Ehud Gavron 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1631) comment rss

  • On the post: Professor Wrongly Blames Apple For CSAM

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2023 @ 11:49pm

    The begged question

    To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, any "solution" sufficiently removed from the "problem" is indistinguishable from stupidity. I'm going to unwind the stack to show what the REAL problem is, and it has nothing to do with e2ee, Apple, Internet, CSAM specifically. Bear with me. ---unwinding the stack of begged questions--- Problem: e2ee prevents stopping CSAM Solution: End encrypt and do e2e checking for CSAM. ****BZZZT*** Try again: Problem: CSAM causes child sexual abuse Solution: Stop all CSAM. ****BZZZZT*** Try again: Problem: Child sexual abuse must be stopped Solution: THIS IS FINALLY ADDRESSING THE REAL PROBLEM, instead of begging the questions two layers deep so we all sit around arguing about e2ee and privacy and rights. Enough with that. The real problem being attempted to be tackled here is the ending of child sexual abuse. Long before e2ee, Internet, Apple, the commercial internet (1993 and Cix, not 1991 and NSF), and more history... there was the unlawful possession of child pornography. Short aside: What is unlawful by US law isn't what's unlawful elsewhere (e.g. Thailand.) Also the ideation of the laws we have in the US is that if nobody is allowed to [legally] possess it, then nobody will purchase it, which removes the incentive for anyone to produce it, so there won't be child sexual abuse. BZZT Child abuse (including sexual) happens for a lot of reasons, and some of the messed-up heads of those doing it don't produce magazines or videos and don't care if other share their unlawful desires. (Note: just to be pedantic, the desire itself is not unlawful. It is the production of the unlawful-to-possess material and then its possession that is unlawful.) So here we go to the root of the problem. We started with e2ee and unwound the stack to get to it: PROBLEM: Some people abuse children, and this must stop. SOLUTION: Solve this the same way we solve all heinous crimes. Since we've cornered and removed terrorism, rape, murder/death/kill (thanks, Lenina Huxley) then we should just apply those same concepts and methods to stop child sexual abuse, and let's take off another set of blinders and stop ALL child abuse, and all spousal abuse, and all domestic abuse, and then just let's work that B&T magic and "be excellent to each other." Now let's wind that stack back up. If we stop these abuses from happening then CSAM and other crimes cease to be. If CSAM and other crimes cease to be LEOs don't need to intercept our communication. If all that then Apple can go on about its way. If all that then e2ee is safe (for now). Reductio ad absurdem: societal values and mores are fluid. As they change so do laws, and what was once "unthinkable" becomes common. For CSAM the other side of that coin is "sexting" where kids send nude pics/vids to each other and SR officers want them to have criminal records. For other things like insurrection against a sitting congress what was unthinkable becomes the current. A President should not be a liar, and Richard Nixon took the honorable way out. That was 1974. Here in almost 2024 we have people PROUD of supporting the liars, thieves, con-artists, swindlers, refusing to hold them accountable, and laughing in the face of the electorate they supposedly represent. Sorry this is already too long to touch on "checks and balances are gone when SCOTUS is corrupt, congress is corrupt, and POTUS is corrupt" and the 4th Estate (the big guys with the cash, not TD) bow down to their corporate masters and spew whatever they're told to spew. I'll take the blue pill please, and like Reagan, go back to my nice juicy steak. I know it's not real, but it sure tastes great.

  • On the post: Media Sites That Have Left Twitter Aren’t Missing The Traffic

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 13 Oct, 2023 @ 11:10am

    Then the marketing department came in...

    A memo circulated to NPR staff says traffic has dropped by only a single percentage point as a result of leaving Twitter, now officially renamed X, though traffic from the platform was small already and accounted for just under two percent of traffic before the posting stopped.
    A memo circulated to Twitter, now officially renamed X, staff says NPR traffic disasterously fell upward of 50% as a result of its leaving X. Original traffic to NPR is now half of what it used to be showing that clearly NPR is dying on the vine without XTwitter, and that the Musk Network™ can now leverage this huge boon to bludgeon any other so-called news-media to keep them on the hook.

