freedomfan 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (107)

• On the post: Policing For Dummies: DOJ/Baltimore PD Edition

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 22 Jan, 2017 @ 12:26am

  Re: Re: What Consent Agreement

  BTW, the blank space near the end of the link I posted was not added by me. Remove the space to see the Baltimore Sun article.

• On the post: Policing For Dummies: DOJ/Baltimore PD Edition

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 22 Jan, 2017 @ 12:21am

  Re: What Consent Agreement

  Trump "revoked" the agreement? I would appreciate a specific cite for this. All I am finding is that the Baltimore judge James Bredar granted a week extension to the hearing over the 200+ page agreement so that the new administration can come up to speed on the details. (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-consent-decree-delay-20170120-story.html)
  
  That judge has to hold the hearing and approve the agreement before it goes into effect. (Not that it matters, but the knee-jerk tribalists will want to know that the judge is an Obama appointee.)
  
  BTW, I am making no statement on what Trump did/didn't will/won't do, since I have no idea. But, I would be interested in seeing what current evidence supports the "revoked" statement.

• On the post: The Legal Netherworld Of Traffic Cam Tickets, Where Everything Is Both Civil And Criminal, While Also Being Mostly Neither

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2017 @ 01:23pm

  En rem ?

  Though the article doesn't address it, it seems to me that the worse outcome is that states start rewriting some traffic violations (like speeding and red light running) to be violations against the vehicle itself. (Other violations, like DUIs, would remain against the driver.) Then they can use traffic cam footage and seize the vehicle, with the possibility of the owner getting it back by paying a fine. As we know from civil asset forfeiture, those en rem proceedings don't confer the legal protections that the article's author rightly notes he was denied.

  To me, that's another potential nightmare scenario.

• On the post: Donald Trump Demonstrating How Much Of Our Political System Is Based On Tradition & Custom, Not Rules

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2017 @ 02:10pm

  I agree with Masnick's points, both that there are broken "traditional" processes that should be tossed and that there are traditions with good reasons for existing and which may be harmful to ignore.

  The problem is that we will only hear about the latter. It's only news when Trump (and this would be true of anyone doing something differently) ignores a tradition that seems to rest on "common sense" and not when he ignores one that does no good or actually discourages beneficial change. It's news to say, "Hey, he's throwing gold into the dumpster!" But, even if it were 80% of what was going on, it's not news to say, "He's throwing garbage into the dumpster."

• On the post: This Is A Really Bad Idea: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube & Microsoft Agree To Block 'Terrorist' Content

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 06 Dec, 2016 @ 12:11pm

  The answer to arbitrarily designated "bad" or "dangerous" speech is...

  ... better speech backed up by clearer facts and more compelling arguments. Unless that answer is coming from government folks whose instinct seems typically reactionary. In that latter case, the answer is censorship.
  
  Among the scary aspects of this sort of issue is that neither of the traditional sides (in terms of politics) is consistently against censorship as a policy, enacted either via statute or via the threat of their weighty boots on the throats of those who don't play along.

• On the post: Germany Wants To Hold Facebook Criminally Liable If It Doesn't Find & Delete 'Hate' Speech

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2016 @ 04:05pm

  Re: Its tech and media

  I am not sure what your point it. Regardless of the software FB uses to present content or what role you think it has among arbitrarily defined kinds of companies, FB did not write the things the German government wants censored.

• On the post: Germany Wants To Hold Facebook Criminally Liable If It Doesn't Find & Delete 'Hate' Speech

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2016 @ 03:59pm

  Re:

  I think Germany already has laws like that. A German comedian was arrested for making fun of (notorously thin-skinned) Turkish President Erdogan.

• On the post: Germany Wants To Hold Facebook Criminally Liable If It Doesn't Find & Delete 'Hate' Speech

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2016 @ 04:09pm

  Because once you give governments the power to censor speech, they're always going to want more.

  Just a quick note regarding the above statement: You can replace "censor speech" with nearly anything else and it will pretty much be true.

• On the post: AT&T's Already Making Things Up To Get Its Massive New Merger Approved

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2016 @ 10:02am

  Seems like a broad accusation

  Over the next few months, media outlets will be hammered with op-eds from lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, policy wonks, "consultants" and think tankers (all with undisclosed financial ties to AT&T) [...]

  (emphasis mine)

  I wonder how one would substantiate such an accusation? I have no doubt that AT&T tosses some money in the direction of various think tanks with a like-minded agenda. But, Mr. Bode seems to be claiming that every think tank that opines in favor of the merger is necessarily on AT&T's payroll and that the loot trail is undisclosed. That would be tough to prove, even if it were true, since even one counterexample guts it.

• On the post: Despite Administration's Promises, Most Government Transparency Still The Work Of Whistleblowers And Leakers

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2016 @ 11:43pm

  There's so much to comment on, but the tone of the following caught my attention:

  "In the last several years the government has engaged in an unprecedented level of transparency regarding [...]"

