Coyne Tibbets 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1598) comment rss

  • On the post: Defense Department Screws Over FOIA Requester Repeatedly, Blames Him For 'Breaking' The FOIA Process

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 06 May, 2016 @ 12:07pm

    Re: Re: 1871 employees per request

    No, I know they have some other jobs, generally speaking.

    But it seems realistic to think that DoD could find four full-time persons, out of all those 1.34 million, to spend a WHOLE DAY answering each FOIA request. Wouldn't you think?

    I mean, just think about it: 240 work days per year per person x 4 persons is 960 requests per year. More than enough for this overwhelming massive surging flood of FOIA requests. So DoD's inability to find four persons to deal with FOIA requests is pretty indicative of their priorities.

  • On the post: Homeland Security Wants To Subpoena Us Over A Clearly Hyperbolic Techdirt Comment

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 06 May, 2016 @ 04:23pm

    Digger....Liberal

    At first, I didn't understand the big deal about the comment. I mean, Tea party zealots, free-staters, and other conservative idiots threaten murder and open rebellion all the time and you don't see DHS sending subpoenas for those comments.

    I think what's got DHS in a twist is that they suspect Digger is a commie pinko liberal. Those are vastly more dangerous, you know.

  • On the post: Court Upholds Sentence For Ex-Cop Who Abused Law Enforcement Database Access

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 06 May, 2016 @ 11:37am

    Ex-con not so much

    Law enforcement agencies have proven more willing to forgive and forget than the private sector, which often refuses to employ ex-cons under any circumstances.
    "Ex-con" (ex-convict) usually refers to felony convictions and people who were imprisoned.

    He was convicted of a misdemeanor and no jail, so most organizations would not consider him an ex-con. (If misdemeanor convictions make people ex-cons, then they would be unemployable after misdemeanor speeding tickets.)

    What is worth thinking about is whether or not a civilian would have gotten the same cushy deal. As I recall, Aaron Swartz was looking at 35 years for no fraud and much less abuse.

  • On the post: Congress Scolds The FCC For Making The Cable Set Top Box Market More Competitive

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 06 May, 2016 @ 07:43am

    Simple fix

    There's a very simple fix to all of this: Cable box at cost, under contract terms not to exceed 1/20th the full value monthly for two years.

    So, suppose the cable box costs $50. The cable company would sell you the box at $2.50/month for 24 months, after which you pay nothing because the box belongs to you. Would also need controls on the cost of cable boxes.

    That way, there's no piracy, because the cable companies control the box used, just like now.

    Surely the cable companies would jump on that because it's not like they make a GIGANTIC PROFIT leasing a $50 box to the consumer for $20 a month, indefinitely.

    (Realizes: That means that, so far, I've paid about $500 for my $50 box.)

    Oh, wait, they do make a GIGANTIC PROFIT leasing a $50 box to the consumer for $20 a month, indefinitely. Never mind. This won't work, they'd hate it, too.

  • On the post: Techdirt Reading List: No Law: Intellectual Property In The Image Of An Absolute First Amendment

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 05 May, 2016 @ 04:42pm

    In small bills, please

    Instead, they're suggesting something more akin to the way defamation law often works, in which the speech is not removed, since that could violate the First Amendment, but you may need to pay for it
    Oh, sure, that'll solve it. Right.

    Because you know that when an average Joe says something Doofus Corp doesn't like, Doofus Corp is sending a bill for a licensing fee of $30,000--with an alternative of "take it down". An average Joe would never take his "infringing" speech down rather than pay a tiny little bill like that: that's pocket change to an average Joe...oh, wait, no it isn't.

    In reality, all that shows is that David Lange and H. Jefferson Powell have their heads up their asses: their proposed restriction on IP law would accomplish nothing but shutting out the average Joes out of the marketplace of ideas.

  • On the post: Lawsuit: CBP Took $240,000 From Man And Refused To Respond To His Forfeiture Challenge Until It Had Already Processed It

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 04 May, 2016 @ 11:59pm

    Stealing process

    Our [CBP] reasoning is simple: stealing someone's money is definitely much easier when they're not challenging the stealing process.

  • On the post: Defense Department Screws Over FOIA Requester Repeatedly, Blames Him For 'Breaking' The FOIA Process

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 04 May, 2016 @ 11:48pm

    1871 employees per request

    To start, let's do a little reverse-engineering: 308 requests is 43% of 716, approximately.

    So the entire defense department (presumably including the NSA) receives 716 FOIA requests per fiscal year? And this has totally overwhelmed the DoD's 1.34 million employees? With 1,871 employees to process each request?

    I always heard government employees were lazy, but even I'm surprised.

  • On the post: The Proper Channels For Whistleblowers Are Still A Joke

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 03 May, 2016 @ 08:21am

    Re: Way to attract the best talent

    Are you kidding? Working for "uncle scrooge" is great...if you have a larcenous bent. You can do whatever you want and no one dares to tell on you.

  • On the post: Paper That Couldn't Be Bothered To Report On Local Police Misconduct Fires Off Editorial Insulting Writer Who Actually Did

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 02 May, 2016 @ 06:34pm

    Re:

    So the next time these brave police officers want to stick their finger up your ass, you ask how far you should bend over.

