Kevin Donovan 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (49) comment rss

  • On the post: Do We Really Want An Internet Run By Lynch Mobs?

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2008 @ 09:42pm

    Re: Re: Checks & Balances Baloney

    I'm well aware of the last 8 years. From the original post: "The checks and balances (eroded as they may be) of the legal system do a pretty good job at finding the best course of action, and we shouldn't rush to a future of lynch mobs."

    But I also appreciate the substantive point, that law enforcement has its head in the sand on cybercrime. But the main takeaway from this almost Burkean post is that we should keep in mind what generally works in our governance structure, even if it has failed at times. Although public-private partnerships can be a nauseating buzzword, the ethic behind them is important and I hope people like yourself and Jart, who have the expertise and capability, take them seriously - especially given the new opportunities afforded by a new administration.

    "There has to be measured, and reasoned, balance." That's the point of this all.

  • On the post: Do We Really Want An Internet Run By Lynch Mobs?

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2008 @ 09:27pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    That's just a straw man.

    Obviously we want more serious certainty for more serious punishments, but even something as "minor" as this should be done carefully (not that these examples weren't). Remember, this is about precedents.

    On the other hand, if this is so minor, why bother? These actions were taken because they were viewed as being effective/powerful. (Though that, too, can be debated).

  • On the post: Do We Really Want An Internet Run By Lynch Mobs?

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2008 @ 09:06pm

    Re:

    Hi Jart,

    We all have a role to play. But those with more capability (sysadmins, ISPs and law enforcement), need to be wary of the power. Government power is checked/balanced for that reason. The point of this post was to make sure we are considering the implications of potentially unchecked/unbalanced power. (Whether used as a first or last approach due to the government's nonsensical and inconsistent approach to prevention/prosecution).

    Kevin

  • On the post: Do We Really Want An Internet Run By Lynch Mobs?

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2008 @ 08:56pm

    Re: ben there done that

    "Since the beginning the web has been a place of give and take and mostly the geeks want to keep it up and free flowing..."

    That's a really fair point worth keeping in mind. I just wonder that as the proportion of geeks online slips, does there need to be a broader dialogue with other parts of society (law enforcement) so that we can stop these bad actors more conclusively and without the (somewhat hypothetical) worries about negative side effects?

  • On the post: Do We Really Want An Internet Run By Lynch Mobs?

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2008 @ 08:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Ummm

    I'm not quite sure I understand that comment: Are you saying driving criminals away from the American legal system is managing the problem? It would seem to exacerbate it...

    (And, seriously, I'm not trying to be as adversarial as I may come across - just looking to avoid writing the paper I should be.)

  • On the post: Do We Really Want An Internet Run By Lynch Mobs?

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2008 @ 08:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Do We Really Want An Internet Run By Lynch Mobs?

    I don't doubt your expertise, but I do worry that a precedent like this will set the path for people less careful in their decision making and lead to the potential problems outlined above.

    Best,
    Kevin

  • On the post: Do We Really Want An Internet Run By Lynch Mobs?

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2008 @ 08:19pm

    Re: Ummm

    Actually, as we found out nearly a decade ago, normal legal structures apply to cyberspace just dandy. Check out LICRA v. Yahoo! for the real world application of Jack Goldsmith's intellectual foundation in "Against Cyberanarchy".

    As for the legal process possibly allowing the bad guys to get away with it and still be online, while that is a possibility, in the extralegal manner it is a guarantee. The bad guys just moved to Russia, etc. where it is harder to convict them. They are back online.

    I'm not arguing that what happened was illegal (it wasn't, as Fergie points out above). I'm arguing that it may not be smart.

  • On the post: Do We Really Want An Internet Run By Lynch Mobs?

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2008 @ 08:15pm

    Re: Re: Do We Really Want An Internet Run By Lynch Mobs?

    Ferg,

    Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm fully aware that the spammers/botnet operators are violating the ToS. The problem comes from 1) the framing of the issue and 2) the proximate cause of the disconnection.

    1) Whether by their design or not, the ISPs actions were shown as good neighbors helping rid the 'net of bad guys. In fact, one expert involved writes at length about how he views this as a question of good vs. evil (http://www.circleid.com/posts/time_for_self_reflection/).

