Coyne Tibbets’s Techdirt Profile

On the post: UK Government Brings In Yet More Counter-Terrorism Measures — Including Internal Exile

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2014 @ 05:34pm

Question, from the back:

From the bill: "...in response to the increased threat..."

I've noticed a funny thing: Threats always increase, they never decrease no matter what measures we put in place.

So, just how high are these threats now? Stratosphere? Alpha Centauri? Or are we getting all the way close to the edge of the universe?

On the post: German Government Refuses FOI Request By Pointing Out Document Already Leaked

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2014 @ 11:41am

Re: Implicit Confirmation

It looks to me like the decision is intended to deny the benefit of FOIA to the requestor. FOIA is formal: If you obtain a document via FOIA, they can't stop you from publishing it or any portion of it.

Our government has threatened to prosecute even in cases of information that was long public--in some cases that was published formally by the government itself. Comes to mind a threat to prosecute someone if they dared to quote a public Supreme Court decision.

So, what if you publish a copy of that "illegally published" leak?

On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 23 Nov, 2014 @ 08:23pm

Libertarian wards

Based on other sources I've read, you can pretty much defend yourself against any libertarian attack by judiciously using the words "free market". My experience is that those two words turn their brains to mush and make it impossible for them to consider any argument or product critically.

Years ago, my father told me about the "Sure-fire cockroach killer," (sold when he was a child) which you ordered by mail. What you got for your hard-earned money was two blocks of wood, labelled "A" and "B", and instructions: "Place cockroach on block 'A', hit cockroach with block 'B'."

Now obviously this works, but it is also a colossal rip-off. But call it "created by the free market," and my experience is that pretty much any libertarian would say it was the greatest product ever.

On the post: So, If Someone Could Just Kill A Child And Let The FBI And DOJ Get Their Anti-Phone Encryption Legislation Going, That Would Be Great

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 22 Nov, 2014 @ 03:18am

Proof

Just killing a kid won't do the job. These are the conditions they have to meet for a valid proof:

Subject has to be known and in hand
The phone ostensibly to be searched is almost always in the possession of the bad guy (the "subject"). To get the phone, you have to be able to capture, arrest, hold, or even just talk with the subject. If you don't know who the subject is, then the whole line of argument is moot: you can't get the phone from an unknown subject.

Phone must be in hand
Not only that, but you have to be able to get the phone from the subject, which needs an excuse, warrant, or force. The problem with this is that the subject may destroy the phone, or may kill the kid immediately on your confiscation of the phone.

Even assuming best case, taking the phone certainly alerts the subject to the investigation.

Required proof is on the phone
You have to be able to get the needed information from the phone. Just because you have the phone doesn't mean it will help you find the kid. Encryption is beside the point; even assuming an unencrypted phone, what if the subject turned the GPS off? Or didn't take a picture of the kid? Or turned the phone off when visiting the kid?

It is reaching to assume any subject will have incriminating data on the phone.

No other path to proof
It's idiotic to assert an attempt to overcome the above difficulties will be made if there is an easier path to the data. Assuming a kid kidnapping, exigent circumstances would apply. If you're looking for back proof, a warrant would apply. Either exigent circumstance or a warrant would get all the cloud data from the phone provider which, it might be pointed out, doesn't require you to have the subject and his phone and evidence on the phone, in hand.

But who cares?!
They'll make the argument anyway because, frankly, like a baby throwing a tantrum over lost candy. They can't see data without wanting it. They don't care if it's a phone, personal computer, cloud, private Facebook account, or your scientific calculator: if it holds data they want it! want it! want it! and will throw a tantrum to get it.

It doesn't have to make sense: so what if your calculator can't contain incriminating evidence? If it contains data, "Want it!!!"

Because: The world will end if we (royal "we") don't have access.

