James Burkhardt 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2642) comment rss

  • On the post: House Tries To Use Appropriations Bill To Kill Neutrality Rules, Strip FCC Authority And Funding

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2015 @ 01:25pm

    Re:

    NIcve of you to pull out of the threaded duscussion. I have done my homework. I do not read what you read. I am asking for you to explain your conclusions so I understand them, because clearlyI do not. You elsewhere have given us this:

    "...provides guidance in the form of factors on how the Commission will apply the standard in practice..."
    to support your claims, which is the last sentance for this block:
    A Standard for Future Conduct: Because the Internet is always growing and changing, there must be a known standard by which to address any concerns that arise with new practices. The Order establishes that ISPs cannot “unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage” the ability of consumers to select, access, and use the lawful content, applications, services, or devices of their choosing; or of edge providers to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to consumers. Today’s Order ensures that the Commission will have authority to address questionable practices on a case-by-case basis, and provides guidance in the form of factors on how the Commission will apply the standard in practice.

    Your quoted line reads to indicate that The Order provides factors to guide the application of the general standard that ISPs can not unreasonably disadvantage or unreasonably interfere with general access to the internet.

    I fail to see how this provision does anything to grant the FCC power to compel where users go, and what users read. This regulation has no authority over website operators and other content creators, and so can not compel the injection of content as they could with broadcast television.

    So, I again plead with you, please provide the analysis of the quoted region to explain how your 3 claims of regulatory horrors are proven by this section.

  • On the post: House Tries To Use Appropriations Bill To Kill Neutrality Rules, Strip FCC Authority And Funding

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2015 @ 12:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.

    Yeah, I kinda assumed you were pointing me at the actual rules document, rather then the press release version without the actual legal language. That was my mistake Read the summary. Still don't know which provisions support the claims you made. Pointing me at a 5-page summary without the specific language which could easily make or break your claim does not prove your point. Pointing me at a specific passage would be the way to do it. You are attempting to state a conclusion from a legal analysis, but refuse to share the actual analysis, or point to any details.

  • On the post: House Tries To Use Appropriations Bill To Kill Neutrality Rules, Strip FCC Authority And Funding

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2015 @ 11:59am

    Re: Re: Re: NO Net Neutrality.

    Pointing me at an 80+ page document and telling me to read it does not bequeath your understanding of what is likely a paragraph buried in the middle of the document. That's why Other commentators and I are all asking for you to cite a specific passage. You have instead told us that all the evidence is on your site, but the last entry for net neutrality was in 2011 (based on using your search tool and typing in Net neutrality).

    I am beginning to believe you aren't interested in reasoned debate.

  • On the post: House Tries To Use Appropriations Bill To Kill Neutrality Rules, Strip FCC Authority And Funding

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2015 @ 11:36am

    Re: NO Net Neutrality.

    Could you please point either directly to the sections of the rules that support these claims or to an article that does? I've read the rules, I did not see that anywhere in the proposed Title II rules, but I am not a lawyer, so the true impact of a section may have been missed. I would love to be properly educated on the subject.

  • On the post: Payroll Giant ADP And Zenefits Get Into Ridiculous Spat That Has Already Resulted In A Lawsuit

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2015 @ 11:20am

    Re: ADP has "no legitimate reason for ADP to cut off Zenefits"? -- AT WILL.

    Except that they claim to have legitimate reasons (beyond greed) to cut off Zenefits. They have repeatedly claimed either traffic spikes or security, but have failed to provide any evidence. They have lied to a court about their motives in cutting off Zenefits.

    Why are they trying to give a reason? What they are cutting Zenefits off from is standard industry practice. That could cost them far more then Zenefits customers, as large HR/Accounting firms might not want to work with a product that has shown the willingness to cut them off. They need to somehow dodge the PR bullet they just ate, and this article is about their flailing attempts to do that.

    The way to shame ADP into admitting the truth is highlighting the attempt to hide the fact that ADP requires money if your firm is big enough.

  • On the post: House Tries To Use Appropriations Bill To Kill Neutrality Rules, Strip FCC Authority And Funding

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2015 @ 11:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

    While I support many of Obama's economic sucesses, I certainly dont support his entire economic platform (bank bailouts bah!), and beyond economics I have few good words to say about his actions. I would in general not consider myself an Obama supporter, and I did not vote for him in the last election. Nor does the fact that Obama supports Title II make it an 'Obama Regulation" (evidence suggests that Title II was on the table before the White House gave it's support). However your attempted Ad Hominim does not address my questions.

    You see, in a debate, the normal discourse is for two sides to present their view, and then present evidence/analysis to back up their claim. I asked a question for you to clarify your point, your response was to attack my character, dismiss my points off hand without actually refuting them and suggest I research your position for you. As I noted that I did not see your point having read the rules, I do not see how reading them again would improve things. Except, I expect your true goal is to drive me to read your site to learn the truth. However, I will give you another chance. If the truth is important to you, could you at least direct me to an article on your site with a detailed analysis of the regulations? I would love to properly debate the merits of your position, but I need to understand the details of your position to do so.

  • On the post: House Tries To Use Appropriations Bill To Kill Neutrality Rules, Strip FCC Authority And Funding

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2015 @ 10:45am

    Re: Net Neutrality Embraced by the dumbest among us

    And yet we have a number of small ISPs that welcome Title II. Most of the complaints about Title II coming from small businesses are concerns that also applied and were completely ignored back during the years of active Title II-less Neutrality rules. Somehow now that we are looking at Title II based rules, they are big concerns. There is one truely new regulation that could actually prove burdensome to a small business, and that's the as yet undetermined privacy regulations. But those regulations are something we need, in light of all the efforts public and private to get our data by any means possible.

