Dan Brown 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (335) comment rss

  • On the post: As Tulsi Gabbard's Silly Attention Seeking Lawsuit Against Google Falters, She Files Equally Silly Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 27 Jan, 2020 @ 04:34pm

    Re: Re: "asset" isn't a statement of fact?

    Yes, words can have multiple meanings, though I still don't think Mike's (and your, and others') view of "asset" (to wit, something beneficial, even though the holder of that "asset" has no ownership, possession, or control of that "asset") is the most natural, or even a particularly reasonable, understanding of that term. But even if it is, it doesn't preclude the other. And if a reasonable listener could understand "asset" in the way I propose, that claim's going to survive a motion to dismiss (at least as far as that's the concern).

  • On the post: As Tulsi Gabbard's Silly Attention Seeking Lawsuit Against Google Falters, She Files Equally Silly Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 27 Jan, 2020 @ 12:04pm

    "asset" isn't a statement of fact?

    A Russian asset doesn't mean someone who is purposefully doing the bidding of the Russian government. That would be a Russian agent. Simply saying someone is an asset to the Russians, means that they're valuable in some way to the Russians, and not that the Russians' [sic] control them.

    Methinks Mike doth protest too much. An asset is something the asset-holder owns, or in which they have some posessory interest. As such, the statement (not explicitly made, but implied) "Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset" means, not only that she benefits Russia in some way, but also that Russia in some way, and to some degree, owns her. There's a lot wrong with this lawsuit, but this claim actually has some validity.

  • On the post: Civil FOSTA Suits Start Showing Up In Court; Prove That FOSTA Supporters Were 100% Wrong About Who Would Be Targeted

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 09 Jan, 2020 @ 11:04am

    Re:

    Just as an aside, Plaintiffs usually aren’t worried about criminal or civil liability when they file lawsuits.
    That gave me pause as well. In context, I think the meaning was that the plaintiffs in Woodhull, who sued the government based on their fear of criminal or civil liability.

  • On the post: Connecticut Cop Sues Local Blogger To Get Him To Turn Over Personal Info On Commenters Who Said Thing The Cop Didn't Like

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 08 Jan, 2020 @ 03:30pm

    Re: Re:

    Proof isn't required with the complaint; the question is whether the complaint on its face makes the appropriate claims. But I'd disagree with btr1701's analysis on most of the ones he says are fact and therefore potentially defamatory:

    • Sleeping on shift--yes, that's a statement of fact. Misuse of the patrol car may or may not be, depending on what's meant by "misuse" (or "impropriety").
    • Inappropriately leaking information--depends on what's meant by "inappropriately", but is probably opinion. If there were specific claims of violations of specific policies, rules, regulations, or laws, that would likely be a statement of fact.
    • Ability to lead, making and ignoring racist comments--as stated, this is pure opinion. If there are allegations that specific words or phrases were used, that would be a question of fact.
    • The NYPD thing--the only part of this that's a statement of fact is that he wasn't in Queens and Bronx, but I don't see how that could be defamatory. His job performance and alleged racism are matters of opinion (with the possible exception of incorrectly recounting his performance evaluations, etc.)
    • HPD officers ordered not to read the blog--yes, it's a statement of fact, but so what? How is it possibly defamatory?
    • Threat to cut D's throat--yes, that's a factual claim.
    • Disgrace to the badge--pure opinion.

  • On the post: Nearly 4,000 Ring Credentials Leaked, Including Users' Time Zones And Device Names

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 24 Dec, 2019 @ 09:46am

    Re:

    For the most part, all of the supposed issues now being hysterically broadcast simply are because of ignorant users not securing the devices properly.
    So what user error, specifically, resulted in the credentials and device names of nearly 4000 Ring devices being exposed?

  • On the post: Yup, Strike 3 Is Going The Prenda Route By Filing 'Pure Discovery' Suits In FL State Court

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 19 Dec, 2019 @ 03:38pm

    Re:

    I think you're thinking of diversity jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear cases involving state law when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75k. The plaintiff can bring such a case in state court, but the defendant can remove it to federal court if they choose. But true federal questions (i.e., those premised in federal law) ordinarily need to be in federal court, unless the federal law in question allows for its being tried in state court.

  • On the post: Tennessee Doctor Decides He Wants To Take The State's Anti-SLAPP Law For A Spin, Files Bogus Defamation Lawsuit Over A Negative Review

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 13 Dec, 2019 @ 04:14pm

    Re:

    All which lawyers? Did you see a lawyer cited in this article? Did you see someone claiming to be a lawyer cited in this article? Because I didn't see either.

  • On the post: Tennessee Doctor Decides He Wants To Take The State's Anti-SLAPP Law For A Spin, Files Bogus Defamation Lawsuit Over A Negative Review

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 13 Dec, 2019 @ 04:12pm

    Re: Re:

    ...and the response would be, "no, you prove you didn't," since the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove falsity.

  • On the post: Devin Nunes Follows Through And Sues CNN In Laughably Dumb SLAPP Suit

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2019 @ 11:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: What's normal procedure...

    "Accurately quote what they were told" is not a defense to defamation; CNN has their own responsibility for the truth of what they're reporting. Since Nunes is a public figure, that responsibility is pretty low, but it isn't obviated by the fact that "that's what he told me."

  • On the post: State's Rejection Of Driver's 'IMGOD' Vanity Plate Unconstitutional, Federal Court Rules

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 04 Dec, 2019 @ 11:21pm

    Re: You uh, sure you want to make that argument?

