Eldakka’s Techdirt Profile

eldakka

About Eldakka




Eldakka’s Comments comment rss

  • Nov 21st, 2017 @ 1:35am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The next sheriff will just ask for consent then. "Who here wants to consent to a body search in order to be allowed to go home?"

    If the students were held outside school hours on such a condition, that would be false imprisonment.

  • Nov 13th, 2017 @ 4:29am

    Re:

    Despicable Revenue Measures.

  • Nov 13th, 2017 @ 4:22am

    Re: Re: The documentary could stop the show's revenue stream

    Suing over true facts wouldn't have any less basis in law than this copyright suit has.

    I think it would.

    It is pretty cut and dried that a fact is a fact - either it is a fact or it isn't. Determining if something is a fact is generally an objective, measurable process. No (or little) subjective decision making needed.

    However, fair use and copyright - even in the face of the 4-factors test - is still a much more subjective decision than deciding over true facts. Each factor in the 4 factors test is itself a subjective test.

    So while they don't stand much chance over this suit, it's a hell of a lot higher chance (a snowballs chance sitting in the sun on a hot day vs a snowballs chance in hell) than trying to sue over facts.

  • Oct 30th, 2017 @ 5:17am

    Re: Breaking the internet

    It's useless, since the site must use cookies to make sure logged in users are who they say they are. Second, goodbye any sort of site that does things based on sessions. Since it must work without cookies, it must work without sessions. Since that's not possible, they can't comply with the EU regulation. Things like shopping carts that don't require login run into the same issues as sing ons. They don't work without at least a session cookie.

    Based on the wording of the what a cookie is in the linked PDF document, the EU are referring specifically to third-party persistent cookies, not to session or to first-party cookies , as per the sidebox on page 12:

    A cookie is information saved by the user's web browser. When visiting a website, a site might store cookies to recognise the user's device in the future upon their return to the page. By keeping track of a user over time, cookies can be used to customise a user's browsing experience, or to deliver targeted advertisements. First-party cookies are placed by the website visited to make experience on the web more efficient (e.g. they help sites remember items in the user shopping cart, or log-in names). Third-party cookies are placed by e.g. an advertising network to deliver ads to the online user, in the visitor's browser with the purpose of monitoring (through identifiers) their behaviour over time.

  • Oct 27th, 2017 @ 6:35pm

    Re: Censoring?

    Interesting, I didn't notice it when I first saw it and went through it again.

    Words not beeped:
    wankers, shitloads, rooted, fuck.

    The only word beeped that I noticed was cunt.

    Maybe they (or someone - youtube policy?) drew a line there?

  • Oct 25th, 2017 @ 8:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitution, Constismooshion... Who cares...

    So basically, 2nd Amendment means fully automatic weapons, mortars, bazookas, guided missiles, tanks

    I would suspect that many of those things you have listed would not be allowed under the 2nd Amendment even if read literally, as individual words would still need interpretation/definition. E.g, "bear arms" I would interpret to at the very least limit it to individual arms, no crew-served weapons, only those able to be carried and used by a single individual.

    But whatever the case, I think it should have been further clarified in actual additional constitutional amendments, rather than left to the courts. The courts are there to interpret the constitution, not to define their own version of it.

    By the way, what is your stance on ex-felons voting? Any reason to abridge that right?

    I don't think ex-felons should have their voting rights removed. I can accept an argument, reluctantly, that serving felons shouldn't have the right to vote. But ex-felons? They should have all their rights re-instated on becoming an 'ex'.

    While we are at it, how about 10-year-olds voting?

    My understanding is that voting rites are state-specific, not federal. Therefore isn't it up to each state to decide on that state's voting criteria (as long as it doesn't run afoul of the various discrimination clauses/amendments)?

    But, since voting is voluntary, I don't see it likely that allowing 10-year-olds to vote would change much, as I doubt many 10-year-olds would be interested enough to vote.

    Those factors aside, I think the voting age should be no higher than the age of legal competence (or whatever it is called, the age when you are legally responsible for your actions and can be tried as an adult), this age is around 14 in many jurisdictions. e.g.

    New York has notably tried most 16- and 17-year-olds as adults for all crimes, even for minor offenses like shoplifting.

  • Oct 24th, 2017 @ 1:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitution, Constismooshion... Who cares...

    sigh, that should be "1st amendment".

  • Oct 24th, 2017 @ 1:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Constitution, Constismooshion... Who cares...

    I personally am of the belief that where a constitution has a process for changing it (hello 27 ratified amendments to the US constitution), then it should be followed to the letter.

    If you want to make hate speech illegal, then an amendment should be instituted to make that exception to the 2nd amendment.

  • Oct 15th, 2017 @ 6:18pm

    (untitled comment)

    When news outlets originally reached out to Accenture,

    I hope they failed to connect, otherwise there could be some assault charges being laid!

    What's wrong with "originally tried to contact Accenture"

  • Oct 4th, 2017 @ 12:22am

    Re: Re: Hmmm.

