Éibhear’s Techdirt Profile


About Éibhear

Éibhear’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 23rd, 2020 @ 2:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subject to heavy fin

    Yeah. I should not have bothered.

    I'm actually a Google customer. My company has a contract with Google. We pay them monthly. What they owe us they deliver.

    ... suggests that users sit close on his contemptometer to where Google has put them on theirs.

    There's a reason why some suggest that were not "users", but "useds".

  • Apr 23rd, 2020 @ 2:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Subject to heavy fines

    Google doesn't have to put up with small-minded EuroRules unless they want to put up offices there and have contracts there.

    Umm. All EU-based users of Google services receive those services from Google EMEA, based in Dublin. Ireland. A member of the EU.

    This is also true, for the most part, of Apple, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, LinkedIn and a slew of other organisations. All of these organisations manage data centres somewhere in the EU, mostly Dublin, London, Frankfurt but also other locations throughout the EU.

    The Google-shouldn't-have-to-abide-by-the-laws-of-the-countries-it-isn't-active-in argument holds some very shallow water, but it 100% doesn't apply in this case, as Google is present in the EU.

  • Apr 21st, 2020 @ 4:02am

    Re: Re: Is GDPR really all that bad?

    One of the biggest complaints I have regarding the GDPR is that it was, as you say, horribly communicated. The messaging was all over the place (even where I live, Dublin, the epicentre of EU-based data-protection controversies), and it was not at all clear as to who were experts and knew what they were talking about, and who were the charlatans seeking to profit from the confusion, and who were the people who should have just kept the bloody mouths shut.

    I am no lawyer, so I can't speak to the way it was written.

    I think there is an onus on those making decisions about data protection to ensure they have their facts and legalities correct, and those who opt not to do that can reasonably be described as reckless. I wonder how many of the negative stories regarding the GDPR would be describing exactly this situation. We don't excuse people making health or (other-domain) legal decisions that impact others without first having sought the appropriate advice.

    But the whole point of my comment (above, and back in 2018) is that it would be helpful for Techdirt to ask some questions of data protection experts who deal on a daily basis with the GDPR and for them to be given the opportunity to provide answers. I think the podcast would be an excellent forum for that.

  • Apr 20th, 2020 @ 10:53pm

    Is GDPR really all that bad?


    A few years ago, I made the suggestion to Techdirt to consider bringing an EU-based data-protection expert onto the podcast to discuss the GDPR.

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180528/21433139932/eu-parliaments-own-website-violates-gdp r.shtml#c532

    I see three main consequences of the GDPR:

    • It can be weaponised for reasons other than data-protection, such as how some abuse the so-called right to be forgotten.
    • It can be misused following a reckless or under-informed or ill-informed analysis of what the GDPR requires
    • It can protect innocent users of the internet from abuse by those with far greater commercial or legal power than they.

    Nearly every time I read a negative story about the GDPR it falls into that second bucket -- someone who is unqualified to do so decides that the GDPR is the reason why they should do something, or should not do something. I find that the experts I refer you to will agree each time.

    I think this is a good time for Techdirt to reconsider inviting someone who works in data protection in the EU (or an expert based in the UK; the GDPR continues to apply there!). Having had Larry Lessig on to discuss his suit against the NY Times and Mike Godwin on to explain the sale of .org shows that podcast guests whose informed positions are opposite to Techdirt's are welcome, and here's another opportunity.


  • Jan 29th, 2020 @ 2:14am


    Any tool that gives people access to tons of personal data will be abused.

    If the term wasn't already in use, I'd declare this "Cushing's Law".

  • Sep 19th, 2019 @ 3:39am

    Take a number

    If all students who want to be in with a chance were to just take a ticket as they enter the stadium, write their contact details on it, and then deposit into the box that opens only at the end of the match as they leave, would the goal (as pathetic as it is) not also be met?

  • Jun 14th, 2019 @ 1:11am

    Why was it flagged

    It would be nice, though I don't know how it could be done in a way that wouldn't be roundly criticised, for Twitter to specify how such a tweet came to the moderator's attention. I ask this, because I see communities on twitter encourage each other to report tweets that could only marginally be considered offensive or abusive. When you see such a patently satirical tweet being blocked, I often wonder if part of the transaction is the moderator trying to decide (in the 4 seconds she has available to her) between the large number of "reports" a tweet has received and the likelihood that the tweet hasn't objectively broken the rules.

  • May 15th, 2019 @ 7:29am

    Maybe, maybe not

    As any dedicated Mike Masnick fan knows, the censorship will only ensure that the musical segment sees much broader circulation.

    My reading of the NY Times story is that the segment was cut from the original before it was broadcast on CBS All Access. It's possible that someone will leak that segment, but it isn't that the segment is being cut from the version that any Chinese audience will see, it's that no audience is to see it. I'm not so sure it will get that "much broader circulation".

    After all, the segment originally would have appeared only on CBS All Access, a streaming service with a fairly limited reach by television standards.

    We in Ireland get to see the show on the main broadcast TV station, RTÉ. It's also syndicated to the UK's Channel 4 station, and no doubt it's also broadcast on other stations, too. RTÉ is about 4-5 weeks behind the CBS All Access schedule. The show isn't all that obscure.

    P.S. I'm a big fan, though the musical segments introduced with season 3 have made it a little farcical.

