Not an Electronic Rodent’s Techdirt Profile


About Not an Electronic Rodent

Not an Electronic Rodent’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 14th, 2019 @ 1:47am

    People are always the problem

    ...whether or not this will actually "move the conversation forward. [snip] They have mostly only seemed interested in the [snip] approach to this, that assumes smart techies will give them their magic key without undermining everything else that keeps us secure.

    I don't think this'll "move the conversation forward" either, because I also think the above assumption is wrong. It's politics now, and therefore basically an article of faith.

    I think the problem it is that the (essentially) political calls for "the end of encryption" or "backdoors in encryption" who have no knowledge of how it actually works simply assume that "the other side" (i.e. technical experts) are lying about the consequences to block them because it's what they'd do in that position. The problem is that we have become fact-optional societies.

  • Aug 6th, 2019 @ 2:56am

    The view from outside

    Why Is Our First Reaction To Mass Shootings To Talk About Censorship?

    "For reasons passing understanding, [Americans] do not relate guns to gun-related crime." - President Andrew Shepherd

  • Jul 9th, 2019 @ 9:22am

    Re: Think of the children

    Their goal is censorship and nothing less

    Methinks you are assigning too grand and Machiavellian a motive to basically power-hungry potato-heads. I would be surprised to find the motive is anything more thoughtful than shoring up political support.

    I suspect the goal is to be seen to be "Doing Something" about an issue that's been blown up somewhere in the media because of one or more "Terrible Things That Have Happened".

    Knee-jerk, reactionary law from morons to haven't a clue and don't care how the thing works as long as they can be seen to be "Doing Something About The Problem" to the kind of voter that also doesn't know how it works but "Cares Deeply About The Children And Stuff".

    Actual harm is irrelevant here because by the time it manifests, some political rival will have had a hand in it and you can blame them or if not just falsify the figures and hold a "Major Press Conference" touting how well it worked. The clueless are appeased and you get elected again - everyone wins.

    British Politics... the triumph of appearance over fact (have you not seen Brexit?)

  • Jul 2nd, 2019 @ 11:08am

    Re: Boris Johnson

    Is Boris Johnson a domestic abuser?

    Yep. Also adulterer, racist, misogynist, entitled dick, megalomaniacal and liar - and those are his good qualities.

    Nice try getting the story back on google... Be lovely if it worked - or if people simply noticed what an utter sh*t-show of a human being he is.

    Grant you that last one is less likely since he hardly stands out ahead of the pack for UK politicians, and barely makes a dent globally (I'm looking at you, US!)

    Should have mentioned the bus, too, though, just for laughs - far as I can tell, there's still a significant portion of the UK population that thinks it was true despite it being the biggest self-evident whopper since the last time the US president opened his mouth.

  • Jul 1st, 2019 @ 10:32am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I prefer something they can not simply take away.

    Which brings us to another top reason why people infringe, also mentioned lots here;

    naughty download = no pointless DRM = the stuff can't be "simply taken away"

    Thus, ironically, infringing content is actually more valuable than paid-for content.

  • Jul 1st, 2019 @ 10:28am

    Re: Re: 1 show per service

    And.. yes I know, I've clearly been smoking too many unicorns and rainbows. Chances of happening the real world.... sigh

  • Jul 1st, 2019 @ 10:26am

    Re: 1 show per service

    The way things are going, your going to end up with each show being it's own $3.99 / mo service, with episodes released once per week.

    When shows are no longer popular then the Hulu's of the world will get them. This is like the dream of most studios so they can double dip on exclusive content and then farm out to syndication.

    Know what? I'd actually be fine with that... If you substituted "within a predictable limited time" for "when no longer popular" and made sure all the "Hulu's of the world" get the same deal on the old stuff.

    Me, I'm prepared to wait a bit, but hey, a lot of people aren't so maybe there is a market for "exclusive silos" for all the new, shiny stuff for 6 months, maybe a year or so, as long as eventually it ends up a bit like music mechanical licenses that anyone can pick up and show older content so the "Hulu's of the world" can all compete on price and service instead of grubbing round after unrealistic rates for content not everyone wants to watch...

    Just a thought...

  • Jun 22nd, 2019 @ 12:43am

    Re: Re: Java Cript

    We want news, ethically presented and backstopped with facts.

    Sadly, "we" mostly don't appear to want that - at least not enough to demand it. If that were what sells, more places would be selling it. What appears to sell is sensationalism and playing into your chosen niche of prejudice and confirmation bias.

    Would be nice, though, wouldn't it?

  • Feb 7th, 2019 @ 7:39am

    Re: Re: Re:

    We've traded privacy for safety.