    2) Further, the ISPs didn't act of their own accord. It took outside investigation and pressure (luckily from a responsible WaPo reporter) to get them to disconnect their services. That isn't responsible contractual obligation, that is either saving face or lynch mob behavior where an instigator motivates others in a rush of good-intentioned action.

  • On the post: Device For Splitting The Bill At A Restaurant Now Patented

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2008 @ 08:52am

    Gives new meaning to "Math You Can't Use". USPTO essentially just patented division.

  • On the post: Big Guns Come Out In Effort To Show RIAA's Lawsuits Are Unconstitutional

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2008 @ 09:57am

    Spelling Nazi...

    It's actually Charlie Nesson... sorry to be that guy.

  • On the post: Short Term Profits Over Long Term Principles; Google's Caving On Book Scanning Is Bad News

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2008 @ 08:33pm

    Very good post

    It's really too bad that they are forced to choose Wall Street earnings over principles. As Joi Ito says, "the capitalists aren't a whole lot of use when it comes to" openness, fair use, safe harbors, etc.

  • On the post: Are Scientific Journals Recognizing The Value Of Open Access Publishing?

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 14 Oct, 2008 @ 08:01pm

    It's Open Access Day, fyi

    http://openaccessday.org/

  • On the post: Are Student Newspapers Doing Better Or Worse These Days?

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2008 @ 06:05pm

    College Newspaper Insider

    I'm involved with theHoya.com which is Georgetown's paper and I can tell you that we are feeling the crunch. It's not terrible, but people are definitely spending less on newspaper ads and many advertisers (especially local) are not comfortable or familiar with online advertising so we've had to face an uphill battle.

  • On the post: Another Game Innovator Is Shut Down By Copyright Claims

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2008 @ 09:37am

    Re: Innovation?

    No. The word you're looking for is: invention.

  • On the post: Another Game Innovator Is Shut Down By Copyright Claims

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 26 Aug, 2008 @ 07:51am

    Re: Re: innovation

    There are thousands of new games that have been invented since Tetris and Scrabble. Look at kongregate.com or any number of video game sites.

    Tris brought a new interface to a classic game and provided a much better experience than the EA version (http://www.macworld.com/article/135200/2008/08/iphone_tetris.html). That's innovation. Not groundbreaking, but nimble incremental change which has been stopped by a lumbering legal department.

  • On the post: Covering Up Any Brand In Beijing That Hasn't Paid To Sponsor The Olympics

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2008 @ 03:14pm

    Corporate Pressure

    I wonder how much of the IOCs actions are done to appease actual pressure from the sponsors. That is, are Coke and Visa the cause of the problems or is it purely IOC?

  • On the post: Killing The iPhone Kill Switch

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2008 @ 01:00pm

    Let Users Decide

    Why doesn't Apple allow competent users to opt-out of the kill-switch? If I want my iPhone to be open to all the dangers of the big bad developer community, then let me.

  • On the post: Eight $1,000 App Buyers Later, And Apple Pulls It

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2008 @ 11:09am

    Re: Bad Apps

    The Internet is filled with crappy sites. Should we ban those?

    No. Because they don't get in the way and, as the 8 buyers in a couple hours shows, obviously some people want them around.

  • On the post: Is There Any Good Reason Why Apple Should Pull The $1000 iPhone App?

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2008 @ 09:03pm

    Re: Ur?

    Yes, Apple has a screening policy. Yes, I'd rather a truly open platform. But even given the current status quo, there are certain rules. Steve Jobs, in his keynote, explained the reasons Apps would be banned. Those included "malicious, pornographic, a bandwidth hog, illegal or a threat to privacy."

    I Am Rich is none of those. A closed system needs clear rules and Apple cannot be creating them on the fly - developers will flee.

    And even if they made a rule that would ban I Am Rich, what would it be? You cannot charge more than we say? That is price control and we certainly don't want that.

    (And forgive the hyperbole; I felt it was fitting.)

  • On the post: Should The Next President Use A Computer?

    Kevin Donovan ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2008 @ 08:51pm

    Re: Blown way out of proportion...

    I'm not saying McCain should know how to fly-fish or throw a fastball, even though those activities are decided upon in some manner by the Federal Government. I'm saying the President should understand the BIG, fundamental issues and tech is one of them.

Next >>