  Am I the only one who thinks that the "engaged in an unprecedented level of" phrasing is usually used when describing an activity the speaker considers revolting? As in "they engaged in an unprecedented level of human trafficking" or "they engaged in an unprecedented level of bestiality". It seems a little odd to use when describing something about which the administration is supposed to be proud.

  To me, a more appropriate example of use might be, "The administration is engaged in an unprecedented level of secrecy and obfuscation."

• On the post: How Facebook's Racial Segmentation Is Helping Trump Campaign Try To Suppress African American Voting

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2016 @ 02:43am

  Re: Re: What some idiot in the Trump campaign calls it doesn't define what it is

  When someone who clearly doesn't understand what X is says, "We are doing X", is the proper response to write a headline that screams "OMG! These guys admit to doing X!" Or, is the proper story to write the story that "These guys don't know what X really means"? The latter story isn't nearly as attention-grabbing, but it at least reflects an accurate characterization of what's going on.
  
  And, no, neither I nor anyone else (that I have read here) has said we should disregard what one of Trump's staffers said. The problem isn't reporting what he said, it's reporting it as if his having said it makes it true, even though it clearly isn't.
  
  Hypothetically, imagine that one of Hillary's staffers had said that the Clinton campaign engages in tax fraud because it doesn't report its Target Red Card savings as income. The only honest story there is that the staffer doesn't know what tax fraud is. If the story were reported as "Hillary's own people admit she engages in tax fraud", that would be very much like what's going on here. And, it would idiocy because there isn't any evidence of tax fraud, just evidence that something that is neither illegal nor controversial is going on. No one is saying we disregard the staffer's comment, but pretending that it's evidence of tax fraud is BS.

• On the post: How Facebook's Racial Segmentation Is Helping Trump Campaign Try To Suppress African American Voting

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2016 @ 02:38pm

  but... regardless of who used the term... still not actual voter suppression

  If there is story related to the Trump campaign and voter suppression here, it's that apparently some people in his campaign don't even know enough about voter suppression to know that they aren't actually engaging in it.
  
  And, the other noteworthy bit is that Bloomberg will happily exploit that ignorance to write a story that treats what is clearly more accurately "targeted negative advertising" (which - for better or worse - is not even vaguely controversial in campaigns) as if it were "voter suppression".
  
  So, the Trump staffers are ignorant //yawn// and Bloomberg is deceptive //yawn//.

• On the post: Huge Casino Threatens Small Blues Club For Using The Word 'Live' In Its Name

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2016 @ 03:19pm

  And... this will never be fixed.

  Any legislation looking to fix this will fail. Even though the vast majority of normal people agree this is an injustice, the actual impact they feel is small and they have a proportionally small interest in improving the law. On the other side, those with trademarks and similar branding IP have a huge interest in either maintaining the status quo or making it even worse.
  
  This is a standard example of what ends up happening when there are government regulations over an area with concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. Of course, there is an ideal where the regulatory body represents the diffuse interests of the many against the concentrated interests of the few. In reality, that very rarely happens.

• On the post: How Facebook's Racial Segmentation Is Helping Trump Campaign Try To Suppress African American Voting

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2016 @ 03:01pm

  What some idiot in the Trump campaign calls it doesn't define what it is

  This was a pretty poor article. The interesting and newsworthy part (that a state wrote a voter ID law specifically to target a racial group) is lost because the headline (about Trump and voter suppression) is so clearly misleading.
  
  Mr. Masnick can do better than this. If he wants to tar the Trump campaign with allegations of voter suppression, then find some actual evidence of voter suppression and report it.
  
  That the Trump campaign is doing targeted negative advertising like lots of campaigns do is hardly even a story. Basically, Trump is telling people likely to favor Mrs. Clinton things that will make them rethink their support of her. That isn't voter suppression. Masnick doesn't think it's voter suppression. The Bloomberg reporters don't think it's voter suppression. The only one ignorant enough to think it's voter suppression is some clod in the Trump campaign who doesn't understand the term.
  
  To those who are saying, "But Trump's own guy called it 'voter suppression!'" Grow up. If one of Trump's lackeys had called Trump's comments about regulating the Internet to stop terror "a practical and well-thought-out policy statement" we would all laugh and point out what a boob he was. Let's not pretend something equally ignorant is actually true just because someone from his campaign said it.

• On the post: Cops Dodge 4th Amendment By Phoning In 'Anonymous' Tips; Watch Their Drug Bust Vanish After They're Exposed

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 30 Sep, 2016 @ 09:26am

  tip of the iceburg for this sort of event

  In this case like, the illegal stalking horse raid turned up some contraband and the case went to trial an the truth came out. Don't doubt for a second that for every case like this, others occur in which the raid takes place and either nothing is found for which to arrest the raid targets or the DA's office realizes there the police have violated the stalking horse law (or something else has gone wrong) and decides not to prosecute. In those cases, which may well be the vast majority, the raid targets are so relieved that they managed to survive an encounter with those who "protect and serve" them that they go away without it ever coming to light that the police, instead of seeing protecting peoples' rights as their primary job, see peoples' rights as the primary obstacle to their job.

