Khym Chanur 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (694)

• On the post: Rep. Devin Nunes Sues Internet Cow For Saying Mean Things About Him Online

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2019 @ 12:36am

  Re: Re: Re:

  It's a mistake anyone who isn't tech savvy might make.

• On the post: Officer's Body Cam Fails To Capture Footage Of Woman Shooting Herself In The Head While Her Hands Were Cuffed Behind Her

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2019 @ 01:07pm

  Re: You don't know the truth are just smearing cops because hate

  And it's physically possible.

  It might be physically possible to shoot yourself in the back of the head while your hands are cuffed behind you, but how could you possibly shoot yourself in the mouth in such a situation?

• On the post: Rep. Devin Nunes Sues Internet Cow For Saying Mean Things About Him Online

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2019 @ 12:05pm

  Re:

  The "hide this post" feature is also useful because it is more difficult for search engines to pick up these posts,

  Nope. If you look at the HTML source for the page (right-click -> view source, or just Ctrl-U) then you'll see your comment is right there where it will be seen by any search engines.

• On the post: Rep. Devin Nunes Sues Internet Cow For Saying Mean Things About Him Online

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2019 @ 11:59am

  Re:

  There's also the false-light defamation tort which does not require explicit falsehood, but "portrayal in a false light.

  Then he should have sued for false-light.

  Without section 230, several attorneys who interact with Masnick online would have been financially destroyed in lawsuits.

  Care to name any of these lawyers? Of the top of my head, when it comes to lawyers who interact with Masnick, I can only think of Marc Randazza and Ken White. Also, how would any lawyers have been financially destroyed? Clients they represented might have lost lawsuits in the absence of section 230, but the only way that would have financially impacted the lawyers would be a loss of repeat business since those clients would no longer be able to afford attorneys.

  Those attorneys, in turn, often interact with hackers who put up defamatory content to which the attorneys then link, in what is often called "salami slicing."

  1) Have any sources for this? 2) You've previously claimed that lawyers do this in order to get business from those they defamed, with the defamees hiring them to sue the defamers. I guessing that the alleged scheme goes something like: 2-A) Lawyer gets a client. 2-B) Lawyer hires a hacker to post defamatory stuff about client. 2-C) Client pays lawyer to sue defamer. 2-D) Lawyer starts the lawsuit and issues subpoena to the platform for identity of the defamer, but the hacker used his leet skillz to cover his tracks so that the email & IP address the platform has are useless for tracking down the hacker. (I'm guessing why this scheme would require a hacker). 3) This a bit pedantic, but

  Salami slicing refers to a series of many small actions, often performed by clandestine means, that as an accumulated whole produces a much larger action or result that would be difficult or unlawful to perform all at once.

  In other words, "I do not think those words mean what you think they mean".

• On the post: ICE Officers Forging Signatures, Deploying Pre-Signed Warrants To Detain Immigrants

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2019 @ 01:17pm

  Techdirt spends much time defending ... foreigners, neither of which have any actual basis or standing to complain: they're defined by that are breaking The Law.

  Foreigners are breaking the law?

• On the post: If You Think Big Internet Companies Are Somehow To Blame For The New Zealand Massacre, You're Wrong

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2019 @ 11:31pm

  Re: Re:

  They're not credible threats within U.S. jurisprudence. But what about the EU and its various member nations?

• On the post: The 2012 Web Blackout Helped Stop SOPA/PIPA And Then ACTA; Here Comes The 2019 Version To Stop Article 13

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2019 @ 04:22am

  Re:

  Only logical reason they'd let commenters speak so freely.

  If you're being sarcastic, I don't know what a sarcastic "this site is definitely a free focus group of some type" means. If you're not being sarcastic, why would a non-focus group restrict comments?

• On the post: The 2012 Web Blackout Helped Stop SOPA/PIPA And Then ACTA; Here Comes The 2019 Version To Stop Article 13

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2019 @ 08:24pm

  An off-topic question for John Doe

  In previous comment threads you've claimed that a restaurant, if it really wanted to, could get mention of itself removed from a travel guide. Is your position that there's some exception to nominative fair use of trademarks? That mention of a restaurant in a travel guide isn't nominative fair use? Or what?

