Ehud Gavron 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1631) comment rss

  • On the post: 25 Years Ago Today… Techdirt Got Started!

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 28 Aug, 2022 @ 12:29am

    …pation
    https://www.definitions.net/definition/Pation
    ...moron
    https://www.definitions.net/definition/moron I'll take number two for a thousand, Alec.

  • On the post: 25 Years Ago Today… Techdirt Got Started!

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2022 @ 10:01am

    25 years!!

    Congratulations to everyone that helped make TechDirt a success. Here's to another quarter century of knowledge!

  • On the post: FBI Director Chris Wray Still Won’t Shut The Fuck Up (Or Be Honest) About Phone Encryption

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 17 Aug, 2022 @ 12:40pm

    If it's good enough for them...

    A unified message from all stakeholders would be of benefit. By stakeholders I mean all those using encryption today. That includes everyone here at https://techdirt.com. Here's the message: We, users of encryption, be it end-to-end or site-to-site or shopping online or accessing our bank's websites do hereby agree that after one year of the FBI's using ONLY "lawful-access encryption" and agreeing to maintain the use of ONLY that encryption for another four years, we will transition to using that same encryption. Should the FBI not elect to switch all its systems to "lawful-access encryption" we understand, and we won't switch our encryption systems either. What's good for the goose... is good for the gander. We look forward to the FBI being hacked many many times before their upper management stops lying to the US Congress, the American People, and the world.

  • On the post: Rampant Data Broker Sale Of Pregnancy Data Gets Fresh Scrutiny Post Roe

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2022 @ 10:38am

    Sorry!

    Sorry we outed you! Also your hacked CC numbers are being used by the DA to pay the minimum fine of $5,000. Here's a free year of LifeLock, which will make it all better.

  • On the post: Consumer Advocates Angry That New Privacy Law Erodes Oversight Of Telecom Monopolies

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2022 @ 12:49pm

    Ethnocentrism

    Yes, the world is not the United States. In this case, however, the discussion was of the US market, and all companies mentioned are US companies. Even though DT owns almost half of T-Mobile, TMO itself is a US company out of Bellview, Washington.

    all those companies (with the exception of Alphabet) are duopolies...
    While monopolistic behavior creates monopolies I'm not so sure one can label a company "as being a duopoly." There are various debates on this... and I'm no lawyer...

  • On the post: Consumer Advocates Angry That New Privacy Law Erodes Oversight Of Telecom Monopolies

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2022 @ 06:27pm

    Telecom

    It's not that complicated. Really we're talking about - angry consumer advocates that aren't angry - new privacy laws that don't exist - telecom monopolies with random company names that differ paragraph to paragraph But hey, let's discuss the terms...

    Definitions:

    TELCO - Telephone Company. Now also called Telecoms - telecommunication companies. CABLECO - Community Access TeleVision company, now thought of by people who know no better as "CAble TV." It's not. ISP - Internet Service Provider. Any dog on the street will do this, but that doesn't mean it's not a dog. It's a dog. So if a Telco offers Internet service but we're discussing its non-Internet stuff, it's a telco. MONOPOLY - A board game, also when one company has the exclusive lock on a particular product, service, or clientelle. DUOPOLY - When two companies share that lock on a particular product, service, or clientelle. Usually this is geographically based, although with StarLink ... who knows where that will lead. Really this could be a new board game also.

    What is it we're talking about?

    “Telecom” is more than just phone. It’s internet as well.
    It's a term of the art, used in the industry to refer to legacy telecommunication services companies. These are the wireline voice service providers. Usually two or more wires to your house or business come from the telecom or telco ("telephone company"). ISP is used as a term of the art, used in the industry to refer to companies which provide connectivity to the [big I] Internet. This is the company that provides you use of an Internet Protocol address, routing to get to that address from the Internet, and routing to get from that address to the Internet. Some companies DO provide both services, and just like Volkswagen/Audi and GM/Chevy and Dodge/Plymouth/Ram/Jeep/Chrysler have multiple names and roles, we use the correct name based on the function. There's nothing Internet in the above piece. There's stuff about telcos, monopolies, and the like. FYI in the industry we don't call Cablecos Telcos. It's just not how any of that works. If it was, it wouldn't be a "duopoly" of the Telco and Cableco, but rather a Hegemony of the twain Telcos. Which it is not. Because Cablecos are not Telcos. Insofar as they can and do choose to provide Internet connectivity, they are ALSO ISPs, but again that has no bearing here because the discussion is NOT about Internet service at all.
    And all those companies listed are internet access providers. Many of whom ARE monopolies because most areas of the country have only one or maybe two choices for decent internet access.
    Pretending the world is the United States, none of those companies are monopolies. Your labeling something as "decent" implying your choice is not to deal with the competition doesn't make something a monopoly. Europe has PTTs and nobody seems to be whining about that set of per-country monopolies, which they definitionaly VERY MUCH ARE. A monopoly is just that -- one provider. It's not "Oh hey I don't like the other choices so it's a monopoly because the only one I like is only one company." If there's something here that's not clear, I apologize. I've tried to cover all the bases so nobody accuses me of trolling. Those of us who work in this industry are used to people who won't look anything up pretending they are the arbiter of what we do right or wrong. It's their right, of course. In this country.