  • On the post: Court Tells Cop They Need More Than ‘It’s A Vehicle’ And ‘Guy Looked Nervous’ To Engage In Warrantless Searches

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2023 @ 06:58pm

    Typo

    I'm not going to touch the "conversation" in the comments. In a quoted paragraph "criminal negligence4" has that spurious "4". Best wishes, Ehud

  • On the post: Europol Tells EU Commission: Hey, When It Comes To CSAM, Just Let Us Do Whatever We Want

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2023 @ 06:30am

    Euro-*

    As much as we all "love" dad-jokes... "British" humor is called "British humor" to distinguish it from "humor", which is something funny. There's no Italian humor, Candadian humor, Australian humor, French humor... those are just part of humor... you know, something funny. Similarly Euro-SOMETHING usually means "not the SOMETHING it could be" but "a watered down mostly useless version of SOMETHING." Euro-trash. Euro-van. Euro-Pol. Europe is a large continent with many countries, people, arts, creations, ports, wines, food, scenery, destinations, etc. It's a beautiful place I'm thankful I've had the opportunity to visit. However, when the political bodies attempt to find a concordance, whether it be the EU, CE, EUCJ, etc. the compromises that inevitably are made end up ammeliorating the final product to a pasty muddle of something useless. Like Euro-POL. There are a lot of movies and TV shows about the various countries' agencies... some of InterPol... and exactly ZERO about EuroPol. But hey, they got a headline!!

  • On the post: What Will Be The Impact Of The AI & Streaming Data Language In The New WGA Contract?

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 03 Oct, 2023 @ 05:29am

    No AI in 2023

    There's no AI yet, but since we all call LLMs AI I'll do the same for this note. Mike points out that the writer should get to decide which tool(s) to use. That's 100% right. If that writer should choose to use a spell-check algorithm, we should be all for it. We dont like reading mispelled stuff. If the writer chooses to use a grammar-check algorithm, we should be all for it. We don't like reading bad grammar. Now to put those in a fomula... if a WORKER chooses to use a TOOL that MAKES SOMETHING BETTER SO WE LIKE IT MORE then we should be all for it. That includes having an algorithm scour millions of other, similar, uses of the language to ensure consistency of message. What the striking writers wanted: Studios should purchase scripts from humans, not some [not yet existent] computer produced content. What the studios/producers wanted: Pay as little as possible and who cares where it comes from as long as it can be made into a show/movie and people will pay to watch it. When it comes to the use of tools everyone should have the free and open choice of their tool. I prefer to dig holes with an electric posthole digger. Some prefer shovels. Others prefer backhoes. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. I would not sign a contract prohibiting me from choosing which tool I need. I installed a new toilet last week -- my first one. By judicious use of YT videos and an AMZ install kit it went flawlessly. I would not in good conscience want to limit YT videos or AMZ install kits because "it takes money out of the mouths of plumbers' children." Draw your own conclusions. Post them here. Should ANYONE (government, contract, employers, etc.) prevent YOU from choosing the tool you want to use to accomplish the task? Hollywood is filled with idiots who don't live in the real world. This is a sad example where they bushwhacked innocent people, reduced rights, and threw some leftover bread crusts at them to say they solve the problem. I think this is a uniquely USican problem, but then our exceptionalism takes no prisoners.

  • On the post: Court Declines To Grant New Trial To Molson Coors And Stone Brewing Over Trademark Suit Result

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 28 Sep, 2023 @ 03:25am

    Peerage and juries

    ...juries are made up of 12 peers and not 1 Timothy Geigner.
    I'll take the latter every time for any jury trial I'm involved in. 12 random idiots or one intelligent guy 12 times over. Easy.

  • On the post: Can Google Be Held Liable For Man Who Died Following Google Maps Over A Collapsed Bridge?

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2023 @ 12:45pm

    Post the link

    Go look at the maps and street views and tell us why it looks like somewhere one shouldn’t drive. To me, it looks like a normal part of the area’s street network.
    To you WHAT looks like a normal part. I've looked. I even posted two Google map links. POST THE LINK. Until then you're just making up shit.