    You argue against your very point. The reason we have NN rules is because of those very shortsighted companies. We only have Title II because of...those shortsighted companies (who want you to forget they sued to end the rules, and are the reason a court told the FCC to use Title II).

    So, remind me, which burdensome regulation is it that drive the small ISPs out of business?

  • On the post: House Tries To Use Appropriations Bill To Kill Neutrality Rules, Strip FCC Authority And Funding

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2015 @ 10:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is on the list

    Could you go into more detail on this? Perhaps explain how the rules as currently enacted perform as you claim? The NN rules as currently listed require ISPs to deliver the requested data regardless of source or potential interference with the other businesses of the ISP. Could you please explain how these rules implement FCC control over what content you are allowed to access, because I dont see that, having read the rules.

  • On the post: Guy Reveals Airtel Secretly Inserting JavaScript, Gets Threatened With Jail For Criminal Copyright Infringement

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2015 @ 01:10pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Actually, its an alleged copyright violation, which is both a US law and an Indian law. The poster is being threatened with criminal penalties under Indian law, but Github received a US-law based copyright complaint. The two actions are related, but distinct.

  • On the post: Netflix Says Piracy Helped It Succeed In The Netherlands, And Will Help When It Launches In Spain

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2015 @ 12:09pm

    Re: Re:

    This math ignores the implication Ninja made that he pays for Netflix already. 6/7.99=47.94/month. That's actually more then I would consider increasing my Netflix by, but then again, I don't pirate.

  • On the post: Universal Music Takes Down Maroon 5's Own Video With A Copyright Claim

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 04 Jun, 2015 @ 03:20pm

    Re: Re: Ready, fire, aim!

    Now there's a thought. Set up a script, target at youtube and let fly. Just keep adding names until google is forced to reconsider.

  • On the post: What The Oracle-Google Copyright Fight Has To Do With Klingon… And Lots Of Other Innovations

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 04 Jun, 2015 @ 01:30pm

    Re: This town needs an enema...

    Better yet, refuse to licence it. Copyright gives you the right to lock it up completely.

  • On the post: Judge Orders Newspaper To Delete Article, Newspaper Reminds Judge That It's In The US And The 1st Amendment Exists

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2015 @ 08:02am

    Re: Family Court

    Mainly because the rights you state are criminal rights, not civil ones. In ANY civil case you do not have the right to a speedy trial or a right to an attorney.

  • On the post: Google Backs Off Zero Rating In India After Facebook Takes A Global Public Relations Beating

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 29 May, 2015 @ 08:24am

    Re: Re:

    http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero

    Its real. But while noble, the goal is to zero rate Wikipedia. And that helps foster and push the biases of the Wikipedia editors over the truth, because no alternative will be big enough to be zero rated. Its the same problem with zero rating anything - it immediately has a huge leg up on all competition. That will hurt competition. Its that simple.

  • On the post: FBI Director Claims That The World's Most Knowledgeable Cybersecurity Experts Are Not 'Fair Minded' About Encryption Backdoors

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 23 May, 2015 @ 12:27am

    Re: Comey's right, of course.

    And yet in one stellar moment of stupidity, the NSA actually made DES better.

  • On the post: Report: FBI's PATRIOT Act Snooping Goes Beyond Business Records, Subject To Few Restrictions

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 22 May, 2015 @ 12:00am

    Re: Your IP is a business record

    interesting note DES was actually improved by the NSA. Took security researchers 20 years to prove it. they also made it slightly weaker to brute force attacks by reducing the key length, but the changes they made to the algorithm made it more resistant to other forms of cracking.

  • On the post: Facebook's Plan To Be The Compuserve Of Developing Nations Faces Mounting Worldwide Criticism

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 21 May, 2015 @ 07:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: And who is funding the rest?

    You continue to apply the middle ground fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground You ignore all of the problems with the approach as suggested, those problems being lack of security, lack of anonymity, and likelihood for censorship.. You fail to understand that if facebook provides internet this way, it will disincentivize other companies from finding a different way. It is very likely to remain the only choice for the poor. AOL only failed because better options came along, and those options only came along because of the commercial benefits.

    Subsidized rate- or data-limited access to the internet would achieve the same effects, could be done for similar cost. The significant difference is facebook won't be positioned to be the only ad provider to 2/3 of the world.

  • On the post: Court Reminds Police That Refusing A Search Isn't Inherently Suspicious Behavior

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 21 May, 2015 @ 06:47pm

    Re: Scale

    Well, you know, the court just ruled they were doing something wrong. The thing about rights is, you have to apply them universally.

  • On the post: Godzilla Sues The Godzilla Of Copyright Trolls, Voltage Pictures, For Copyright Infringement

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 21 May, 2015 @ 02:22pm

    Re: Re:

    To be fair, he said you were berating a person with talent, not that persons talent. I still don't know who he is talking about.

  • On the post: Facebook's Plan To Be The Compuserve Of Developing Nations Faces Mounting Worldwide Criticism

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 21 May, 2015 @ 02:15pm

    Re: And who is funding the rest?

    Thanks for admitting that internet.org is not the internet. As has been noted, subsidized free access has been done in the past. And nothing in that statement requires that facebook provide unlimited data or not perform reasonable network management. It only says that facebook shouldn't restrict what and how people try to view the internet. Its very important given Facebook's censorious past actions and the ease of censorship when there is a central gateway.

Next >>