Jeff Green’s Techdirt Profile

cricketjeff

About Jeff Green




Jeff Green’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 2nd, 2018 @ 7:11am

    Sauce for the goose

    A great many Americans get very upset about the EU courts trying to impose EU law outside their jurisdiction, the same things can be said in reverse. In almost all the world these weapons are illegal, maybe not in the few counties working with pre-industrial revolution systems of law, but for modern countries definitely illegal.
    A written constitution does this. In the modern world courts wrestle with attempting a sane balance between competing rights. We tend to feel our right not to be shot by madmen trumps the right of nitwits to distribute firearms, and full instructions to produce a weapon from systems with genuine alternative uses with no particular skill are in all sensible definitions weapons.
    If these people made strenuous efforts to prevent people outside the USA accessing the information there may be a decent argument for applying US only law to websites but I'd like to see a site of which I am very fond not forgetting that not everything in US law is entirely rational!
    Neither of the first two amendments to the constitution should in the eyes of many rational people be applied without regard to balance. And ant document that needs to be amended to ensure it applies to 20% of the World's population probably needed a complete rewrite a long time ago!

  • Jul 30th, 2018 @ 10:29am

    Re:

    I can see a genuine use and need for qualified immunity, what seems to me totally absurd is the presumptions US courts appear to base it on.
    There are laws where the interpretation could conceivably be debated, in those cases a police officer should not be held personally responsible for making a reasonable interpretation of the law (that does not mean his employer should not be responsible!).
    However courts should always assume that (save in dire emergency split-second cases) that police officers know the laws they are applying. If they don't know the law what the fried-cucumber-sausages are they doing pretending to be officers of the law?
    These people are PAID TO KNOW THE LAW! It should be assumed they do under almost all circumstances and if they know the law and break it that should not entitle them to nice treatment as police officers it should be a reason to treat them more harshly than a non-police officer would be treated in the same circumstances!

  • Jul 24th, 2018 @ 3:53am

    Well not quite ...

    What the BBC reported was "accurate", sort of. If I call the police local to you and report that you are a paedophile and abused me on several occasions when I was a child I hope the police will investigate. What I suspect you would hope is that on your local TV station your house isn't filmed as the police drop in, that pictures of them going through your underwear aren't included along with a final line statement that you haven't yet been charged.

    The BBC even submitted the report for a "scoop of the year award" which is a bit unlikely given what the story turned out to be, fantasist made outrageous claims about renowned star, famous for christian values and celibacy, claims turned out to be false.

    Had the BBC reported that Police searched a property belonging to a public figure in the wherever-it-is area after allegations of historical sex abuse there would have been no case. The reporting was not balanced and factual it was blatantly sensational.

  • May 21st, 2018 @ 11:31am

    (untitled comment)

    They are called irregular verbs.
    I compete fairly
    You take advantage of my work
    They steal everything we do.

    I call for fair and balanced regulation
    You call for restrictions
    They want full blown censorship

    I am a free marketeer
    You show worrying tendencies to state control
    They are communists

    We are freedom fighters
    They are terrorists

    I use enhanced interrogation techniques
    They torture innocent bystanders

    Identical actions can attract very different descriptions ...

  • May 15th, 2018 @ 11:20am

    Re: Re: Re: definining terrorism by splitting hairs?

    There is absolutely no genetic evidence of human races, there may be lots of "scientific" evidence for them, the problem is that none of it is actually scientific, just produced by silly people who like to pander to the ignorant and the hate-filled.

    There are conditions that are more common in particular groups of individuals, this is not evidence of races but of the fact that you can only inherit genes from your parents and thus some genes are more common in some places than in other, but that doesn't make them "genes for race", these same genes exist in other populations from elsewhere in the world, just at different frequencies.

  • Apr 17th, 2018 @ 2:26am

    Re: Cloudy outlook indeed

    Could quickly lead to an exodus of companies from the US, I bet the authorities in Vancouver are rubbing their hands, not too far up the same coast, only need to move "head office" and financial operations and become a fully fledged Canadian company and you can do business Worldwide. Stay put and be US only.

  • Apr 11th, 2018 @ 3:40am

    (untitled comment)

    The proposal strikes at another "fundamental right". If intellectual property is property, which is of course debatable, the law should not ban its owner from giving it away freely.
    I would be more than a little upset if the EU were to tell me that I wasn't allowed to give my money away to a charity or a friend.

  • Apr 2nd, 2018 @ 1:29pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm still pretty sure you'd own the copyright, unless some other agency were to change those settings. You chose what to photograph, in that you chose to photograph "whatever was in front of the camera in half an hour" and you chose to photograph it using the cameras self timer. These were foreseeable things.
    Many nature photographers do more or less this regularly and have no trouble asserting their copyright. The problem the monkey picture guy had was to tell the world that another agency had got involved.

