Ehud Gavron 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1630) comment rss

  • On the post: The Global Trend That Could Kill The Internet: Sender Party Network Pays

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 23 Nov, 2022 @ 06:16am

    "Access to the Internet"

    Telecom companies don't sell "access to the Internet". They sell a cable that connect to an Internet Service Provider. Sometimes that's a different division of the same company. Comcast the cable company is a telco. ISPs sell "access to the Internet" which includes an IP address or more, routing to the global Internet, and in the Comcast case it's "Xfinity." In no case does Comcast the Cable Company care whether you suck or blow one bit a month or 600GB a month. It's just a cable line. If they can bill you more for a larger circuit (i.e. fiber vs copper vs HFC) then they will. Xfinity the ISP does care, because their routing infrastructure must be able to packet-switch (or WDM switch) and get the data from point A to point Z and vice versa. The more that you and your neighbors in their routing hub use the more they have to invest (but it's not linear) so they raise prices. In the US they do so dramatically but that's the nature of an f'd up free market. Karl's written about this for years and he's not wrong at all about it. "pay their fair share". Of what? The telcos are the ones who have already laid the fiber/copper/HFC in the ground (or on poles) or who put up retransmission towers, antennas, etc. They've paid. ISPs? They pay the telcos. Users? We pay the ISPs. If for a split second I thought that my payment every month to Xfinity didn't get me the ability to download techdirt, ars, nyt, washpo, etc. because someone was demanding that techdirt (which already pays for its connection) pay MORE each time I click on a link I'd disconnect that service.

  • On the post: The Global Trend That Could Kill The Internet: Sender Party Network Pays

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 22 Nov, 2022 @ 12:54pm

    It's not "sender party pays" it's "BOTH PARTIES PAY" and worse.

    1. It's not "sender pays" it's "both parties" pay. See below about double dipping.
    2. Unlike the real customer who gets bandwidth reports from one ISP and can choose wisely whether to download more ISOs or wait until the 1st of next month... the sender-pay model does not allow that, and creates ad-hoc relationships between anyone "sending content" and billions of ISPs that carry that to the eventual one user who requested that data.
    3. DoS and other methods of increasing someone else's "sender pay" is the financial/commercial equivalent of SWATting.
    Soot only do they want to double-dip, but when they bill their own customers to "suck" down bandwidth, that's a contracted clause. (I won't say "right" but it's been agreed to by both parties.) The customer has full control of how much they use. When the Comcasts of the world want to bill someone else for "blowing" bandwidth their way... there are two issues with that. One is that likely the bandwidth source is NOT their customer. Second, that entity does NOT control the use of the bandwidth. Websites don't "reach out" and "send you data". YOU request it of them and they provide it. Websites can't control if 3rd parties DoS them and issue millions of say HTTP requests causing the party being DoSd to have to "sender pay". There's nothing right about this concept and everything wrong. In the US one can't create a contractual relationship unilaterally. The whole "if you use our network then you owe use money" negates the entire interoperability of disparate networks, also known as the Internet (big I). Shareholders might like it until they realize the "senders" will just up their fees, add paywalls, limit content quality or resolution or bandwidth, etc. ALL OF WHICH will hurt the content consumer... the poor schmo paying Comcast $150/mo for 200Mbps and maybe getting 40% of that. And finally, I have servers. So do many other people. I still expect my Comcast bill to be the same every month. If "both sides pay" aka "Sender Pays" was a thing who knows what amount I'd be "on the hook for" every month. Contract law is pretty clear on this one. Snowball, welcome to hell. E

  • On the post: The Elon Speedrun Continues; Apparently Comedy Is Not Quite Legal On The New Twitter

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2022 @ 06:55pm

    Child Porn

    TL;DR - some followup stuff about CSAM and the FBI. If you don't care, read no further. Ehud I've debated adding this as promised so I'm going to limit it. CSAM is a real thing. There are A LOT of people who access it, use it, and provide it. In the US the FBI investigates it. Of 6-10 or so cases in a few years the companies I ran provided the FBI "the next step" to get to the perpetrator of any involved crimes. The FBI never contacted these people. I know that because a) I was not subject to an NDA except for one NSL, b)I let the FBI know I'd be contacting the parties after one year, and if they didn't like it we could discuss in front of a judge, and c)I DID contact those companies. ALL of them (yeah, 100%) said they had never been contacted, were under no restrictions to speak to the topic, had no idea their users had CSAM, etc. It's a problem. The people we empower to stop this problem aren't doing it. Programmative (app or AI or whatever) can't find it. Encryption is not a black hole and I'm not touching that here. The real problem is our LEOs are useless. Think of the children. No go fire the LEOs and hire ones that are useful. Ehud Tucson Arizona United States (Thank you for having my back, agent C. I really hope you retired and this doesn't hit your desk again.)

