Eldakka’s Techdirt Profile


About Eldakka

Eldakka’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 24th, 2019 @ 8:41pm

    (untitled comment)

    Sunglasses are cool, people.

    Only when worn at night, or in a dark room.

  • Jun 10th, 2019 @ 6:02am

    (untitled comment)

    Somewhat surprisingly, the AFP did not prevent John Lyons, the executive editor of ABC News, from live-tweeting the entire raid.

    This isn't surprising.

    Unless an arrest warrant accompanies a search warrant, the only thing the police can do is prevent interference with the search itself. You are free to leave, to say go to work, or to contact your solicitor, or to contact anyone else. You are free to observe and record the actions of the police going about the search as long as you aren't interfering - in the biased opinion of the police doing the searching that is. Therefore there is nothing they could do, legally, to prevent the live tweeting. It was just a matter of time before someone did this. So it's more the form, live-tweeting, rather than the concept - reporting on what the police have done during a search. Most people who have a search warrant served on them probably don't want to advertise the fact that they are in that situation, as they would want to hope to avoid the embarrassment. Being a news organisations offices, though, is a different matter. It makes it a big story for them.

  • May 8th, 2019 @ 11:22pm

    Re: Re: from the not-helping-your-case dept.

    I can see the problem with sanctioning a credit bureau for thinking that an 8 million euro cost satisfies the definition of "disproportionate effort."

    I think to get a better understanding of whether it is disproportionate or not we'd need to know the revenue of the company involved. Here we are only given an absolute figure, not the 'proportion' that this figure represents of the companies revenue, on which to base a 'disproportionate' scenario on. You can't determing that with only the one number. I mean, if its a 1 million/year company, then it is disproportionate. However, if it is a 100 million euro/year company, then a one-off 8 million euro charge I would not view as disproportionate.

  • May 7th, 2019 @ 1:21am

    Reading comprehension difficulties?

    First up, I think this cop should have been done for 2nd degree murder, what he did is inexcusable.

    That being said, I disagree with the author's take on the NYT article. Based purely on the quotes included on Techdirt of the NYT article, I'm not sure what level of reading comprehension the author assumes of readers to make the claims made.

    Specifically, the author says:

    If this is the only writeup someone sees regarding this incident, they're going to come away with a lot of wrong impressions.

    First, Bessner fired his Taser from his moving patrol car at Damon Grimes. Both vehicles were traveling at 35 mph when this happened.

    The text quoted in this article, while making no reference to the actual speed, does imply that both vehicles were moving:

    State police officers followed in a patrol car to get him to pull over. When he did not immediately do so, the officer in the passenger seat of the patrol car pulled out his Taser and stunned Damon.

    That text states that both vehicles are moving - what other conclusion can be drawn from following in a patrol car to get him to pull over and him not doing so and then the officer firing his Taser from the passenger seat? The only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that both vehicles are moving. Any assumptions made that both vehicles were not in motion would indicate a poor understanding of the English language, or very lazy reading.

    Further, the author writes:

    Earbuds were recovered from the scene, bringing into the question the assumed fact that Grimes knew he was being pursued by the troopers.

    Again, from the quote included in this article, no statement or implication was made that the poor kid "knew" he was being followed. It did not mention state of mind or knowledge, literally just that "he did not immediately do so [pull over]", with no mention of why, just the fact that he didn't. If the reader takes from that a statement that the kid "knew" he was being followed, then they are inserting their own assumptions that otherwise don't exist in the article.

  • Apr 29th, 2019 @ 3:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Note, in a two sensor system, comparing sensors only indicates that one is faulty when they disagree, therefore manual selection becomes imperative.

    No. If you have 2 sensors and they disagree with each other, all the pilot knows is that one of them is faulty. They do not know which one, therefore the ability to manually select one of them is pointless.

    In this case, if you know a sensor is faulty, the procedure is to shutdown MCAS entirely, at which point the existemce of the AoA sensors becomes irrelevant as no flight systems are now dependant on them.

    MCAS is not a system necessary to fly the 737 MAX. It is a system that is intended to make the MAX fly like earlier 737 models so that new type certification training is not necesary. If an airline was willing to conduct flight training for the MAX as if it was a new aircraft, they could do away with MCAS entirely. Therefore once a pilot knows something is wrong with MCAS or its input systems (AoA sensors) AND they know the system even exists, the procedure is to just turn the wretched thing off.

