James Burkhardt 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2642) comment rss

  • On the post: From $1.50 To $10 Per Month: How Comcast's Bogus Fees Are False Advertising

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2018 @ 10:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Contract?

    I agree, however we can't blame Comcast for the legal and regulatory environment that has existed since at least the beginning of self service retail that states that advertising the price before government taxes is legal.

    In your quote I was actually noting that if it is labeled a 'fee' then it is the provider charging you that below the line, which seems even worse as at least when its a government mandated tax you can, in theory, know the applicable taxes before shopping, and factor that in.

  • On the post: From $1.50 To $10 Per Month: How Comcast's Bogus Fees Are False Advertising

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2018 @ 10:17am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contract?

    *The optional DVR

  • On the post: From $1.50 To $10 Per Month: How Comcast's Bogus Fees Are False Advertising

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2018 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Contract?

    Actually, for comcast they are. The DVR is what comes with the rental fee, technically. However it should be a flat contracted rate, but it technically can. And you can get an outside cable box or DVR, but years of lies (you must use our hardware) and cheap, convenient rental fees killed most competitors, and raised prices on competing hardware making it hard for most consumers to take advantage.

  • On the post: From $1.50 To $10 Per Month: How Comcast's Bogus Fees Are False Advertising

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2018 @ 09:16am

    Re: Re: Contract?

    he seems to be responding to a number of issues discussed in the article, but does not seem to understand them or is unable to express his thoughts both clearly and succinctly.

  • On the post: From $1.50 To $10 Per Month: How Comcast's Bogus Fees Are False Advertising

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2018 @ 09:15am

    Re: Contract?

    So, the form contract you are supposed to read before you sign up for service is a valid contract. The customer pays a monthly fee, and gets in return the service laid out in the contract. (the 'consideration')

    The galling issue, what i believe to be a contract failure, is the initial contract generally spells out a price, guaranteed for a portion of the contract, with an unknown price after the end of that period while the customer is still bound to pay. Comcast has generally moved away from that particular for of gouging (waiting until your minimum contract is up to start rasing rates), but the contract only guarantees service price. It binds you to a variety of non-advertised fees raising the cost, fees which can change.

    The cable modem and cable box rental fees are the worst, given the up front costs of a modem and the cost and poor selection of a third party cable box. But any fee below the line is not a government tax. Its a because we can fee.

  • On the post: French Tax Officials To Start Digging Through Social Media Posts For Expensive Cars It Thinks You Can't Afford

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2018 @ 02:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: So now you're for millionaire tax cheats.

    Its elon musk. Its a twitter selfie.

  • On the post: Dystopia Now: Insurance Company Secretly Spying On Sleep Apnea Patients

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2018 @ 12:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Company X spying BAD! [Tacitly: GOOGLE spying GOOD.]

    So, Forms contract does not exist in your quote. Given that you said i needed to state the definition of 'forms contract', I am not sure how this helps you.

    Also, I'm not sure what "YES, not exactly apposite", was in reference to.

    I am also not sure what terms of what form contract you think are being violated that brings up the CRFA. This law relates to contracts prohibiting the posting of reviews on 3rd party websites. None of these things apply.

  • On the post: French Tax Officials To Start Digging Through Social Media Posts For Expensive Cars It Thinks You Can't Afford

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2018 @ 11:52am

    Re: So now you're for millionaire tax cheats.

    So, since no one else has explained this for you, and you don't understand why commentators are upset, here is my weekly explanation of this concept: being against a specific policy proposal does not mean you are against the objectives of the policy.

    The specific tax enforcement policy is unlikely to catch 'millionaire tax cheats'. This policy would affect low and middle income taxpayers - the types most likely to have a photo of a car they 'can't afford' in their profile. If you are a millionaire, it is unlikely there is a car you would have parked at your house that you couldn't afford.

    However, this will lead to significant enforcement efforts around gangnam style activity (the song was about areas of Korea where the 'image' of a lifestyle was more important than it's substance, to the point of putting yourself in ruinous debt). Is that classic car which looks expensive actually worth that much? Maybe you've been rebuilding it for 20 years. Maybe it doesn't work, and you've just been restoring the body. And the illegal tax avoidance activity they do find might be of little monetary value compared to the investigation. This wastes enforcement effort, lowering the value of enforcement. And it comes at a cost of the productivity of Low and middle class workers who have to defend themselves against valueless allegations based on internet selfies. Its a bad policy.

    I am not for millionaire tax cheats. Millionaire tax cheats aren't found out by Facebook selfies.

    Not that it matters. You'll find some quote you can strip of context and claim victory with your ridiculous strawman.

  • On the post: French Tax Officials To Start Digging Through Social Media Posts For Expensive Cars It Thinks You Can't Afford

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2018 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re: Re: So now you're for millionaire tax cheats.

    Well, given your refusal to address full statements and insistence on making your arguments based on transparent strawmen, you aren't addressing the topic either.

  • On the post: French Tax Officials To Start Digging Through Social Media Posts For Expensive Cars It Thinks You Can't Afford

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2018 @ 11:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So now you're for millionaire tax cheats.

    His social media posts about extravagant vehicle purchases he could not afford did not lead to his arrest.

    Which was the subject of the article.