  • On the post: University Educates Student On How Everyone Will Abuse Trademark Law

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 02 May, 2016 @ 06:00pm

    Re:

    Course? Why? They already know what their legal standing is. That's the best part of being a $4 billion/year plus law university: you know what your legal standing is.

    They also know that the student is not going to be able pony up $500,000 to fight for his rights.

    All it cost the university to shut the student down is a couple of $150 hours of one of university's retained law firm's paralegals to threaten to crush the student. Why should that waste of time bother the university? It's worth it to get rid of the nuisance.

    No, like any major rights holder, they know full well what the score is: them, $300; nuisance student, silenced, unwelcome idea crushed, rights immaterial.

  • On the post: The Cable Industry Threatens To Sue If FCC Tries To Bring Competition To Cable Set Top Boxes

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 01 May, 2016 @ 03:25am

    Re:

    That is a very shallow interpretation.

    Compare the cell phone market. In order to sell cell phones for a particular network, such as AT&T, the cell phone has to meet certain gatekeeper requirements. It is not the customer that decides those, but the manufacturer.

    This proposed cable box market would be similar: the cable boxes will meet gatekeeper requirements or they can't run on a particular cable system at all. The customer will not get to decide those requirements. But in that market, the customer gets a choice of cable boxes, and where to actually buy them, and the available features, and the price they pay.

    Right now, the cable company provides this crappy 100 Watt round-the-clock box that has damn few features. They probably pay $10-$30 for the box, but they charge me $5-$10 a month to have it.

    A market more like the cell phone market is much to my advantage, as a consumer, and the security aspect is way overblown.

  • On the post: FBI Spent $1.3 Million To Not Even Learn The Details Of The iPhone Hack… So Now It Says It Can't Tell Apple

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 30 Apr, 2016 @ 05:08am

    Re:

    I think the reason they won't talk is even simpler than this: non-disclosure agreement.

  • On the post: Scientists Looking To Fix The Many Problems With Forensic Evidence

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 30 Apr, 2016 @ 01:25am

    Hard vs cakewalk

    Let's see...doing it forensic evidence right versus doing a cakewalk to conviction. How do we think real-world CSI's will decide?

    Forensic scientists can debate until they're blue, but nothing is changing until their testimony starts sinking cases. And since forensic scientists are "free" for testimony at $400/hour or so, guess how much testimony they'll be giving for average man.

  • On the post: Supreme Court Approves Rule 41 Changes, Putting FBI Closer To Searching Any Computer Anywhere With A Single Warrant

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 30 Apr, 2016 @ 01:14am

    The problem: particularity

    To me, this seems a reasonable change--mostly. The primary purpose of the existing rule 41 under discussion is to prevent venue shopping for warrants, not to prevent warrants entirely when the FBI has no idea where someone resides.

    Where it falls down is "particularity"; with respect to the Fourth Amendment clause, "...particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    As I see it, the problem isn't that a warrant was used to access a computer at an unknown location, the problem was that a single warrant was used to access every computer at every location.

    Warrants under a new rule 41 should serve only for technical identification of a computer. Once a computer has been identified particularly, the FBI should have to obtain a specific warrant to search that computer particularly.

    Suppose the government gained control of a drug distribution point, and decided to continue to ship drugs...along with a free tracker in every bag. A single NIT-equivalent warrant should be good for that, even though the government has no idea where the bags are going (could be going to another state).

    But once a particular bag has been delivered to a particular warehouse, for example, the government should have to obtain a warrant particular to that warehouse.

    Rule 41 did fall down, I just disagree as to the extent of the breakdown and the flaws of the proposed correction.

  • On the post: The Cable Industry Threatens To Sue If FCC Tries To Bring Competition To Cable Set Top Boxes

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 29 Apr, 2016 @ 10:21am

    Re:

    Why is that of interest? We already know the answer. Just see the list of sponsors and cosponsors on HR 2666. There's your list.

  • On the post: Reputation Management Revolution: Fake News Sites And Even Faker DMCA Notices

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 29 Apr, 2016 @ 10:32am

    Outright copytheft

    It seems to me this is outright copyright theft, independent of the bogus DMCA claims. Should be subject to $150,000 per article willfully stolen.

  • On the post: Roku CEO Kisses Up To Comcast, Supports Opposition To Cable Set Top Box Competition

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 28 Apr, 2016 @ 01:06am

    Re:

    No kidding. When I read this, I had a mental image of his shooting himself in his left foot, in order to avoid shooting himself in his right.

  • On the post: Blizzard Pretends IP Made It Kill Fan Server

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 28 Apr, 2016 @ 07:30am

    Whiners

    ...doesn't result in pissing off thousands of Blizzard fans.


    Blizzard has millions of fans. Why would we worry about a few thousand whiners?

  • On the post: EFF, ACLU And Public Records Laws Team Up To Expose Hidden Stingray Use By The Milwaukee Police Department

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 27 Apr, 2016 @ 11:36am

    Unfair

    EFF, ACLU And Public Records Laws teamed up? Unfair, unfair: it's three against one! Ganging up against the might of the entire Milwaukee Police Department!

  • On the post: FCC To Ban Charter Communications From Imposing Usage Caps If It Wants Merger Approval

    Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2016 @ 11:53am

    Re:

    I don't see how they (ISPs) can even justify their cap levels.

    Arbitrarily selected cable company: "S'easy! more profit for us!"

Next >>