  • Apr 20th, 2019 @ 12:01am

    (untitled comment)

    And the DOJ could approve the deal given the right combination of conditions.

    Where 'conditions' means: bribery, kickbacks, post-DOJ cushy jobs, quid-pro-quo deals, and other similar offers.

  • Mar 28th, 2019 @ 10:31pm

    Re: Lock em up

    This is not a defamation case, it is a contempt of court case.

  • Mar 4th, 2019 @ 9:16pm


    is laughable and shows a level of technological contenpt that is shameful.

    Technological contempt is more like it.

  • Mar 1st, 2019 @ 4:26am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Online reviews are inherently worthless,

    So worthless that businesses and companies get so desperate to get them removed that they hire reputation management firms who impersonate judges and commit mail fraud and get Notaries to break the law to get them taken down?

  • Feb 27th, 2019 @ 11:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That can't be right...

    While all kinds of statistical "analysis" (fudging) can be done with that, 12-15% is in line with the general populace in any given year.

    That is not acceptable.

    With their position of power, the police are required to be better than the average populace. Otherwise, whats the point of them?

  • Feb 24th, 2019 @ 9:17pm

    Re: Finally


    As I understand it, RICO is a federal law.

    This ruling, as I understand it, is with respect to states and whether state courts need to apply the 8th Amendment as per the 14th.

    I doubt this would impact Federal prosecutions in Federal Courts enforcing Federal Laws.

  • Feb 7th, 2019 @ 8:25am


    The entire operation is now under FBI investigation, but not necessarily for the illegal targeting of Americans.

    From this article, this appears to be a UAE operation, run by the UAE, from the UAE. Some of the personnel appear to be ex-NSA, that is, now private citizens and no longer US government employees, but employed by (or contractors to) the UAE government, i.e. civilian expats working in the UAE?

    In what way then would targeting Americans be illegal? Unless there are laws in the UAE that make it illegal to target Americans, wouldn't it be legal?

    What jurisdiction would the FBI have over an operation run by the UAE in the UAE?

    Or am I misunderstanding something?

  • Feb 7th, 2019 @ 8:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There is no acceptable level of auto-accident deaths. That's why I support putting a 25mph speed cap on all cars. If you can think of a better alternative that accomplishes the same objective, present it.

    Limiting the speed wouldn't stop automobile accidents. You'd have to outright ban all automobiles.

    The only way to stop all copyright infringement would be revoke the principle of copyright entirely.

  • Feb 7th, 2019 @ 8:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Even if it's not a sale (and valuable works would be purchased by those who value them enough to steal them), the name of the downloader can be worth up to several dollars, depending on the book.

    Sure, it's likely someone wouldn't steal something if there wasn't any value to it.

    However, we aren't talking about theft, we are talking about copyright infringement. While you might equate them, the law certainly doesn't.

  • Feb 7th, 2019 @ 7:49am

    (untitled comment)

    From the post:

    The only hint the privacy policy provides is that Whatsapp "may create a favorites list of your contacts for you" as part of its service, but it still isn't obvious why it would need to slurp up your entire address book, including non-Whatsapp user contact information, even for that.

    I am not supporting this activity, I totally disagree with it. But from previous articles from a few years ago - prior to the Facebook takeover, and possibly on techdirt itself, whatsapp collects this information so it can 'connect' users with each other. So, it sucks up your contacts, many of whom are not whatsapp users. However, if one of those contacts decides to become a whatsapp user, it hoovers up their contacts too. And now whatsapp can do data matching (phone numbers) and say to that user "Hey, a person you know, Cathy Gellis, is also on whatsapp, so now you can use whatsapp to contact her!", and whatsapp well send you a notification saying "Hi! Cathy! [don't you just love the way robotic/automated systems try to be 'friendly'?] Did you know that person you know Fred has just joined whatsapp and you can connect to them via whatsapp now?".

    This is how it knows when someone you already know (or have in your contacts at least) joins the service and encourages you to use the service when interacting with each other.

    Personally, I find this aspect rather creepy, which is why I do not use these types of services.

    But that's exactly why I can't use it, didn't finish installing the old Flywheel app, and refuse to use any other app that insists on reading all my contacts for no good, disclosed, or proportionally-narrow reason: I am a lawyer, and I can't let this information out. Our responsibility to protect client confidences may very well extend to the actual identity of our clients.