  • On the post: The Elon Speedrun Continues; Apparently Comedy Is Not Quite Legal On The New Twitter

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2022 @ 06:45pm

    Whodun saidwut?

    A wise man once said “Always be yourself. Everybody else is already taken!”
    And that man’s name? Albert Einstein.
    Oscar Wilde said that The rest is long and TD doesn't have a "spoiler" part to their markdown... so you can just stop here if you like. But hey, do you have a minute? I've had several encounters with LEOs and one of them was a result of a TechDirt post where (for the only time in almost four decades I did not sign my name as me.) I'll make it TL;DR short. It was a discussion on Shiva creating email. I jokingly posted a comment saying effectively "Well people call me E" (they do) "and I'm a male" (that's what the ID people at the hospital said) "so I'm E-MALE." That led to two FBI agents "inviting" me to coffee at a nearby bagel shop. There's you're TL;DR version. You can quit reading as you like... the rest is just filler. E (EHUD, not E-MALE) I made some mistakes here, and one was talking to LEOs. Andrew Flusche on YouTube really hammers that a lot. In hindsight he's right. I knew one of the SAIC and we'd worked well together. I ran an ISP/WISP/VoIP company and would always say "Hey before you go to the trouble of an NSL just let me know the IP[v4 address] and I'll let you know if you want that NSL to reflect me or someone else. We only had business customers, so this made sense. I won't name him because he did nothing wrong. The other agent had a famous name that is less distinguished. His namesake had cheated on his cancer-ridden wife while campaigning for president. I won't name him because he did nothing wrong. The gentlemen (I use the term loosely because I'm fond of saying "guys" and I am led to understand in 202X that's sexist. Ok) were polite and professional and respectful. They invited me to sit. There were no handcuffs present nor did anyone appear to be carrying. I did not wear my 5.11's nor did they. My expectations based on past interactions with SAIC#1 is that they'd ask about some IP and some child porn. That is the number one thing, and there's more about this below you will not like. No such luck, and once I'd said "well what IP are we talking about" [paraphrased from memory] and they asked me about posting on public forums using pseudonames... [that ellipses is me going "WTF?"] and then saying "Are you guys asking me about stuff I posted?" They had 1/2 inch (roughly 1.25cm) of printout (yeah, laser printed toner on (8.5"x11" paper](https://www.agooddaytoprint.com/page/paper-size-chart-faq) which contained a lot of my postings on TechDirt, ArsTechnica, SlashDot, etc. They pointed to a section where I had posted (about Shiva) and said "Did you sign this as 'E-Male'?" followed by "Where else do you sign things other than as your name?" You people don't know me. You read my words as I read yours. Some like to call me a troll. I'm not. I say it as I see it, and if that's in contrast to public opinion it's still how I see it. I don't post in order to cause a schism. Paul T... he rides me pretty hard on this one, and... I respect his rights to do so. Similarly I respect everyone's rights to post publicly. I thought even I could post publicly... but turns out signing my name "E-MALE" brought me a visit from the FBI and ... may Alan Rickman rest in piece and his name be inscribed in the book of life. If you're reading my words -- down to this point -- and you think this can't happen to you... they can. At least in this man's "home of the free."

  • On the post: The Elon Speedrun Continues; Apparently Comedy Is Not Quite Legal On The New Twitter

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2022 @ 06:47am

    Mr Musk? Ego? Mars? How much time would it take... and how much did he start with... and how quickly is he burning through it? Lao Tzu paraphrased: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRxHYHPzs7s&ab_channel=izzykov2 res ipsa loquitur. E

  • On the post: The Elon Speedrun Continues; Apparently Comedy Is Not Quite Legal On The New Twitter

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2022 @ 03:40pm

    Twitter turning into Truth? Whut?