  • On the post: Consumer Advocates Angry That New Privacy Law Erodes Oversight Of Telecom Monopolies

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2022 @ 07:03am

    Consumer Advocates Angry?

    Headline: Consumer advocates are angry. Article: No, consumer advocates are not angry. Headline: new privacy law Article: references out of date op-ed by same author on the ADDPA. That thing was DOA and still is. Nobody's talked about it for 42 days. Then there's the ever-changing list of companies. One quote says "AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Google." Another says "AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter." The reader --who has a brain-- might notice these are not the same companies. That same reader might even note that Google isn't a "telecom" let alone "telecom monopoly" and that nobody --and I do mean NOBODY--- is angry about it. Not telcos, not monopolies, and not the same list. AT&T is still around because B2B phones, OnStar, and other legacy users. TMO is still around because a)competitive product, and b)MVNOs. VZW is iikely the only "true" wireless carrier around. None of them are monopolies. Charter, Comcast, Cox, Rogers, Time Warner... these are not telcos. They are wired cable operators. They don't do cellular. They're not monopolies. So sure, quote yourself, refer to your other op-ed as some supporting context, change the list of companies, pretend Google is a telecom (thank the lord you didn't say ISP again), and make sure you get your word count in. You published. Yay. Kermit rocks the hand-shaking thing. E

  • On the post: Project Veritas Not Only Loses Its Vexatious SLAPP Suit Against Stanford, It Has To Pay The University’s Legal Fees

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2022 @ 01:12pm

    Murfle Murfle Muggle G'Day

    Let’s just pretend you said “murfle, murfle” throught that entire wall of meaningless text, okay? Of all the ways to contribute, good on ya for not, Ms. Troll.
    Let's just pretend you didn't post that exact same thing twice, okay? Thank you for letting me know I didn't contribute. You and the rest of the anti-CDA-section-230 crowd have not been solicited for your valueless opinions of anyone's contributions.

  • On the post: Project Veritas Not Only Loses Its Vexatious SLAPP Suit Against Stanford, It Has To Pay The University’s Legal Fees

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2022 @ 07:42am

    Government agencies gone amok

    I think he also neglected to mention,
    Who neglected to mention?
    that the case against the University of Washington was not dismissed, because it is in fact a government agency.
    Wait "the case" is "in fact" a "government agency"? Wow. Good job figuring that out. It's unheard of that a "case" is "in fact" a "government agency". You should probably apply for a copyright and then sue anyone everywhere who might cause confusion in the marketplace. Not to be confused with trademark, of course.
    So somehow Mike is an advocate of the government being a “ministry of truth” and to get posts removed from the internet, and portrays Project Veritas as being against free speech.
    Pretending that's a sentence, and even then pretending further that espouses a thought, I'm just at a loss to what you're trying to say. Let's just cut to the chase. IS MIKE EVIL: [ ] YES [ ] NO [ ] Evil is confusing to me. IS PROJECT VERITAS EVIL: [ ] What is that? [ ] Is that Latin? [ ] But "Project" isn't Latin. [ ] Shore is, hoss!!! [ ] Nagh And finally IS TECHDIRT EVIL: [ ] Heck yeah, Mike started it! [ ] No [ ] Websites can't be evil if they don't start with FOX and end with .COM. [ ] This one time... in band camp.... I read an evil article. I think it was just DIRT not TECHDIRT but I don't remember. Do you have any credibility anymore sir, or are you just another shill for the big tech companies.

