Who Cares’s Techdirt Profile

icare

About Who Cares




Who Cares’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 8th, 2020 @ 6:19am

    Re: Re: Thomas Modly has already resigned

    He deliberately did not inform his superior of sending this e-mail, and seeing that Crozier was a career officer he'd asked about what was in the e-mail already but got rebuffed or more likely his superior officer got rebuffed.
    By informing his superior officer he'd either:
    1) Be ordered to not send the e-mail. Putting him in a bind for having to chose between disobeying a direct order or not trying to get his ship back up to respectable amount of readiness in a short period while at the same time less of his subordinates get ill.
    2) Implicate his direct superior when it gets out that said superior agreed with was put in the e-mail.

    That leaves the other charge. Not using SIPR while the e-mail is technically about the readiness of the carrier he commanded. Even though the state of the TR as out of action due to COVID-19 was known for a week it wasn't declassified so still a sensitive subject that could not be communicated over NIPR (the same shit happened when Snowden leaked and intelligence agency people could basically not read some newspaper articles).

    They will use that as a reason why they can't reinstate him in his old job, at best he'll get a dead end job at the headquarters and no chance on promotion ever.

  • Mar 20th, 2020 @ 12:43pm

    Even Comcast thinks

    that these guys are evil.
    Got to say that they got the message and have been telling their people to work at home if possible including special teams to get their call center people setup so they can work from him.

    Not often that Comcast does the right thing but this time they did.

  • Mar 19th, 2020 @ 12:40pm

    That many countries

    Is that 180 countries right? Seeing that, with a 195 countries in the world, that would mean that even EU countries from before the end of the USSR are censoring what their citizens can say and read about their own government.

    That is a scary thought to me.

  • Feb 27th, 2020 @ 2:26pm

    (untitled comment)

    Good thing that this was squashed since a ruling in favor of the sheriffs office, unless very narrowly targeted at only law enforcement, would have made it illegal to remove something that you don't own from your vehicle.
    So, assuming the ruling isn't narrowly crafted, removing the flyers from your car would allow the owner(s) of the flyers (since they never transferred ownership to you, just placed something they owned on your car) to go accuse you of theft and the proof being no more flyer on your car.

  • Jan 22nd, 2020 @ 2:02pm

    (untitled comment)

    The world is really unfair.
    You need to be rich and powerful to get scammed by a real prince while I, a mere average Jane/Joe, only get these fake Nigerian princes.

  • Dec 17th, 2019 @ 11:17am

    It gets worse in the Netherlands

    19th or 20th November one of the people in congress (2de kamer) suggested to expand what they are currently doing in Rotterdam to the whole country.

    What is worse is that there is an asset forfeiture law. But that one actually requires a conviction to use instead of having the target prove that they are innocent.

  • Jan 4th, 2017 @ 9:09am

    Re: Re:

    Then you'd have absolutely no problem of linking that evidence instead of blindly asserting like you do now.
    At that I rather trust the people who seem to have copious amounts of references in their rapport then a blind assertion.

  • Jun 30th, 2015 @ 9:57am

    (untitled comment)


    It's the public officials' way of thinking that they're clever and that the public is stupid. That seems like an unwise assumption.

    It is more the arrogance of we know what is good for you in the top layer of the EU bureaucracy and we can force that on you since the EU is not a democratic institution.

  • Jun 29th, 2015 @ 12:04pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Guess

  • Jun 29th, 2015 @ 12:02pm

    Re:

    To clarify the license thingie.
    Uber believes it's drivers can get by with a tourism vehicle license since they don't respond to street hailing and thus are only doing pre-booked arrangements (which that tourism license allows).
    While that is the letter of the law the intention was a license for for example drivers of buses for arranged excursions.
    This is what the French government is reacting on.

    The taxi drivers are reacting since their license and all rules and regulations that come with it are vastly more expensive then the one that Uber uses. Which is undercutting their business.

    I don't know how this is going to be ruled on since Uber is skirting dangerously close to the edge of the law and seeing how that France tries to protect its own industries.