    I understand your issue with this and agree. But I have a bigger question. Why are you carrying confidential, perhaps even legally-privileged information, on your person? When you go home, when you go on holidays, take a cruise, and so on? Shouldn't this information not be on your phone? It should never leave the office.

    I know if I printed out a complete client list (or even a partial), and stuffed it into my bag and took it home, at best I'd be fired. If I stuffed commercial-in-confidence information (not even classified!) into a hold-all and carried it around with me while on personal business, took it outside the office except in circumstances when it was absolutely required for a current assignment, I might even be facing charges. This sort of information - client lists - shouldn't be on a mobile phone at all if it is privileged information. This is what work landlines are for.

  • Feb 5th, 2019 @ 10:35pm


    Courts rule based on evidence presented before a court.

    If, as apparently in this case, the side defending their mark doesn't actually produce the relevant evidence before a court - even if it does exist - the court will rule against them. They were (apparently) too lazy to present the appropriate evidence to the court. They assumed they'd win by just turning up and saying "we are McDonalds, you know who we are, therefore we don't need to produce any stnkin' evidence". Therefore it is a case of McDonalds shooting itself in the foot. The plaintiff's trying to cancel the mark didn't really so much win it, as McDonalds actively lost it through their own (in)actions.

  • Dec 26th, 2018 @ 5:38pm

    Re: Are your ducts old and tired?

    I have to wonder if at some point the Chinese population will get fed up with big brother.

    What, you mean like they did with the Tiananmen Square Protests that led to the Tiananmen Square Massacres?

  • Dec 6th, 2018 @ 10:33pm

    Re: It's called "stealing"

    The "scandal" is because Facebook didn't own the information. Just because it has the information doesn't mean it has any right to monetize it.

    That is not the scandal.

    It's a credibility thing. While it is perfectly reasonable for a commercial organisation to look into ways to monetise their assets, the issue is that FB has publically, and before various government committees, denied ever having even considered doing so.

    It is the lieing about doing so that is the issue, not that they did it. i.e. the cover-up is the problem.

    It goes to the credibility of the organisation. They are lieing about having done perfectly legal and reasonable things, things they didn't have to lie about. It would have been perfectly fine to have said "we considered it, but then rejected doing it." But they didn't say that, they said they never even considered it.

  • Jul 25th, 2018 @ 6:17pm

    (untitled comment)

    > The BBC did what it could to verify this info and flew its helicopter over Richard's house on the off chance it was being raided.

    Not quite, the BBC were in constant SMS communication with the police. The BBC received messages about the police heading to the house, and a "we're going in" when they breached.

    Also, Cliff Richard lives an a private, gated community. No press allowed (without residents permission) into the community, this is why they needed a helicopter, because they would have been trespassing if they entered the community.

    This was part of the balancing by the judge. Since the entire community was gated, Cliff Richard does have an expectation of privacy even when standing on the street in front of his house, because it is a private road. There was no place, apart from the air, that a non-authorised party - i.e. a non-resident of the community or who lacks permission from a resident to be there or who does not have a warrant to be there - could have seen and filmed the events without trespassing. This wasn't a case of the BBC crew being on the public street out front and filming what they could see.

    Personally, in this case since no charges were even filed, I think that the BBC should have to announce short updates, in the same places, at the sames times (e.g. peak-hour news shows) with the same attention-grabbing graphics/headlines, noting that not only were no charges ever filed, but also that the person who made the claims is now under investigation for making false statements.

  • Jul 23rd, 2018 @ 9:25pm

    (untitled comment)

    Surely if it is truly an emergency, getting a warrant could be done in less than an hour?

    I understand that run-of-the-mill warrants could take a day or 2 to fill out the paperwork, get approval from the police's internal processes to get it submitted to a judge, get put on the judges 'todo' list which they'll look at after they've finished current activities such as the trials/hearing they are conducting today, and so on.

    But if it's truly an emergency, surely a senior police officer (e.g. a Captain, Chief Inspector, or whatever level is above them) would personally take a warrant application to the local courthouse, walk through the corridors/chambers in person and find any judge who is available - even interrupting a current proceeding - to get it signed?

    I mean, if they aren't willing to do that, is it really an emergency?

More comments from Eldakka >>