  • On the post: Project Veritas Not Only Loses Its Vexatious SLAPP Suit Against Stanford, It Has To Pay The University’s Legal Fees

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2022 @ 06:24am

    Murfle Murfle

    Okay, asshole.
    Thank you for signing your name. That's appreciated, Asshole. Or if you like titles, Ms. Asshole. You're the boss, ma'am.
    Karl Bode works for Mother Jones and has repeatedly said he has covered the tech industry (his coverage is biased towards Big Telecom due to his anti-corporate roots and exposing the corruption within). THAT was the journalist I was referring to, asshole.
    No need to sign your words twice, Ms. Asshole. Karl's been around. He is a journalist. It's not my place to defend his stance, but he does bring a sound reasoned informed voice to the table. He works hard. We may even disagree. Informed disagreement is preferable to some ranting crap from a person signing their name as Asshole.
    And you believe the likes of CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg and Fox News/News Corp are unbiased? CNN heavily leans Democrat, MSNBC too, Bloomberg serves the Fortune 500, and Fox News/News Corp pretty much controls the Republican information stream.
    Wait, so now it's about me and what I believe, and you summarize them so well in one sentence that all I can say is "wow" and "good on ya" and "why don't you just stop while you're ahead" because you weren't ahead at any point? Seriously, find a topic and stick to it.
    The Guardian isn’t completely unbiased, leans progressive and has accepted some dangerously pro-Russia OPEDs recently.
    Now you judge The Guardian. Okay... when I own them I'll take note of your whine and think about changing their content. For now, it's good reads, lady.
    NYT might lean Democrat, but it’s rather conservative at times. WaPo is a tool of Rupert Murdoch.
    It appears you've thought something here was saying "Hey, Ms. Asshole, please review online news sources." I can't find such a thing but thanks so much for reaching deeply to review The Guardian, the NYT, me, Karl, etc.
    The BBC is a tool of the British government.
    What gave it away? Was it the first B or the second B or the taxes all Brits pay to upkeep the BBC? Do share. On second thought, don't.
    All news organizations from China are the tools of the CCP and Xi.
    Xi's not my kind of she, but you're welcome to have your sisterhood, Ms. Asshole.
    I have more examples if you choose to be as wilfully ignorant as Musk.
    Musk is a scent. You are nobody. What I choose has nothing to do with what a nobody does as a scent. [Sounds of Musk, cologne for illiterate Internet idiots being sprayed fill the air...]
    To address the org I was referring to, it’s bloody Techdirt itself. Mike’s actually clarified his deal with the Charles Koch Foundation and has stated they weren’t calling back. And he has been open about the move to WordPress due to Google fucking over Techdirt’s Adsense account.
    Nobody has said a thing like what you suggest. Sadly, you don't just suggest it, you stupidly believe it. I'd offer to clarify but Virgil said it better. Una Salus Victis Nullam Sperare Salutem, Ms. Asshole.
    Would you get that level of transparency at, let’s say, WaPo?
    Would you get that "level of transparency" if that was a sentence, let's say?
    You might add. Of course, you didn’t add. Had you added we could even discuss that. Sadly, no.
    Imagine... if that also was a sentence. Alas, still no.
    Might want to chill on the insults. or not, considering you’d prefer to sacrifice due process for quick gain. Don’t be surprised when the panthers come and eat your face off.
    Sure. I'll be looking out for panthers eating my face off, Ms. Asshole. Sounds a lot like a Nick Cage movie from the 1990s.
    And no, I will not make myself easy to track for the Singapore government just to give you a name to hurl insults on.
    OH MY GOD NO!!! Tell me it's not so!!! Singapore and other third world country governments are COMING AFTER YOU because... um... You're so important and clever and they NEED to stop you from TELLING the rest of us... NOTHING USEFUL. Wow. Whatever floats your boat, ma'am. E

  • On the post: Project Veritas Not Only Loses Its Vexatious SLAPP Suit Against Stanford, It Has To Pay The University’s Legal Fees

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2022 @ 01:16am

    How do you go from "insightful" to "rich"

    That’s rich, considering there’s at least one journalist contributing to Techdirt.
    Anyone who contributes to TD is in one way or another a journalist. Let's just pretend you said "murfle murfle", m'kay?
    Oh, and the organization is more open about its funding than MOST news orgs.
    Wnat organization? What "MOST" news orgs? lets' just pretend you said "murfle mufle", m'kay?
    Let’s face it,
    Sure, let's face it. What is it you think we need to all face?
    most journalists that aren’t contributing to Techdirt are little more than propaganda spewers at best. To the highest bidder if they aren’t working for the government, I might add.
    You might add. Of course you didn't add. Had you added we could even discuss that. Sadly, no. Of all the ways to contribute, good on ya for not. E