On the post: Yet Another Study Shows US Satire Programs Do A Better Job Informing Viewers Than Actual News Outlets

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 20 Nov, 2014 @ 10:09pm

It's about editorial independence

It's really not surprising. Satirists generally pay close attention to editorial independence, because their satire is all they have to sell. As a result, they retain the freedom to satirize what they want and are generally topical.

On the other hand, the news media can sell ads and pablum, so they gave up all editorial independence long ago.

On the post: White House Apparently Doing Everything To Stop Release Of CIA Torture Report

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 20 Nov, 2014 @ 09:52pm

Avoiding blame

It's not hard to understand why, if you think about it: You know Obama is going to be blamed for all this torture.

On the post: Small Change To National Archivist's Powers May Keep Government Agencies From Destroying Embarrassing Documents

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 20 Nov, 2014 @ 09:50pm

Dr. Archivist

"If that passes, government agencies will no longer be able to exploit the law to bury embarrassing or incriminating documents."

Never underestimate the power of the force (quid pro quo). I predict the archivist will be swimming in money (eliminating the "Archivist neither has the funding" problem) and we still won't get to see anything.

Because, Dr. Evil will soliloquize: "Gentlemen, I have a plan. It's called blackmail."

I mean, Dr. Archivist.

On the post: FISA Judge To Yahoo: If US Citizens Don't Know They're Being Surveilled, There's No Harm

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 20 Nov, 2014 @ 09:30am

Without warrants, you have nothing!

It's bad enough that Judge Arnold thinks that seizing data is only illegal if the intelligence agencies get caught.

His construction of the Fourth Amendment is even worse. Suppose we leave out the warrants clause, which he undoubtedly thinks is completely unneeded, since he says, "[...]there's nothing in there that really says that a warrant is usually required."

That leaves just the first part of the Fourth Amendment, which is, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, shall not be violated."

Emphasis on, "[...] shall not be violated." That means that, without a warrant, every search and seizure by the government is a violation of the citizen's rights. Without that "warrants" clause, there is no justification for the government to search or seize anything.

So, Judge Arnold, what about it?

On the post: New House Intelligence Boss Doesn't See The Need For Any Surveillance Reform

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 20 Nov, 2014 @ 09:02am

Shocked

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! I can't believe they would pick someone for intelligence boss who would toe the party line! Whatever is this country coming to, that the new intelligence boss thinks the intelligence community can do no wrong?

On the post: Middle School Principal Suspended Over Unannounced School Shooter Drill

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2014 @ 11:07pm

What the hell is the matter with you people?

The answer to that question is: They aren't thinking. They're just doing, seeking political points.

Probably the best recent example of that was the school police force that acquired a grenade launcher. What possible use could a launcher for grenades have--what use could grenades have--that wouldn't be likely to do more harm to the kids than to an attacker?

At the rate we're going, pretty soon we'll see an announcement like this one:

The Spring Vally School System Police Force has acquired a 10-megaton tactical nuclear weapon, in order to better protect your children.

No doubt, the strategy is that, if someone attacks the school, just set off the nuke and--Presto!--no attackers anymore.

The point is that we've reached the stage where the only thing that matters is the security theater and political points:
Hey look, we can get a humvee! We can be better than the school next door.
Hey look, we can get a grenade launcher! We can be better than the school next door.
Hey look, we can get a tank! We can be better than the school next door.
Hey look, we can get a drone! We can be better than the school next door.
Hey look, we can get a figher jet! We can be better than the school next door.
Hey look, we can get a 10-megaton nuclear weapon! We can be better than the school next door.

...and each time, that's where the thinking ends.

The risk in these school drills is horrible; that some kid will die of a panic attack, asthma, some other medical problem, a fall or other accident, or get shot is just petrifying.

But who cares, when we can make an impression on the locals and show how much better protectors we are than the school district next door?

On the post: Cops Decide Running Surprise School Shooter Drill During Class At A Middle School Is A Great Idea

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2014 @ 11:49am

A child will die

Sooner or later, a child will die during one of these stupid drills. I don't know if it'll be some kind of shooting accident by a cop, security guard, or some helpful gun-carrying teacher; a terminal panic or asthma attack; some other medical emergency; or a fall or similar accident.

