt about it, it's a matter of the record; location of your phone and the background of the call you made. Question of you doing drug, or terrorism, deals by phone? Nope, phone calls prove otherwise. FBI setting you up? If you can make a prima facie case, then you can pull the agent's phone calls and prove it. Company lied about what services you ordered? No doubt about it now.

    NSA is so bound and determined to record everything that they feel like recording? Let's make them turn it into a service for everyone. No more gleeful snooping, turn it into the drudge job they deserve.

More comments from Coyne Tibbets >>