  • On the post: Court Shoots Down Cop’s Attempt To Instruct Jury That He’s Innocent Just Because He Wasn’t The FIRST Violator Of Rights

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2023 @ 01:05am

    Functions of the law

    Long time reader, not first time poster, thanks, Tim. The law has its purposes. You wrote:

    While I can (sort of) understand the deterrent effect of laws
    The laws do not function as either detterent to further crimes nor as an attempt to prevent recidivism. Noble in both, laws only serve to provide punitive response to already-commited crimes. IFF we can agree there, then the question of why the law came into being or what it's supposed to "prevent" jump out the window and we're left with a law whose only purpose is to retroactively punish the guilty but IN NO WAY acts to prevents or provide a negative incentive to commit that crime. This has implications in everything our LEOs investigate, everything our courts process, and the reasons people are sentenced to anything. If you accept that our prisons are overcrowded, our jail cells are full, recidivism is at an all-time high, and criminals don't give a rat's ass about which laws they violate or whether it's a Class A or Class D or whatever misdemeanor or felony, then you accept our legal system has a problem -- it is 100% unsuitable for prevention of crime. It's just there to punish people. Often not the right people. Sometimes beyond reasonable terms. Other times because they didn't timely file a document. There's no justice here. Pardon me while I board my private jet with Clarence.

  • On the post: Can Google Be Held Liable For Man Who Died Following Google Maps Over A Collapsed Bridge?

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2023 @ 12:51am

    ah wordpress

    Meta-comment. 1. When quoting one line, the next line should not be part of that quote. 2. When numbering, paras in quotes should not affect numbering outside of quotes. 3. Neither of the above should double the vertical length of the post either by requiring extra empty lines or by inserting them. This is where markup is preferable because ...quote... ...endquote... markers are superior to ...greater...than... who knows where that block ends.

  • On the post: Can Google Be Held Liable For Man Who Died Following Google Maps Over A Collapsed Bridge?

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2023 @ 12:47am

    [S]he who asserts must prove

    Since you and nobody else have any evidence as to what speed the driver was driving or what precautions he took you have no idea if he’s the only person responsible.
    Not sure what "only person resonsible" means. He drove his car and died. Only the drive is responsible for the operation of a motor vehicle as per NC law. Feel free to look it up. He who asserts must prove. It's up to she who filed the lawsuit to provide evidence, not those of us who observe the news of the event. I'll ignore where you say "You have no evidence" as none of us reading this have filed a lawsuit. As to the rest of your unproved unevidenced rant, no, not at all. 1.
    And fractional liability is a thing that exists For insurance and lawsuit payout purposes only, not in the real world.
    2.
    The property owner was negligent. Provide evidence. Negligent in what exactly?
    1. > the local government was negligent Provide evidence. Negligent in what exactly?
    4.
    and Google was negligent, ... Negligent in what exactly?
    1. > a judge will have to adjudicate those facts No, judges are not arbiters of facts.
    6.
    not some random person who has a vested interest in making Google look like they have no responsibility for what happened... You're the only random person here I see.
    S[he] who asserts must prove. Start proving. In your two posts thus far all you've convinced me is that you know nothing of the law, know nothing of the facts, but that SOMEONE MUST PAY. Someone did pay. He's dead now. His wife is grieving. That doesn't entitle her to a payout from everyone who could have prevented his death. If you have evidence to support your claims, please bring it. Otherwise, your invectives and suggestions nobody knows anything and should be quiet in your presence fall flat. E Arizona. Our laws are similar to NC's in this case.

  • On the post: Can Google Be Held Liable For Man Who Died Following Google Maps Over A Collapsed Bridge?

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2023 @ 07:54pm

    What God Intended

    I've studied the bible and I don't recall where God said that one should walk instead of drive, and use paper maps instead of "a random point of technology." But hey, I'm sure since you're a disciple you'll be able to point that out as well as where God said to post negative criticism of people ON HIS INTERNET for stuff they posted ON HIS INTERNET that HE CREATED but don't use HIS MAPS that he had HIS COMPANY Google create by virtue of having CREATED all the people who work there, or their thoughts thereof. Jesus...

  • On the post: Can Google Be Held Liable For Man Who Died Following Google Maps Over A Collapsed Bridge?

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2023 @ 05:48pm

    Government and lawsuits

    YAAC write:

    The county or state may still be sued. Just because they don’t take responsibility doesn’t make them immune. (No, sovereign immunity does!)
    Everyone "may" still be sued. Filing a lawsuit is trivial. That doesn't, however, in any way, create a presumption that the county or the state is responsible for these events on private property. Hint: It does not. Government does not sign private land. Government does not regulate private land beyond its right of use laws (e.g. zoning laws). If a "path" is there, it's not government's to regulate nor require signage nor to onerously intervene themselves to put some there. In sum, yes, government can be sued, but no, not for any good reason here.

  • On the post: Can Google Be Held Liable For Man Who Died Following Google Maps Over A Collapsed Bridge?