  • On the post: Project Veritas Not Only Loses Its Vexatious SLAPP Suit Against Stanford, It Has To Pay The University’s Legal Fees

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2022 @ 12:42pm

    SLAPP not good enough

    STUPIDITY: September 2020 SLAPP PAY THEIR LAWYER FEES: August 2022 This is the "quick" "preventative" "make them pay" answer? TWO YEARS??? It's time to slap SLAPP to the curb and come up with something more suited to discouraging vexatious plaintiffs and IMMEDIATELY awarding legal fees (even ongoing ones) to defendants in these cases. E

  • On the post: From The Revolt Against SOPA To The EU's Upload Filters

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2022 @ 04:08am

    We welcome our spam overlords

    Did TD turn off spam filtering? 4/5 comments above are spam.

  • On the post: How California’s ‘Transparency’ Bills Will Only Make It Impossible To Deal With Bad Actors: Propagandists, Disinfo Peddlers, Rejoice

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 02 Aug, 2022 @ 03:14am

    Dude, Not only is this not the "email Mike" website, but your comments lack adhesion to reality. I say it without malice... you need to get help. Maybe you could sell off some of those "internet options" in Delaware! and hire a therapist. E

  • On the post: How California’s ‘Transparency’ Bills Will Only Make It Impossible To Deal With Bad Actors: Propagandists, Disinfo Peddlers, Rejoice

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 01 Aug, 2022 @ 02:52pm

    Local politicians craving the limelight

    Great writeup. Hats off to Eric Goldman and Techdirt for daring to touch this nuclear pile of ***t.

    And local prosecutors are kinda known for loving the limelight.
    Local prosecutors can do disastrous damage that will last for centuries if the crap they pull becomes precedent law. e.g.: 2016 - CA DA Kamala Harris testifies under oath to Congress that she can't stop "sex trafficking" (catchall term for anything she doesn't like) because of CDA Section 230. 2018 - Despite that, Kamala issues arrest warrant for Backpage.COM owners and then has servers seized and those owners arrested. $500M/yr business becomes $0/yr business with millions of dollars in lawyer fees for the owners, and millions of dollars of fees in taxpayer burdens. Again, not only was there no "sex trafficking" but Backpage gave LEOs lots of leads on people who were TRYING to post advertisements that would have violated CSAM online. 2021 - Mistrial declared. There was no evidence of "sex trafficking" and it was only used in introductory paragraphs to prejudice the jury. 2022 - Trial set for February is on hold pending an appeal on double jeopardy to the Ninth Circuit. Those hearings aren't going to start until September 2022. So this small-minded local politician who is now the vice-president of the United States, either lied under oath to Congress or acted unlawfully in arresting the Backpage owners and seizing their servers. Pick one. She has not been charged with either perjury or of violating her oath of office. It's not "just" DJT that gets away with doing WTF he wants. Kamala is in on it too. This small-minded local politician brought forth an incompetent prosecution that quickly ended up in a mistrial. Here we are six years later. Local politicians craving the limelight can do much collateral damage. https://coyoteri.org/wp/backpage/ https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/human-trafficking#:~:text=Sex%20trafficking%3A%20When%20individuals%20are,force%2C%20fraud%2C%20or%20coercion. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/can-prosecutors-stop-child-sex-trafficking-without-breaking-the-internet#xj4y7vzkg There are a lot more links, but these are summaries that don't overlap too much and cover all the high ground. Can you [the reader] imagine ruining the lives of these owners and the many people they employed for SIX YEARS without an end in sight, and a constant financial drain to keep lawyers happy? If YOU were the target of such a malicious and unlawful (see "Pick one" above) prosecution, at what point would you no longer put it as "Local politician craving the limelight" and more like "Local politician going rogue, ignores the law, gets away with it, pretends to be a force of good." E

  • On the post: Polling The Public About Social Media Policies Turns Up Nothing Particularly Useful

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 27 Jul, 2022 @ 10:48am

    It's possible

    I don't think I'm disingenuous, and usually I provide links to stuff I saw so it's "more than just an opinion." Some people don't care for my style, but you can rest assured I'm not trolling. As for reading halfway through a paragraph, I usually read the entire posts as they come in. But enough about me.