But it's bound to happen at some point...and when it does, I wonder how they'll justify the cost-benefit ratio then?

I mean, a Tucson high school student died in a fire drill, which is certainly less risky than a school shooter drill.

On the post: AT&T Quietly Backs Away From Its Use of Sneaky Super Cookies

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2014 @ 07:57pm

Just wait until the noise dies down: Then they'll back away from backing away.

On the post: USA Freedom Act Fails To Move Forward… For Incredibly Stupid Reasons

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2014 @ 06:30pm

Politician naivete

(Oh, yeah, right, "288 'selectors.'" Each of which selected an average of a mere 25 million people, no doubt.)

But, just curious, did anyone here expect the politicians to do something brilliant?

On the post: To Avoid Government Surveillance, South Koreans Abandon Local Software And Flock To German Chat App

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2014 @ 04:01pm

Never-ending story

So now KCSC will need to ban the German Chat App. Then the people will switch to another app, and KCSC will need to ban that.

Another app, another ban...another app, another ban...another app, another ban...another app, another ban...another app, another ban...another app, another ban...another app, another ban...another app, another ban...another app, another ban...another app, another ban...another app, another ban...another app, another ban...

Infinite loop. KCSC will end by banning everything; just like all forms of censorship end by banning everything.

On the post: Justice Department Defends US Marshals' Airborne Cell Tower Spoofers; Refuses To Acknowledge Program Exists

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2014 @ 03:43pm

If we're doing it we're not

So...

"If we were doing this, which we may or may not be doing, it would be legal. Because anything we do would be legal; if we were doing it, which we may or may not be doing.

"We can't provide any data on this program that may or may not exist, because we do not admit any data exists or does not exist from this program that may exist or not.

"So obviously we can't provide any examples, which may or may not exist of data that may or may not exist for a program that may or may not exist, but would be legal if it does exist.

"Which we do not admit or deny."

On the post: TRUSTe Pays Up $200k To Settle Charges Of 'Deceiving Consumers' Over Its Certification Of Sites

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2014 @ 03:15pm

Not second liability

TRUSTe provided the boilerplate to be used that specified TRUSTe was non-profit. TRUSTe then neglected to provide new boilerplate for its change to profit status. As a consequence of this negligence its status is misrepresented to customers.

What TRUSTe said; what TRUSTe failed to do: Those are first liability issues, not second.

It would be second liability if TRUSTe directed a site to change the boilerplate and the company did not do so, then the FTC sued TRUSTe for what the other site failed to do.

On the post: UK's Home Secretary Says Terrorists Will Be The Real Winners If Country's Cell Coverage Dead Zones Are Fixed

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2014 @ 06:17pm

Why would he suggest this?

Only a terrorist would suggest a cell company shouldn't have totalitarian control of its customers.

If we were to eliminate that totalitarian control, those terrorists win.

On the post: Republicans And Democrats Alike Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality; Why Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2014 @ 06:14pm

Republicans And Democrats Alike Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality; Why Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?

Bought to be oblivious.

On the post: Federal Judge Says Public Has Right To Know About FBI's Biometric Database, Awards $20,000 In Legal Fees To FOIA Requester

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2014 @ 08:37pm

Re: You're an optimist

I agree. I see a large vat of black ink, applied to paper, in EPIC's future.

On the post: Asset Forfeiture Is Just Cops Going Shopping For Stuff They Want

Coyne Tibbets ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2014 @ 03:39pm

Re: Re: Re: The other wrong

There's all kinds of heroes like that. Take Gibbs, from NCIS: I'd trust him with any information I own, because he'll always use it only at need and never to punish those who don't do wrong.

In real life, such heroes don't exist, and that's why we have to treat real life different from the fiction.

Coyne Tibbets 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1598)