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2023 @ 04:06pm

    More maps

    Ok, going on the image in the filing (WHY NOT PROVIDE THE DAMN LINK???) I see this area, and while it's visible in satellite view, it's not on the streets/map view and there's no street view, so google didn't drive down that to take pics along this section. https://tinyurl.com/ehudmapfinal I can't believe that neither the lawsuit nor the many media sources couldn't be bothered to provide a google maps link or two.

  • On the post: Can Google Be Held Liable For Man Who Died Following Google Maps Over A Collapsed Bridge?

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2023 @ 03:30pm

    Google map links?

    The relevant addresses appear to be "3844 234rd St Ln NE, Hickory, NC, USA", and "22nd St Ct NE"
    That first address won't parse. I don't see a 234rd St Ln at all but I do see a 22nd St and a 23rd St (no Ln in either case) and I can't find a 3844 on either... but there's a 3840 and a 3846 on 22nd. The second address is valid... https://tinyurl.com/ehudmap1 Neither street view nor satellite image shows a road there... just trees. Not in a place where I can do more to research this at this time... but if you could post links to the maps where you saw this I'll take another look at the roadway. Thanks!

  • On the post: Can Google Be Held Liable For Man Who Died Following Google Maps Over A Collapsed Bridge?

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 25 Sep, 2023 @ 01:37pm

    Who is responsible / who gets sued

    Mike wrote:

    Normally, though, all liability falls on the driver to be aware of their own surroundings and the road ahead of them.
    I think the word "Normally" implies there's a point where a driver doesn't have to maintain situational awareness. On public roadways that's not a lawful option, but this is not a public roadway. That leads to a discussion of what a driver's "license" licenses one to do. It provides the privilege of driving on public roadways, but this is not a public roadway. The deceased gentleman was driving dangerously (prima facie evidence of too-fast-for-conditions or insufficient-distance-for braking) on private property to which he was not given permission to enter nor transit. Those are two separate things, but they both speak well as to it not just being a simple matter where Google failed to take action, but that someone took it upon himself to:
    • Trespass upon private property
    • Drive in a reckless manner
    • Caused the death of an individual (himself)
    Clearly the government has no say in this. It did not provide the driver with the privilege of driving on private roadways. It does not maintain this private roadway. It has neither "failed to place" nor "placed" any signage on this private roadway, all of which is how things work and not a violation of any requirement of the government. Clearly the owner of the property isn't required to go put signs out on some "no longer used path the bridge went out on years ago." It's his/her property and signage, like any other private decoration, is up to the owner to choose to display and erect. Google didn't reach out to the driver to say "Hey, buddy, it's three AM and we know a shortcut so download our Maps app and give it a shot." This adult smartphone owner made that decision on his own. The driver chose to follow a smartphone map driving around in the pitch black night not looking at the road ahead. AC above suggested he was overdriving his headlights. One more checkmark for being at fault.
    • Not maintaining situational awareness
    • Blindly (literally) following a map, like reading while driving only worse
    • Trespassing on private property
    It's difficult not to victim blame here because his death is the direct result of his behavior, not a proximate non-causal "Hey don't walk down that alley in a short skirt" situation. More like "Hey look where you're driving; don't go off public roadways without permission; don't overdrive your situation." Google has no proximate cause here as they owe no duty to the driver. I'm left with noone to take responsibility because the only responsible driver is dead. I'm sorry for his wife's loss, and am understanding of the anger of those who reported the bridge out. As a high-level guide myself I relate to the previous poster who is a high-level guide and explained even he would need others of his level to join in to remove (or in his case add) a road from/to the map. In any event, Google's process is that of a private (i.e. nongovernmental) party electing how to run their nonregulated business - curating, displaying, and allowing their users to interact with maps. Google can be sued. I doubt there is anyone that can be held liable who is alive. E

  • On the post: Netflix Settles Dispute With South Korean ISP That Demanded Extra Money Just Because ‘Squid Game’ Was Popular

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2023 @ 02:46pm

    The begged analogy.