  • On the post: Polling The Public About Social Media Policies Turns Up Nothing Particularly Useful

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2022 @ 12:36pm

    Wex, Cornell, the CFRs, and why this is one big rabbit hole

    TL;DR - The whole common carrier worm-can is all about attempting to regulate something without passing laws addressing that same something. The regulation has multiple goals, and "net neutrality" is today's buzzword. When discussing the law, it's important to read the law. Cornell does have good online resources, but the link (above) was to something penned by the "Wex Definitions Team" which, a click later, shows to be some former and some current law students. It's not the law. It's not written by a lawyer. It's not even written by a law-prof. Still sticking with Cornell, here's the relevant section from the Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/chapter-I/subchapter-B What makes a common carrier ... various tests. There are many litmus tests. One previously mentioned is that carriage of YOUR stuff TOMORROW may not necessarily be on the same terms as carriage of MY stuff TODAY. Clearly my 15% off all FedEx shipments from my business are at a different set of terms than yours. FedEx is not a common carrier. A second one is that common carriers do not have individual carriage contracts with their user ("clients"). I have not signed anything with the USPS and yet daily they deliver my mail, and take my outbound mail with them. The USPS is a common carrier. Really this is all about a subset of people wanting to regulate sites forcing them to carry content the site doesn't want to carry. Unfortunately, this is just a big red herring. It doesn't matter if a company provides common carriage. What matters is whether or not they are subject to governmental regulations. It would be convenient in these days of obstructionism and inability to pass legislation if EXISTING legislation already on the books was applicable, and COULD be applied to areas that need regulating. In 2015 when the FCC decided ISPs were common carriers and could be regulated under Title II of the Communication Act of 1934, and as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, there were (and still are) many who said this was not right, and that it was PURPOSEFUL OVERREACH to regulate an industry that appears largely immune to regulation. I'll avoid the obvious rabbit hole of how 1934 law or 1996 amended law has anything to do with web-based services that would not exist for years or decades thereafter. Google was formed in 1998 as a search engine company. That is not an ISP. Twitter was formed in 2006 as a communication platform. It is not an ISP. Great explanation and writeup at senate.gov: https://tinyurl.com/54n6yabe Summary: Let's unwind the stack. Some people have feelings that some platforms unfairly censor some content. They want to regulate those platforms and require them to publish content the site chooses not to. The FCC tried to say that ISPs are subject to its purview. The people above are trying to say that those platforms are ISPs and therefore subject to the FCC purview. End result: if all those assumptions are true, then the FCC can force those platforms to carry and publish content anathematic to those platforms' desires.

  • On the post: Polling The Public About Social Media Policies Turns Up Nothing Particularly Useful

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2022 @ 04:49am

    Aramaic

    Modern Hebrew is not my strong suit.
    If it was Hebrew... but it's alleged Aramaic. Unfortunately (or not) it's not really Aramaic. It's on a UGC site and nowhere else, and it doesn't follow the rules of Aramaic writing. (Yeah, seriously.) As a fan of UGC it's not really my place to say that made up shit should be removed... because hey, what if some Aramaic scholar come along with a different perspective than I have... and he/she said "No no that's all legit." Until then however, it's not. It's easy to take the ex-president's words and show them to be a farce. It's a lot more difficult when couched in a dead language.that very very few of us have studied... and as time goes, we get fewer in number, and knowledge is lost. And all the while the anonymous coward horde keeps thinking it makes a difference. All it does is lower the S/N ratio. Mana mana? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTXyXuqfBLA&ab_channel=JustinCaise E

  • On the post: Polling The Public About Social Media Policies Turns Up Nothing Particularly Useful

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2022 @ 12:50am

    I do so hate small keyboard, small screens, and whatever else is in the way of great communication.

    And now with a full keyboard and a screen that doesn't require readers... The Hebrew. What is it you wanted to say? It didn’t stand on its own. I’m not trying to criticize I’m offering to help. It’s what we do אחי. E

  • On the post: Polling The Public About Social Media Policies Turns Up Nothing Particularly Useful

    Ehud Gavron ( profile ), 25 Jul, 2022 @ 10:00pm

    Un

    The Hebrew. What is it you wanted too say? It didn't y stand on its own. I'm not trying to criticized... I'm offering to help. It's what we do אחי.

Next >>