  • Mar 6th, 2018 @ 8:54pm

    Re: Re:

    Nothing hypocritical at all, I will however stick to my principles and not say exactly what I think of your reply exactly how I want to say it.

    You see? I just for the sake of civilised debate restricted my own free speech. Your (tongue in cheek) compromise is an example of what I complained about, a wish for black and white in a grey world.

  • Mar 6th, 2018 @ 1:48pm

    (untitled comment)

    I have no sympathy with the stupidity of this prosecution nor with the still greater stupidity of Le Pen for her crass posting but that doesn't mean I can agree with everything in the article :

    "The posting was questionable and in poor taste, but it certainly shouldn't be illegal. "

    Certainly? You may not believe it should be illegal, and I may not believe it should be illegal but there's no certainty about it. I can see an arguable case that making deliberately provocative postings should be not be allowed.

    Just because the USA raises free speech above almost any other freedom does not mean that's the right thing to do under all circumstances, it isn't. I find a problem with almost all absolute assertions, a good life requires that we all get along and if that means you aren't always free to say exactly what you want exactly how you want to say it, that's not an overwhelming price to pay.

  • Feb 27th, 2018 @ 11:13am

    This could be an excellent idea (with a couple of changes)

    In essence the idea seems to be if someone has a good idea and someone else uses it badly then the good idea guy must be pay unless he fixes things fast. Oooooooookaaaayyyyyyyyyy

    So if say someone thought of a good idea for a law and it was used badly unless that law is fixed fast, say within 2 days, and by fixed clearly we mean in such a way that the law cannot be broken again and the perpetrators will be model citizens from now on all the failing lawmakers must be fined.

    Let's see. The second amendment could arguably be called a good idea but some people are abusing it. So for everyone who uses a gun to kill or maim or rob anyone else we fine the politicians!

    Or maybe governments and legislatures are supposed to see that budgets are reasonably in balance, this is clearly easy billions of people round the world do it for their own budgets so the smartest politicians in America must be able to do it in an instant, they haven't? Fine them, lets say a million a day each until the budget balances. That'll fix things quick.

    I'm sure we can keep on extending this legal principle in many many directions surely no legislator would think it a bad idea ...

  • Feb 27th, 2018 @ 2:58am

    Re: Re: EECK! not "Metro"

    And even that's not the Metro!
    We have a Met line but the Metro is what they call the transport systems in Manchester and Paris amongst other places. Ours is The Underground or the Tube.

  • Jan 6th, 2018 @ 12:46pm

    What would happen if ...

    A concerned group of citizens sent DMCA takedown notices to every major cinema (Movie theatre?) chain on the release of each new Disney movie claiming multiple copyright breaches and demanding DMCA takedowns?

  • Dec 11th, 2017 @ 5:53am

    Re: Re:

    My only modification would be that allowing these officials a whole day is overdoing it, jail an official every 2 hours, and if after 2 days they haven't complied start a draw from all senior police and legal department employees of the NYPD. It should take a year or two before the whole department have been jailed.

  • Nov 7th, 2017 @ 10:57am

    Re: Re:

    Your problem is that you mistake what they shouldn't do with reality. The judge is busy and usually seems to just take what the prevailing lawyer offers and signs off on it. The only remedy for the injured third parties is for them to go to court and spend a lot of money on other lawyers.
    One thing we should not forget is that judges are lawyers. Their friends are lawyers, their instincts are the instincts of lawyers. Lawyers believe that giving money to lawyers is a good thing ...

  • Nov 3rd, 2017 @ 9:30am

    Appaling!

    Surely this sort of action cannot be permitted, I would strongly recommend the lawyers now missing out on years of regular pay days sue someone straight away!

  • Oct 30th, 2017 @ 12:18pm

    Re:

    surely that's a typo in the original story the line should have read

    "how far the Intelligence Community is willing to go to destroy its reputation"

  • Sep 13th, 2017 @ 2:11pm

    Please can we make it a crime?

    Because I've listened to debates in our parliament and your house and senate and if asking dumb questions were a crime we could lock the whole damned lot of them up and throw away the keys!

  • Sep 13th, 2017 @ 2:09pm

    Re: Re:

    But too often deportation IS kidnapping. There may be a legal difference but forcibly removing someone from where they are, and where they are living a normal life, and imprisoning them, then taking them somewhere they don't want to be seems to fit the definition very well

    From oxforddictionaries.com

    kidnap
    verb
    [with object]

    Abduct (someone) and hold them captive, typically to obtain a ransom.
    ‘militants kidnapped the daughter of a minister’


    There is no ransom demanded, but there doesn't have to be to make a kidnap a kidnap.

  • Jul 14th, 2017 @ 2:33am

    Re: Re: I'll take Shortsighted Thinking for $1,000 Alex...

    Nielson are only market leaders in North America, elsewhere Kantar Media dominate, there are two or three other players too.

More comments from Jeff Green >>