    Customer purchases product from vendor. Vendor ships product to customer using Shipper. In this analogy Customer regularly pays to be able to receive packages via shipper. In the US Customer is limited to how many packages or weight can be received. However, below that limit Customer is not going to pay more to receive more. In this analogy Vendor regularly pays to be able to send packages via shipper. So long as any limits that exist are not exceeded, Shipper is not going to pay more to send more. ALL OF A SUDDEN Shipper says "Oh but wait, Vendor. Your Product is so valuable lots of people are ordering it so YOU should pay US more." Vendor says "But I am paying you more... a lot more... to ship what my customers want... and THEY PAY YOU to receive it and you agreed to provide that. What gives?" If Shipper fails to deliver the Product to the Customer Shipper has breached their contract with Customer. If Shipper fails to deliver Vendor's Product Shipper has breached their contract with Vendor. Merely demanding more pay, let alone from both sides, is somewhere between a breach of contract and a conspiracy to defraud both Vendor and Customer. This has been an item of contention for ISPs since CIX and the commercial Internet, and continues 30 years later. It doesn't happen in other countries. It doesn't happen in PTT countries. It's only here in the Land of the Free Duopolies and M&A Heaven that the stank rises to heights unseen anywhere or anytime else. I got a whole truck of Product. Want some of it to fall off on your lawn? I could use some cash.

  • On the post: Elon, Who Insisted He Had Solved The Spam/Bot Problem, Now Says He Will Paywall Twitter To Stop Spam/Bots

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2023 @ 05:08pm

    The princess and the stack of money under the mattress.

    I mean, yes in the same way that you stuffing money under your mattress is a way to avoid paying taxes on interest income. You avoid paying taxes but you’re not any better off.
    There are many more lucrative ways of profiting from crime. Tax avoidance is a 25%-50% win depending on your USixan tax bracket. That's amateur country. You could make more money flipping off a cop, getting arrested, and suing... and never even break the law. Or, if breaking the law is your thing, you could exhort your stupidest of the stupid to take over the guvmint and then make hundreds of millions of dollars giving speeches about how you're improperly being vilified. Being mentally addled, of course, you'd use a simple word your minions can understand, like "witchhunt." Nobody loses $30BN "for a tax break." They (he) loses it due to an ego, sycophants, and sheer stupidity. The one guy kicking himself -- Jim Chanos. He should have shorted TWTR. E

  • On the post: Elon, Who Insisted He Had Solved The Spam/Bot Problem, Now Says He Will Paywall Twitter To Stop Spam/Bots

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2023 @ 03:18am

    Paying to watch

    As long as the bricks are Tesla, I’d pay to watch.
    No, you're an anonymous coward. You have the privilege of posting as nobody, but with that comes the fact that you are exactly nobody. You have no funds to wager, no reputation on the line, and no followup to happen. ANY anonymous coward after you may "claim" your bullshit wager, disown it, or just make you look even more foolish than you already have. The point of having AC is for people to offer their opinions without identifying themselves. A public wager is for people to bet their reputations or their fortunes. You have neither. You will never have either. All of you, each of you, one of you. You're one big "anonymous" and not the Cool Kids kind that wears V for Vendetta masks. Opine at will. When you stray to pretending you have a reputation or gold at risk... sign your name or click "Cancel".

  • On the post: Elon, Who Insisted He Had Solved The Spam/Bot Problem, Now Says He Will Paywall Twitter To Stop Spam/Bots

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2023 @ 04:58pm

    Cask of Amontillado

    .. of cementing the last brick in place.
    Shades of ever-scary Vincent Price walling a live man to his death in The Cask of Amontillado.

  • On the post: Elon, Who Insisted He Had Solved The Spam/Bot Problem, Now Says He Will Paywall Twitter To Stop Spam/Bots

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2023 @ 03:14pm

    The Masnick Law

    Goodwin's Law was never a law, but Masnick's is progressing well to being one. Content moderation at scale is an impossible task. Musk's death-spiraling $15B (down from $45B and going) has many problems, but "bots" is just a strawman. The real problems are allowing people to post sadistic inflammatory jackassian Xweets. That starts with Musk himself, continues with the incels and the magas and the Qanons that preceded him, and has nothing to do with bots or APIs. Sand-ostritching is a tactic, but it's never an effective one to resolve anything, other than a temporary alleviation of a really stupid person's anxiety or impostor syndrome. Musk should have learned that by now, but it's clear he did not. Goodbye Xwitter. I never liked you. I like you less now. The quicker you die the less I have to waste my time scrolling past the StupidityOfTheDay and the quicker I can get to the real events. E P.S. The X should be pronounced like President Xi's name. So technically it's not EKS-witter, it's ShiTwitter.

Next >>