    RandomTroll wrote:

    Sooo… follow-up: How long before Twitter turns into Gab/Truth/Parler/etc.? ALL of those claim to be for free speech…
    So my follow-up to his/her followup is "What makes anyone think Twitter IS NOT ALREADY the same as Gab/Truth/Parler/etc.?" Specifically - all are free to join - all claim freedom of speech but limit that as convenient - all are no longer the choice of expression media for the masses - there is no differentiation. They could all be different Mastodon configs with the same data only a different theme. Twitter is history. And yet, like Gab/Truth/Parler, it's still around. What gives?

  • On the post: The Elon Speedrun Continues; Apparently Comedy Is Not Quite Legal On The New Twitter

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2022 @ 03:26am

    Heard

    AC and Christenson and others... I have heard you. As I said, I'll be taking a break to "enjoy" today's voting and media followup experience. I'll think on what you've said. My hopes are that social media will heal itself (except for Twitter which is DOA). We shall see :) Respectfully, I have four hours to get some sleep, then vote, then eyes glued to media sources, then consulting, then more of the media stuff... So best to git r' done. E

  • On the post: The Elon Speedrun Continues; Apparently Comedy Is Not Quite Legal On The New Twitter

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2022 @ 02:18am

    Christenson, I was thinking we agreed on that point... and I still think so :) Elon is about to learn a brutal lesson in capitalism, ego, and stupidity. Best wishes, E

  • On the post: The Elon Speedrun Continues; Apparently Comedy Is Not Quite Legal On The New Twitter

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2022 @ 01:29am

    "Fucking NeoNazis"

    The "Fucking NeoNazis" are surprisingly enough not Germans nor "people leaving Twitter", which is not a thing. Nobody leaves Twitter, they just don't go back there again. Like FB. Like IG "Social Media" is so great, Tom from MySpace wants you back. Would you like to know who the neonazis are? Kanye, Kyrie. Other wonderful examples of those who want to kill an entire race while complaining that fat white republicans want to kill them. Hypocrisy much? You're more likely to find neonazis in the southern part of the US and in Hollywood than you'll find on Twitter. Twitter's joined Geocities and Myspace. It's done. The rest is jsut a question of how long it swirls the drain. We remain. We have choices of where we spend our online time. Some choose techdirt. Some choose other sites. It's up to us to disallow the neonazis and their maga friends to raise up arms (real and firing ones) against anyone. I'll take a break to focus on the important things today. WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Let's do that. "One man can make a difference, Michael." -- Wilton Knight. E

  • On the post: The Elon Speedrun Continues; Apparently Comedy Is Not Quite Legal On The New Twitter

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2022 @ 09:48pm

    Something must give

    Hi Christenson, 1A says nothing about Twitter. Elon says if it's legal he's staying out of it. Vaccine manifestor (your example, but it's a good one so going with it here) is not unlawful for a private company to post or allow UGC to post. Por ejemplo should I make a conscious CHOICE to write to the editor the New York Times a "Letter to the Editor" in which I espouse my views that vaccines cause Deadly Virus Disease, that's my right to write that (no pun intended). Should the editors of the NYT choose to publish that, that is their right. The published Letters to the Editor that then contain this falsehood are not in any way subject to 1AM concerns because the government doesn't regulate them. But wait, there's more. Let's say the government HAD passed laws preventing said publication. Then I have standing to sue, and based on 1AM and an unbiased SCOTUS the government will be adjudged to have violated my rights; my rights will be affirmed; I get to submit that letter again; taxpayers pay. There's no "something must give" because there is no conflict. There COULD BE a conflict, and at that point nothing will "give" but a court will adjudge the matter.

  • On the post: The Elon Speedrun Continues; Apparently Comedy Is Not Quite Legal On The New Twitter

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2022 @ 09:41pm

    Impersonation

    Does no one here understand the difference between free speech and impersonating another person?
    If you are free to speak as you want to speak, you are free to say "My name is Ronald Reagan and..." or "My name is Elon Musk and..." Requiring you to not be able to say that violates your freedom of speech. Requiring you to AFFIRM YOUR REAL IDENTITY obligates you to behavior SCOTUS has already ruled lawful - anonymous comments. I don't think you're really asking "Does no one here understand..." I think you'd like there to be a mechanism which allows EITHER impersonation OR anonymous (od nom de plum) comments and you really really wish it was in the first amendment. It's not like that. You can be yourself; you can be anonymous; you can be random letters; the CHOICE is YOURS and that allow impersonation. I'd sign off with someone else's name but having already chatted with the FBI about that one time I signed a techdirt comment differently, I'll stick with my chilled speech real name. Ehud Gavron Tucson, Arizona, US