    "We've traded actual privacy for imaginary safety.


    Without privacy, no one could commit crimes very easily.

    I can think of at least one person who has very publicly admitted to or committed several crimes and seems to be OK with it... Not sure that reasoning is sound.

  • Jan 25th, 2019 @ 3:09am

    Should they?

    but the company should know better than to (a) hire a law firm known for abusing trademark law in such a manner, and (2) approve the original sending of the threat letter.

    But why should they? Is there any useful disincentive beyond the occasional bullying object that fights and the occasional denied claim that would convince them otherwise?

    Or did you mean in the "reasonable human" sense?

  • Jun 11th, 2018 @ 9:47am

    Re: This is a most difficult issue

    The argument that the market will not solve this problem is probably correct, which leaves regulation, and that will incense some folks.

    Sure will, if for no other reason than the legislation will inevitably suck and be a 1/2-measure at best. If such a thing happens I imagine it would be started by well-meaning "nerds" and a handful of the more tech-savvy politicians, but get waylaid by excessive lobbying from large corporations who really don't want to pay to fix the problem they caused and actually kinda like the data they're gathering.. The result will be a watered-down, toothless version of whatever got proposed in the first place.

    It's still better than the even more scary alternative mentioned above, though:

    Folks like Schneier have been warning for a while that it's likely going to take a mass casualty event (caused by hacked infrastructure) to finally motivate some changes in the internet of broken things space.

    Can you imagine the kind of headless-chicken, knee-jerk, politician-must-DO-something-NOW abortion-of-a-law that would result from that? I'll take the weedy and ineffectual half-measure any day!

  • Jun 8th, 2018 @ 5:11am

    Re: Re: Re: If facts mattered, sure

    I am amazed that shareholders have not demanded they start waking up to the future as shareholders are the ones that are loosing trillions in income.

    Because, despite the putative losses, the companies keep posting record profits year-on-year and presumably paying big, fat dividends almost as large as the amount spent buying lawmakers?

  • Jun 8th, 2018 @ 4:57am

    Re: Re: Careful what you wish for.

    How is that different from what they already provide, with the exception of "access to all content"?

    That was kinda my point, they'd role out such a service, trumpet it as the answer to all consumer needs, when anyone challenges the premise or the price will say something like, "Well that's what you said customers wanted but they're still pirating", or, "Well that's what [we arbitrarily decide] it costs to provide" and when it fails hard, use it to push for more law.

    Once I wondered if they were really that dumb, but repetition suggests it's actually a genius business plan that allows them to reap massive profits for minimal actual work. Laws are cheaper to buy than a platform that works it seems and far easier to run than providing an actual service.

  • Jun 8th, 2018 @ 12:49am

    Careful what you wish for.

    Next up: Industry creates ad-laden, DRM-ridden, slow, badly built platform that enables access to all content "for your region" for only £500 a month if you can find it in the appalling, proprietary search engine.

    Industry later quoted as saying, "We gave you exactly what you said you wanted and you're all STILL criminals! We need new, harsher laws!"

  • May 11th, 2018 @ 6:41am

    Re: Re: Re: They have to start somewhere

    I have no idea what you are going on about.

    In political parlance, that would be, "Everyone else who can't give me political favours or donations with at least 6 zeros attached". It's only 99% of the country; I wouldn't worry about it too much.

  • May 5th, 2018 @ 1:44am


    To paraphrase the immortal Mr Adams; Statistics don't show anything you didn't already know - except that everyone in the galaxy has 2.4 legs and own a Hyena.

  • Apr 26th, 2018 @ 6:43am

    Re: Re: 'This? This is why people don't trust you.'

    Unfortunately, this would only work if the police gave a damn about that relationship

    Well, arguably they do sort of give a damn about it... Isn't the general antipathy of the public towards police usually the reason given for needing to get even more Rambo'd up with military-grade weapons and use them at the slightest provocation?

  • Apr 17th, 2018 @ 10:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Large sites are evil

    I count 7 post referencing an alleged site without a link so far. Again I'm going to assume this is purely trolling, 'cos no-one is that bad at "adverticing" [sic]

  • Apr 17th, 2018 @ 9:23am

    Re: Re: Re: ==true ?

    function checkDMCA (file){
    return isFileAFile(file);

    Think you forgot to include the standard **AA technique of "Scream infringement no matter what until someone explicitly proves it isn't"

  • Apr 17th, 2018 @ 9:17am

    A good start

    "There are more than 140 lawful online platforms in the United States for accessing film and television content, and more than 460 around the world,”

    Wow! And you only need to subscribe to 713 of them to be able to access all the lawful content!

More comments from Not an Electronic Rodent >>