  • Jun 29th, 2015 @ 11:50am

    Re:

    It were the regular taxi drivers who were tipping over the cars the suspected of being used for the Uber service.

  • Jun 29th, 2015 @ 11:47am

    (untitled comment)


    First of all, "illicit transportation of people?" These are people who want to go somewhere and are happy about the options they have. Why should that be "illicit"?

    Simple. The logic goes as follows; The drivers aren't licensed to be taxi drivers, they drive people for payment so they are taxi drivers, ergo they are transporting people illicitly.

    I expect the same thing to happen where I live seeing the amount of work they've (that is the government) have put into licensing and regulating of taxis.

  • Jun 11th, 2015 @ 11:04pm

    Re: Owning the Customers

    Analogy doesn't work.
    The moment a swarm absconds (the jargon term of an entire hive worth of bees + queen packing up an leaving) the keeper will try to catch the queen and place that one back into the hive. This time with a bar in front of the hive opening which will prevent the queen (and only the queens) from exiting thereby preventing the swarm from leaving.

  • May 27th, 2015 @ 5:51pm

    (untitled comment)

    About the Google investigation, part of this is for the same thing that the US investigated and let them of with a promise they'd not do it anymore (in 2012 after 2 years of investigating).
    The EU doesn't do apologies like that. If the follow up indeed determines that Google abused its market-share in the EU to profit at the expense of other services, then Google will end up paying. And the fine will be more then the profit made due to the abuse.
    Seriously what is more of a deterrent against future misbehavior by a corporation? The expectation that if it breaks the law some regulatory agency gives the lawyers working there a stern talking to while allowing the corporation to keep the ill-gotten lucre. Or the knowledge that it has to answer to it's shareholders due to not only having to repay the money made by breaking the law but also having to pay a fine on top of that causing a dent in the bottom line?

    And then the Facebook thing. Yes people can opt to not use it.
    However Facebook is providing services in the EU so it has to follow EU law. It can op to not follow EU law by not providing services there.
    If Facebook keeps insisting on using privacy protections based on US law for people in the EU it will keep running into lawsuits and investigations about it breaking EU law until it changes it's behavior or leaves.

  • May 27th, 2015 @ 5:28pm

    Re:

    Neither. It is just that in the US the only anti-trust spankings by the EU you get to see are the ones against US companies. Doesn't help that those companies tend to get the really big fines due to the revenue they generate in the EU combined with the habit of trying to play the same games they do with the US regulators only to discover that that tends to increase the fine.
    But if you look at the total value of the fines separated in EU only businesses and businesses from outside the EU, the amount of EU only fines is still larger then the ones outside ones.

  • May 23rd, 2015 @ 10:51am

    (untitled comment)

    I'm curious about Rand Paul.
    Will he actually filibuster the 31st or just keep it to the grandstanding he did last week.

  • May 21st, 2015 @ 5:23am

    Re:

    Consquences:
    The non US parties agreed to a treaty with this little booby trap in it. By not agreeing to change the laws as the treaty demands when the US asks for it a whole raft of punishments can be levied on the country not changing their laws to suit the US. Everything from not implementing the US parts of the treaty to going to the WTO.

  • Jan 8th, 2015 @ 2:09am

    When in the US?


    But now that the European Commission has accepted the argument that openness is likely to help the acceptance of TTIP, rather than harm it, and aims to release key documents routinely, how long can the US negotiators plausibly maintain their outdated position?

    The answer to this question is in perpetuity.
    The simplest counter is that the US is not the EU and the US would never (*snort*) go against the wishes of it's citizens.

  • Dec 30th, 2014 @ 12:02pm

    Re: When a joke can land you in jail...

    Only if you buy me the sunscreen needed. I have a fair skin so I get sunburns easily.

  • Dec 29th, 2014 @ 9:08pm

    Thanks

    I'm not what you call an expert on this. So I sometimes need help that points out the obvious.

More comments from Who Cares >>


This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it