  • On the post: The Elon Speedrun Continues; Apparently Comedy Is Not Quite Legal On The New Twitter

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2022 @ 06:26pm

    First amendment has nothing to do with private companies

    I agree that the first amendment gives Twitter the ability to choose what/who to allow on their platform and what/who not to.
    First five words of the first amendment to the constitution of the United States: "Congress shall make no law..." There's nothing in there about Twitter or what you agree or disagree with. This is a common misunderstanding. NOTHING Mr Musk or Twitter does has anything to do with the first amendment.
    Therefore, Elon’s stance that only illegal content should be banned, and that if you want Twitter to take action, have Congress pass a law to make something illegal, is untenable. Of course, there’s nothing stopping Twitter from taking down and/or putting up disclaimers on content (such as vaccine misinformation), and such activities would be protected by the first amendment. But requiring the government to make certain kinds of speech illegal just so Twitter will ban it violates the first amendment. That is what I was getting at. Hopefully, that clears up any misunderstanding.
    Nothing in that paragraph makes any sense. 1. Congress can pass laws. 2. Nothing "on Twitter" is "protected by the first amendment" because Twitter is not a government actor and is not at all subject to the restrictions or rights under that amendment. 3. Nothing "requires" government to make speech unlawful, but insofar as they may choose to do so it still doesn't affect Twitter. Look, you missed the point. Private entities are not subject to the rights, privileges, and limitations of the first amendment. PERIOD. If the government chooses to make some speech unlawful IT (the government) is in violation of the first amendment and that gets handled in court but STILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TWITTER or private organizations, companies, corporations, LLCs, partnerships, sole proprietorships, individuals, etc. So yeah, thanks for explaining. No, you're still missing the boat. The First Amendment doesn't apply to Twitter and --absent a constitutional amendment requiring a 2/3 states' votes AND a convention-- will never happen. Ever. So pretty much the next time you want to preach about 1AM, try reading it first. The first five words (well three actually, but five for context) make it very very very clear.

  • On the post: The Elon Speedrun Continues; Apparently Comedy Is Not Quite Legal On The New Twitter

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2022 @ 03:40pm

    Emperor Musk

    Add to the above that the emperor is now going to remove the free speech of people calling for an advertiser boycott of Twitter. He’s felt the drop in revenues for this thing he bought only so he could champion free speech, and he is not amused.
    I don't think he bought it for amusement. I think he said stupid things while high and then his ego wouldn't allow him out of it (seriously who waives due diligence???) This one will be the failure he's known for. I'm calling it. If I'm wrong, it will be a huge boost to his ego and something for kids in fincial programs learning about for ages. I'm betting on me, but you never know, someone around here could jump out and say "Ehud's predictions are all wrong, and Elon will make this a success." No 10Ks and no 10Qs and no other SEC filings will make it difficult to judge. I guess we'll see. No I don't think he bought this to champion free speech. I don't think he's amused. I think he's psychotic and messed up. That's just my opinion.

  • On the post: The Elon Speedrun Continues; Apparently Comedy Is Not Quite Legal On The New Twitter

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2022 @ 03:17pm

    A million times nothing is .. still.. nothing.

    you won’t care even if someone tells you the same thing again
    Two times nothing is nothing. Three times nothing is nothing. I can't educate you for the same reason you keep repeating nothing. Best wishes and all that.

  • On the post: The Elon Speedrun Continues; Apparently Comedy Is Not Quite Legal On The New Twitter

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2022 @ 03:14pm

    Grammar and laws of the land

    The 1st Amendment permits you to end a sentence with a preposition.
    Cute, but no. Grammar is a societal construct. We speak a similar language to effect communication. The 1AM has to do with government limiting choice of expression, which is not a factor here. Sorry to upset you greatly. Have a warm glass of milk and don't forget to kiss mommy on the cheek when you go to sleep ... just about... now.