• On the post: Axel Voss Says Maybe YouTube Shouldn't Exist

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2019 @ 03:44am

  I wonder what John Doe thinks of the exceptions (non-profit encyclopedias, open source, etc).

• On the post: Everyone's Overreacting To The Wrong Thing About Facebook (Briefly) Blocking Elizabeth Warren's Ads

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2019 @ 02:39pm

  Re: Re:

  From the movie A Man for All Seasons: WILLIAM ROPER: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! SIR THOMAS MORE: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I’d cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

• On the post: It Sure Sounds Like Elizabeth Warren Wants To Bring The EU Copyright Directive Stateside

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2019 @ 01:49pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  You honestly think the commentariat here are Google partisans?

• On the post: It's Apparently Easy To Pretend To Be A Cop, Grab Location Data From Cellular Carriers

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2019 @ 01:47pm

  Re:

  Without section 230 the platforms would have to be perfect at filtering out all illegal material, if even a sliver of them got past the filters the cost would be ruinous. With this, no one is asking for perfection, just that the carriers develop some method of vetting calls claiming to be cops.

• On the post: California Attorney General Doubles Down On Threatening Journalists For Possessing Convicted Cops List

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2019 @ 11:40am

  There IS a law on the books

  California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 11143:

  Any person, except those specifically referred to in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code , who, knowing he is not authorized by law to receive a record or information obtained from a record, knowingly buys, receives, or possesses the record or information is guilty of a misdemeanor.

  Since the reporters haven't been arrested yet I'm guessing that the Attorney General knows that the law would be overturned on appeal and would rather keep it on the books so it can be used to threaten other people at a later date. Either that or he wants to avoid the Streisand Effect of actually arresting them.

• On the post: Supreme Court Says Of Course You Need To Register Your Copyright Before You Can Sue; Copyright Trolls & Hollywood Freak Out

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2019 @ 08:33pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  Maybe you're a dumb Aspie or something; they never really grasp reality very well.

  Wow, what a lovely person you are.

• On the post: Supreme Court Says Of Course You Need To Register Your Copyright Before You Can Sue; Copyright Trolls & Hollywood Freak Out

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2019 @ 05:44pm

  Re:

  Did that with a few of my books that I knew would be plagiarized (and which have been, many times) or imitated

  Imitation of copyrighted works which doesn't amount to plagiarism is perfectly legal, so why mention it here?

• On the post: Major Labels Split On Support For Article 13; As Music Publishers Whine That They Can't Make Money From Parodies

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2019 @ 01:51pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  The claim is that their business model results in incidental piracy which they aren't at all dependant on, blocking 100% of that incidental piracy is impossible, and the fines for the incidental piracy that slip through will ruin them. I know that you disagree with that claim, but you should at least represent it accurately.

• On the post: FBI Director Chris Wray Needs To Shut The Fuck Up About Encryption

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2019 @ 11:38am

  Perhaps it's optics?

  Maybe they're afraid that if they don't do things like this then people like Wray will be able to convince Congress "see, they aren't even listening to us!". So they keep listening in a very visible way so they can respond "no, see, we are listening".

• On the post: Why Does MEP Axel Voss Keep Lying About Article 13?

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 05 Mar, 2019 @ 12:20pm

  Re: Re:

  It isn't just contradiction.

  Yes it is!

• On the post: Supporters Of Article 13 Briefly Tried To Move Parliament Vote Up Before Scheduled Protests; Now Deny Plan That They Clearly Had

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 05 Mar, 2019 @ 10:15am

  Re: Re: 'Well, guess we'll just go home then...'

  Pirates are protesting, as they did with SOPA, but this time no one's fooled.

  If no one is fooled, what was the point of trying to move up the vote?

• On the post: Chicago Tried To Justify Not Informing ACLU Of Social Media Monitoring Partner By Saying ACLU Is Really Mean

  

  Khym Chanur ( profile ), 05 Mar, 2019 @ 10:33am

  To play devil's advocate...

  I think "the ACLU is really mean" is mischaracterizing their response. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the city needs to monitor its citizens' social media to keep them safe. If their current vendor gets disclosed then there's a good chance that vendor will get cut off from social media feeds (as has happened in the past), thus preventing them from monitoring their citizens, thus preventing them from taking a measure to keep them safe. Thus, to not get cut off from the feeds, they need to keep the vendor secret.

Next >>