    ...I'm not going to give somebody a cookie just because he didn't commit a felony, John.

    Unlike the US (and probably other) militaries?

    Good Conduct Medal:

    The Good Conduct Medal, each one specific to one of the five branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, is currently awarded to any active duty enlisted member of the United States military who completes three consecutive years of "honorable and faithful service". Such service implies that a standard enlistment was completed without any non-judicial punishment, disciplinary infractions, or court martial offenses.

  • Oct 3rd, 2017 @ 5:12pm

    Re: Re: Exercise your rights? Oh that's going to cost you

    I doubt it.

    Most governments of the world will say "hey, that's a cool revenue idea, let's implement it ourselves!"

  • Sep 30th, 2017 @ 10:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    ditto.

    Been using javascript blocking for years. In the early days I'd have JS disabled entirely in the browser, then used addons that added a button to disable/enable it, then later ones that allowed per-site, then still later the more advanced ones like noscript, policeman, umatrix, and so on that allow blocking not just on the site, but subdomains, cross-site, and so on.

  • Sep 26th, 2017 @ 9:41pm

    (untitled comment)

    And, frankly, it's kind of difficult to justify why we still have an electoral college when it's quite clear that it serves no really useful function.

    Two sentences later that justification is provided:

    because it's part of the Constitution,

    Wasn't that hard really, was it?

    Since it's a part of the constitution, you'd need to provide a strong enough justification to not have it to get a constitutional amendment passed.

  • Sep 21st, 2017 @ 10:54pm

    (untitled comment)

    this nonsense would be done away with more quickly than a federal informant working on the inside of the cartel.

    badum tish

  • Sep 21st, 2017 @ 10:50pm

    (untitled comment)

    Traditionally we've comforted ourselves by insisting we're safe if we just avoid untrusted app stores, dubious attachments, or questionable links -- but this attack further up the software supply chain erodes public trust, which could deter users from using or updating essential protection.

    I've never believed this, but then again I work in IT so perhaps am more skeptical of the claims made by the industry.

    I've always believed the greatest risk to security are the auto-update mechanisms in applications - browsers, the operating system itself (e.g. Windows) and so on. An attacker just needs to compromise one system, as in this case, and millions can be infected using a program they've used for years, if not decades.

  • Sep 21st, 2017 @ 10:23pm

    (untitled comment)

    Sky News understands that 80% of investigations into terrorism and serious crime are now impacted by encryption.

    Considering that the GSM cell phone standard includes encryption from the handset to the base-station, but no further, it would not be a surprise to learn that 80% are impacted by encryption - because if it involves a mobile phone it should be encrypted as per the standard.

    However, the GSM standard only requires handset to base station encryption, therefore if the intelligence services have access to telco feeds (either from a co-operating telco or surreptitiously), they can collect the data once it's de-crypted at the base station (i.e. the cell tower) and enters into the telco's backhaul network.

    Even then, most of the mobile network encryption ciphers have been cracked and are subject to real-time cryptanalyst if the eaves-dropper can't get the unencrypted data from the telco's network directly.

  • Sep 12th, 2017 @ 10:30pm

    (untitled comment)

    But the crux of the silliness here is that this is a letter from a "police union" asking a person's employer to investigate an employee for speech it claims is "false and defamatory." It should be obvious that there are legal relief avenues for "the police" if they feel they have been defamed.

    The police union and the police are separate bodies.

    One is a private, civilian organisation who's paying members employment is with the police department. The police is the government body that performs policing functions.

    Therefore it is not the police who have taken issue with Bennett's statements, it is the police officer who has personally taken affront and his union, the police union, appears to be assisting (or working on their own without their member having asked them to assist).

    Since it's the police union that has an issue with a civilian causing problems for one of its members who's employment is as a police officer, why would the police, a different body altogether, get involved?

  • Sep 5th, 2017 @ 5:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Public road, no "right to privacy"

    replying to my own post, edit would be nice ;)

    I wonder if this precedent, that there are privacy concerns with the data, could be used to again challenge the collection in the first place?

  • Sep 5th, 2017 @ 5:43pm

    Re: Re: Public road, no "right to privacy"

    The police can collect records because there is no expectation of privacy, but the public can't see those records, because people have an expectation of privacy.

    That's where I'm getting confused with this whole situation. If they are allowed to collect them because of no expectation of privacy in a public place, surely those raw records also have no privacy implications? Sure, an analysed/annotated database of the records such that the police may have created perhaps have privacy concerns, but not the raw data.

  • Sep 5th, 2017 @ 5:39pm

    Re: Re: Crowd sourced police locations

    I think the issue here would be where you put the cameras.

    If they are on public property (sidewalks etc.) then the local government would be within their rights to remove it.

    If they were attached to, say, utility poles, then again the owner could remove it and/or sue for trespass.

    You'd need to place them in locations where the owner/tenant had given permission to place them.

More comments from Eldakka >>