  • On the post: The Elon Speedrun Continues; Apparently Comedy Is Not Quite Legal On The New Twitter

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2022 @ 01:17pm

    Mr Musk

    I don't know him closely enough to call him by his first name, but applaud those of you who do. The gentleman is a legend. He is the richest acknowledged person on Earth. He's elevated reusable spacecraft from a hitherto-unknown cruft into reality. He's sold more EVs than your god of choice. What he's less good at is the socializing with humanity. I could speculate, but hey, I'm no doctor and Goldwater Rule. He is what he is. It's pretty clear to this outsider that his purchase of Twitter was a mistake, likely the result of a boast while abusing some substance, likely continued because of ego, and no finalized in owning the worst business he's ever involved himself with. Did you read this far? Congratulations! I wrote this far hoping you would. I believe that Mr Musk has bit off more than he can chew, and this 44-45 B $USD will be his legacy of failure, remembered far more than his successes (listed above). If he was as smart as he claims he is, he'd hire experts and correct the issues. I'm one, but I wouldn't work for him, and that is the nature of the problem. He's surrounded himself with yes-men. Groupthink of yes-men is worthless. Could this be fixed? Yes. Will the egos involved allow it to be fixed? No. This will be the biggest public corporate failure in history. You can quote me. I said this on November 7th, 2022 at 2115UTC (1415MST). I own no stock in any of Mr Musk's companies, nor do I hold any positions on shorts, longs, derivatives, etc. If he called me right now and offered me a job I'd politely decline. I'll fly him around if he likes, but there's a level of ego and stupid up with which I will not put.

  • On the post: Ninth Circuit Bucks Extremely Recent Trend, Says Chalking Tires Not A Fourth Amendment Violation

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2022 @ 03:15pm

    Intrusive

    "I dunno, I feel like more stationary cameras and automated plate readers watching me and my car all the time are a hell of a lot more intrusive" How exactly is a camera taking a picture of you in a public place INTRUDING ON YOU at all, let alone more than a CHALK MARK ON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY? Intrusive isn't just a word. It means "INTRODUING ON." Can't wait for your thoughts.

  • On the post: Ninth Circuit Bucks Extremely Recent Trend, Says Chalking Tires Not A Fourth Amendment Violation

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2022 @ 01:50pm

    That1Guy

    That1Guy said it really well. If you chalk the sidewalks outside of banks you get arrested. [paraphrased]. Where's the bright line between VANDALISM, GRAFFITI, and CHALKING TIRES? Vandalism can reduce the value of the property. On the other hand Ghost Bikes and painting abandoned houses are things that increase value. Gaffiti can reduce the value of the property, but some street art makes things worth more. Chalking tires doesn't change the value of the vehicle other than to indicate its disablement period. Not quite the same thing. That just leaves the last factor, which is WHEN CAN A COP MODIFY YOUR VEHICLE AND BY HOW MUCH? Can a cop spray paint "CopWuzHeer" on your car without suffering consequences? Likely not. Can they spit on your windshield to accomplish the same easy to clean up but why should you have to? And then, chalk on the tires vs invisible paint, spray adhesive and a fingerprint (same as that brake light they "touched") etc. Does it have to be a 4am violation to be unlawful. I brought up vandalism before... and do so again. In my US state (Arizona) cops put stickers on windows. Green for one-day abandoned, red for two-days abandoned. These are difficult to remove, disturb the value of the vehicle, and are therefore worse than chalkmarks. I think the 9th circuit is right in that this isn't a 4am violation but they are wrong that it's lawful to 'tag' a vehicle.

  • On the post: Ready Or Not, Here Comes Net Neutrality War 2.0

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2022 @ 08:36am

    Lit Amazing

    Yes, this article covers the essence of the issue very well. If only politicians could read, understand, and pay attention, wow what a better world we would have. Do you suck or do you blow? Either way, you're paying for that. "Big" [noun] shouldn't also have to pay for it.

  • On the post: Netflix Kicks Back At Big Telecom’s Plan To Tax Big Tech In US And EU

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2022 @ 05:33pm

    Whose job is it to upgrade the infrastructure anyway?

    It's not Netflix' job to upgrade the Internet, nor Google's, nor Elon, Mark, or Jeff (for those on a first name basis with those guys). It's the telecos' job. Is it democratization to say "Sender pays"? Sure, just as much as "recipient pays." This doesn't hearken to AT&T at all. This is the protectionist European PTTs trying to gouge each other for international call or postage termination / last mile delivery. In the Internet world, however, "sender pays" means one script pulling your content will bankrupt you. One DDos from your network's user to FB will hurt FB while you skate free. That's not democratization at all. The telcos don't want "Sender pays" -- they want "both sides pay" and they don't mean "each side pays 50%"; they mean each side pays 100%. It's the mid 1900s European PTTs all over again, this time with better marketing.

Next >>