    Ignoring the dishonest hypocrisy in trying to claim that they were neutral on religious messages while giving the pass to pro-god plates,
    Remember, they also approved NOGOD--which, I guess, could be short for KNOWGOD, but is more likely to be an affirmation of a belief in there being no god.

  • On the post: Copyright Troll Mathew Higbee Demands ~$1,000 For Image Only His Team Viewed

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 27 Nov, 2019 @ 12:59pm

    Re: Re:

    ...and seeking fees for his work would be unethical how, exactly? And there's actually a pretty strong chance Levy could be awarded fees, but it would require Higbee to actually file suit, based on FRCP R 68 (which has been discussed here recently). In short, it provides that if a plaintiff didn't recover substantially more at trial than they were offered in settlement, they're on the hook for the defendant's costs--including attorney's fees, if the plaintiff would have been entitled to those. Here, an offer of settlement of double the actual damages was made and rejected, so it's highly unlikely Higbee would be able to recover more than that. If Levy were to bill fees, he'd likely recover them.

  • On the post: New York Residents Unprotected, Served Up To Criminals By NYPD Employees

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2019 @ 04:19pm

    Re:

    Qualified immunity is not a defense to criminal charges.

  • On the post: Hong Kong Court Hands Down Protest-Targeting Order Banning Online Content That 'Incites Violence'

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2019 @ 05:46am

    Re: 'Sure you could post it, but do you want to take the risk?'

    I believe even in the US incitement to violence is one of the very few limits on free speech
    You are correct. The headline would be much better if it had focused on the part of injunction about "promoting or encouraging" violence, both of which are protected in the US under the First Amendment. But even for incitement to fall outside of the 1A's protections, it must be incitement to imminent lawless action--right here, right now.

  • On the post: Netflix: We're Not In The Truth To Power Business, We're In The Entertainment Business

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2019 @ 03:09pm

    Re: Business pure and simple

    ...as if "the press of the country" or "organs of public opinion" are, or have ever been, anything other than "business pure and simple."

  • On the post: Totally In-Touch NH Lawmaker Blocks Device Repair Bill, Tells Constituents To Just Buy New $1k Phones

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2019 @ 03:39am

    Re: Re: Re: "Phones" are barely repairable now

    What a stunningly ignorant post--maybe if you understood what "right to repair" meant before posting, you wouldn't have once again highlighted your ignorance. It's not about "any idiot with a screwdriver and a hammer can fix it." It's rather about "everyone has access to the information, parts, and materials to fix it." And, as it happens, that's exactly the case with cars. I'm able to buy, for a fairly nominal cost, the factory service manuals for my cars. Tools are standard and widely available at a broad range of quality levels and price points. There are very few parts that are single-source (the computer control modules are the only things I can think of, but they rarely fail, and even then they're available used). I've never had any formal training as a mechanic (I certainly don't have any certifications), but I'm able to do pretty much anything I've needed to do on any of my cars for the last nearly 30 years.

  • On the post: Infamous Police Interrogation Firm Sues Netflix For Defamation Over Criticism Of Its Interrogation Technique

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2019 @ 10:53am

    There are many, many problems with this lawsuit

    There are, but I think you've missed the biggest one: a "technique" is simply not susceptible to defamation. You can defame people, companies, organizations, etc., but not an idea or a process (or, for that matter, a product).

  • On the post: Cop Peforming A Welfare Check Kills Woman By Shooting Her Through Her Own Backyard Window

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 15 Oct, 2019 @ 05:09pm

    Re:

    is he going to claim qualified immunity
    Since QI isn't a defense to a charge of murder, I think it's safe to say the answer to this question is "no".

  • On the post: Telcos And Rupert Murdoch Pushing Nonsense Story That Google Helping Keep Your Internet Activity More Private Is An Antitrust Violation

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2019 @ 10:06am

    Think this through...

    it could, potentially, lead to more control/centralization of both those servers, but as EFF points out in the link above, that's mitigated by more ISPs simply adopting DoH themselves.

    So, what, the ISP enables DoH on its own DNS servers? What good does this do? In this case, the ISP still knows who's making the queries, and what those queries are, right? If you're concerned about your ISP sniffing your DNS queries to other providers, turning around and making those same queries to your ISP over DoH really isn't helping anything, is it?

    Conversely, if Google were to enable/force DoH, and if they were to operate the servers (as they likely would), that would put them in a unique position to track their users' browsing habits (even more than they already do). Is the issue overstated? Probably--but I don't think it's as exaggerated as you're saying.

    Now, IMO, the best way around this, at least at home, is to use a router that can be configured to act as a recursive DNS resolver. That way, your queries are going only to the authoritative hosts for the domains in question, and can't be aggregated in any single place. It's as simple as checking a box in pfSense, not sure about other F/OSS router/firewall solutions.

  • On the post: Jerks 'Reporting' Women Who Swipe Left On Them In Tinder, Once Again Highlighting How Content Moderation Gets Abused

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2019 @ 11:32am

    Re: As your piratey-fanboy-trolls show, few people have decency.

    You obviously don't like this site, and equally obviously, nobody here likes you. So seriously, why are you here?

  • On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Especially Doesn't Work When You Hide All The Rules

    Dan Brown ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2019 @ 03:18pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The fact that you're seeing significant discussion of moderation in the comments on this very post would appear to answer your question, such that you shouldn't have needed to ask it in the first place--why did you?

Next >>