• On the post: Before Forfeiture Is Finalized, Sheriff Racks Up 54k Miles On Seized Vehicle, Sells It To Private Buyer

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 23 Sep, 2016 @ 08:08am

  Re: I don't see what the problem is here.

  law enforcement is doing its job

  
  Parody or not, this really is part of the problem. Lots of things that police do are totally outrageous - and "policing for profit" (e.g. civil asset forfeiture, which should absolutely not exist as a law enforcement tool) is always high on the outrage scale. Abuses during detention, questionable shootings, stop-and-frisk, wrong-door raids, and so on are other examples.
  
  But, all of these problems are made worse because of the War on Drugs. Think about it: The worst examples that come readily to mind of any of these things are often part of WoD efforts. And, because we allow the WoD to continue and elect people who declare that they support it (and often want to escalate it), it is part of the police's job. That's not to say that policing would be perfect without the WoD, but it's a big factor. Take away the WoD and either the abuses decrease by an order of magnitude or they continue, but without much of the WoD fig leaf that "justifies" them.

• On the post: Before Forfeiture Is Finalized, Sheriff Racks Up 54k Miles On Seized Vehicle, Sells It To Private Buyer

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2016 @ 09:51pm

  Re:

  I would not be surprised if while sitting in donut shop all LEOs are busy collating lists of future suspects umm targets

  
  From the quote at the end of the article, we can be fairly certain that they are sitting around and going over the vehicle registration records for the county to try to find out who might be driving a new Cadillac so that they can snowflake the driver and seize it for the Undersheriff.
  
  (BTW, there may be those who think that's an unfair assumption to make about those officers. But, read the article, they clearly are morally substandard specimens - willing to do things that pretty much everyone recognizes as wrong - and it's reasonable to doubt they would have any qualms about such a scheme.)
  
  The people who claim that civil asset forfeiture doesn't change police priorities have their heads in the sand.

• On the post: Hillary Clinton To Silicon Valley: To Silence Terrorists, Nerd Harder, Nerds!

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2016 @ 10:45pm

  Politicians believe in magic because it's what they think they do all the time

  Mrs. Clinton's dimwitted approach is typical of politicians because they have come to believe that's how the world works. In everyday legislation, they think that some proposal with good intentions and a majority of votes is all that's needed to remake reality. Laws are like magic spells and votes are the wizards joining hands and chanting to cast the spell. (Some might say that money is the magic pixie dust that powers them.) Want to solve problem A? Pass a law whose stated intent is to fix problem A! See? Easy! Now the wizards/politicians can feel good about himselves and bask in their mental and moral superiority at having "done something".
  
  Just be very, very careful not to check back in a few years and objectively examine whether the law has solved the problem its supporters said it would solve. And, especially don't check whether there have been unintended consequences that might have been caused by the law. If the wizards/politicians aren't careful, they might find that laws don't always do what they were intended to do or that they often make things worse. The key is to never really check how effectively the original problem has been addressed. Instead, pick totally irrelevant metrics (like how much money has been spent to solve the problem) and pretend that they show progress. The media will help out by almost never inquiring independently about the law's actual effect, instead focusing on whether they law has helped or hurt certain wizards/politicians and their tribes (parties).

• On the post: New Economic Study Indicates EU-Canada Trade Deal Will Cause 'Unemployment, Inequality And Welfare Losses'

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2016 @ 11:36am

  Re: Re:

  Broken window fallacy?

  
  Possibly, though I think the intent was to imply that fewer regulations (at the cost of things like planes falling out of the sky) would increase profits.
  
  Just as troubling as a possible broken window fallacy is the possible assumption that a) regulations are what keep people safe and b) corporations are against regulations, rather than accepting them with the knowledge that inevitable regulatory capture will mitigate their effects and that regulations serve corporations in terms of rent seeking (e.g. by disadvantaging smaller competitors).

• On the post: Vox: If The Clinton Email Scandal Has Taught Us Nothing Else, It's That Email Should Be Exempt From FOIA Requests

  

  freedomfan ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2016 @ 04:54pm

  Re: Could Have Been Better

  > Yglesias says there's "no public interest" in documents
  > that don't contain official policy directives, etc.
  
  Huh? I just did a text-search through that article and the phrase "no public interest" does not occur once.
  
  I think you are mischaracterizing his argument in the general and the fact that you fake-quote him in the specific makes me even less trusting of your analysis.

  
  I agree with much of what you say later, but the above is somewhat nit-picking. Yglesias may not have put "no" and "public interest" together in that exact way, but Cushing's read of Yglesias' article is hardly unfair. He shouldn't have put the phrase in quotes, but it isn't a mischaracterization.
  
  For example, Yglesias says,
  

  Treating email as public by default rather than private like phone calls does not serve the public interest.

  and
  

  But while the press and the public are unquestionably interested in this stuff, it is fundamentally not in the public interest to routinely know about them

  
  And Yglesias goes on to say largely what Cushing says that he said.

Next >>