  • Oct 1st, 2018 @ 2:42am

    Denial of Service vulnerability

    > Apparently, (according to Zoho's explanation) Tierranet will automatically cut off websites after receiving three complaints

    Well. There's a 0-day DoS vulnerability right there.

  • Aug 27th, 2018 @ 4:08am


    Also, Groklaw shut down five years ago: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175, https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130820/02152224249/more-nsa-spying-fallout-groklaw-shutting-down .shtml

  • May 31st, 2018 @ 12:14am

    Podcast feedback


    See https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180528/21433139932/eu-parliaments-own-website-violates-gdpr.shtm l#c532 for a suggestion: on the podcast, you could discuss the GDPR with an EU-based data protection expert. I make some suggestions as to who in my comment.

    I catch your podcast every week, and enjoy it immensely.


  • May 30th, 2018 @ 4:17am

    Podcast suggestion


    Living in Europe, and having a serious amount of skepticism regarding the motives of the EU Commission and the EU Council, I'm still more of a fan of the GDPR than not.

    However, I don't know everything, and I work only tangentially with matters relating to data protection.

    I would love to hear a discussion or debate on the Techdirt podcast, say, regarding the GDPR between Mike or Cathy and someone from the east of the Atlantic. My personal recommendations would be someone like Simon McGarr (@tupp_ed on Twitter) or T.J. McIntyre of Digital Rights Ireland (@tjmcintyre), both of whom were involved in the Schrems case that took down Safe Harbour.

    Other people I would trust to give an informed, EU-based, perspective on GDPR would be Rowenna Fielding (@MissIG_Geek), Sarah Clarke (@trialbytruth), Pat Walshe (@PrivacyMatters) or Daragh O Brien (@CBridge_Chief).

    I would expect all of these to have considered analyses on the concerns that Mike and others have with GDPR (I don't like the RTBF portion of it, either!), and would give alternative perspectives. It would be excellent to hear it covered in one of the podcasts.


  • Jan 12th, 2018 @ 7:09am


    FBI seems to struggle with all types of geniuses. Evil, stable, etc.

  • Nov 15th, 2017 @ 5:38am


    I *would* be concerned about abuse: legitimate e-mails being forwarded to Re:Scam as a sort of malicious denial-of-service attack on otherwise innocent people.

  • Oct 18th, 2017 @ 12:39am



    This reads like a great deal. I'm interested in going for it, but will have to take the courses in my own time.

    "Lifetime" access suggests that won't be a problem.

    Does anyone know if there are system requirements that I need to be aware of (I don't/won't have access to a MS Windows computer: I'll be taking the course using a Debian system running KDE).



  • Aug 23rd, 2017 @ 2:57pm

    First time: debating with Glyn Moody about Kutiman

    My first real encounter with Techdirt was after a 'discussion' with Glyn Moody (probably on G+) on whether Kutiman got express permission for each of the YouTube pieces he used in ThruYou. Glyn said that Mike said he didn't, and if anyone knows, it's Mike.

    I'm still not convinced, but I still love (and support) Techdirt.

    I probably had heard of Techdirt during the Groklaw days, sorely missed, but that was a lot of reading on its own!

  • May 16th, 2017 @ 4:18am

    "Government", perhaps, rather than "Intelligence Community"

    "Intelligence Community" is the popular term that covers all the organisations like the NSA, CIA, FBI, MI5, MI6, FSB, etc.

    This kinda lets governments off the hook: we can refer to the Intelligence Community as distinct from government departments, or Congress, or Parliament, but all these organisations are *part* of their respective governments, and are (at least) supposed to be overseen by them.

    They work on behalf of those governments. Because they act in secret, with operational details shared only with specific government officers, it's not really correct to say that they work on behalf of the people: that's the job of the government itself.

    So, why should we say "Intelligence Community", when we really mean government?

    "The government hoards exploits"

    "The government should have brought these vulnerabilities to the attention of the vendors"

    "The government failed to protect people's computers by keeping these flaws to itself."

    Apologists for deeper and deeper intrusion into the lives of innocent people may find it harder to deflect criticism of these failures if they are correctly called out as government failures, rather than intelligence community failures.

  • Nov 16th, 2016 @ 4:36pm

    Back to school for them boys!

    'because “[s]tandard protocol” assumes “if there’s one [person inside] there’s two, if there’s two there’s three, if there’s three there’s four, and exponentially on up,”'

    Those guys need to go back to school. That a geometric progression, not exponential.

    The constitution is *waaaaaaaaay* to hard for them.

  • Sep 15th, 2016 @ 1:50am

    Sharing of scientific data

    From Tim Berners-Lee's summary on the alt.hypertext news group in August 1991 (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.hypertext/eCTkkOoWTAY/bJGhZyooXzkJ):

    "The project started with the philosophy that much academic information should
    be freely available to anyone. It aims to allow information sharing within
    internationally dispersed teams, and the dissemination of information by
    support groups."

    The CJEU has outlawed the founding philosophy of the Web.

  • Jul 29th, 2016 @ 3:47am

    Poetic... (as Éibhear Ó hAnluain)

    ODNI published transparency reports on a site called "icontherecord" as if we thought it would seek to do anything else to the record.

More comments from Éibhear >>

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it