    Your decision to cherry pick his words and not address the substance is why you get a flag.

  • On the post: To Prosecute A Single Bombing Suspect, FBI Demands Identifying Info On Thousands Of YouTube Viewers

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2018 @ 11:24am

    Re: IF you're not going to complain that Youtube HAS the data...

    Actually, no. The governemnt does not have a "legitimate cause for a wide dragnet". Ignoring for the moment that the constitution bars general warrants of this sort, Mike notes, specifically, that the police have information that would allow them to easily narrow search parameters. Device IDs, IP addresses, and other information could have been included as a means to narrow the scope of the request. So in this case they should have a far smaller dragnet, and maybe expand the net after they process these results.

    Then of course outside the specifics of this case, they do not have a legitimate reason to make a wide dragnet. General warrants are prohibited by the constitution, and I expect once this warrant moves past a rubber stamp magistrate into an adversarial process, it will be squashed.

  • On the post: Dystopia Now: Insurance Company Secretly Spying On Sleep Apnea Patients

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2018 @ 09:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Company X spying BAD! [Tacitly: GOOGLE spying GOOD.]

    CRFA: California Family Rights Act? Certified Retirement Financial Advisor? Common Risk Factor Approach? Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association? Cancer Research Foundation of America? Not sure how any of these apply to 'the forms contract'. I had assumed you meant the 'form's contract', as in the the contract we agreed to to use the comment submission form, but apparently you are referring to a law whose acronym is unclear. Then again you refer to congressional support as if it matters, so it might be a bill, not a law.

    I can't state the definition of a legal term that doesn't appear in the oxford law dictionary. Perhaps that is a shorthand or non-standard use for a term that I can look up? Direct me to a source on its meaning? Hiding the meaning of the terms you use and putting the burden on me to prove your claims is not a valid topic of discussion.

  • On the post: Dystopia Now: Insurance Company Secretly Spying On Sleep Apnea Patients

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2018 @ 08:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Company X spying BAD! [Tacitly: GOOGLE spying GOOD.]

    Strawman! Stephen was responding to your calls for Techdirt to make different editorial decisions for blog topics. Not the non-editorial content in the comment section.

    Also, please point to the "forms contract" violated by Techdirt, explain how it is violated, and how that makes them responsible for user comments.

  • On the post: New White House Press Conference Rules Leave Door Open To Future Challenges

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2018 @ 11:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    You are right, I actually think Popehat's Law should be "Anyone who cites 'You can't yell fire in a crowded theater' in a 1st amendment argument proves they do not understand the laws and legal precedent involved and does not understand what the meaning of that quote and can immediately be ignored".

  • On the post: New White House Press Conference Rules Leave Door Open To Future Challenges

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2018 @ 08:16am

    Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...

    We need to start calling this Popehat's law. Like Godwins Law, if you pull that quote out in a free speech debate, you lose.

  • On the post: But Her Emails: Ivanka Trump Also Used A Private Email Account For Official Government Business

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 20 Nov, 2018 @ 02:55pm

    Re:

    I mean, read the article you comment on? But since you had to ask:

    Depends on who you talk to. One of the notes made by the DOJ was that the information was not classified when she received it, and classified information was supposed to be sent elsewhere. Its the one thing I didn't have a problem with.

    As well, for many who are upset about this, the violations of the PRA are an issue in and of themselves. It might be what made it problematic for you, but its not what made it problematic for me. And I don't think I remember Donald Trump in the middle of those lock her up chants reminding his base about how it was perfectly fine to violate the PRA as long as you don't share information that might be classified.

  • On the post: But Her Emails: Ivanka Trump Also Used A Private Email Account For Official Government Business

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 20 Nov, 2018 @ 02:43pm

    Re: Official of what?

    Ivanka is not his wife, no matter what Trump wants. Ivanka is his daughter. Since you are unclear on that, you might want to start researching this administration before you go commenting.

    Ivanka is a senior adviser in the white house, an actual employee of the government. Her emails discuss sensitive information and bonafide government business. The report makes that clear.

    Please do research before commenting.

  • On the post: In A Speech Any Autocrat Would Love, French President Macron Insists The Internet Must Be Regulated

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 20 Nov, 2018 @ 08:18am

    Re:

    Id argue that if the existence of facebook allowed those opressed by a less open government system to connect, share ideas, and in the end fermented a civil war, that could be a good thing. Of course, without a source I can't try to sort how facebook was a prime factor, so its hard to say. But overall, on the surface, it sounds like facebook and free speech working in a potentially beneficial manner.

  • On the post: Prosecutors Charge Suspect With Evidence Tampering After A Seized iPhone Is Wiped Remotely

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2018 @ 02:40pm

    Re: Hmmm....

    Remotely wiping your iPhone performs the factory reset function. It removes all of the data, including location data, on the phone. I assume it does not wipe the secure enclave with the iCloud credentials, as with an in person reset, reducing value in resale as it remains locked to the account.

  • On the post: Judge Blocks White House From Pulling Jim Acosta's Press Pass, But The Battle Continues

    James Burkhardt ( profile ), 19 Nov, 2018 @ 02:31pm

    Re: Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires

    Shop Vac. Only vacuum that could handle it.

Next >>