Khym Chanur 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (694) comment rss

  • On the post: School Security Software Decides Innocent Parent Is Actually A Registered Sex Offender

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 27 Nov, 2018 @ 04:54pm

    A possible scenario...

    A possible scenario to explain what happened: whoever was running the system realized that Larry Mitchell wasn't the person in the database. However, that person thought

    What if, by pure coincidence, the Larry Mitchell in front of me is a sex offender who has so far evaded detection. If that turns out to be the case, then stupid people will blame me for letting in a sex offender, and I'll probably be fired by higher ups covering their asses. I can avoid that by pretending to think that false positives are impossible.

  • On the post: Canadian Politician Hangs Out With Racists; Issues Legal Threats To People Calling Him A Racist

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2018 @ 12:04pm

    Re:

    Mikey of course hangs out with nothing but choir boys :::eyeroll::: Guilt by association is a fascinating concept that's for sure.
    It's the politician issuing legal threats that got him a spot her on Techdirt. If he had simply refrained from the legal threats we wouldn't be talking about it here.

  • On the post: Not Even Hiding It Any More: EU Council Explicitly Pushing For Mandatory Upload Filters

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2018 @ 10:44am

    While the Council tries to get around this by saying the rules "shall not affect legitimate uses, such as uses under exceptions and limitations," that's entirely meaningless.

    I think what it means is "don't come crying to us with your excuses, just nerd harder and do it". Whether or not they genuinely believe that nerding harding will get the job done, I don't know.

  • On the post: Sheriff's Dept.: The 1,079 Privileged Jailhouse Calls We Intercepted Was Actually 34,000 Calls

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2018 @ 10:12pm

    The departing sheriff has decided to blame the company for the problem, but not any of her personnel who repeatedly listened to recordings they should never have had access to.

    Is the implicit claim here that a call being client/attorney isn't something that you can tell just be listening to it, so since no one told the personnel that it was privileged that there was no way for them to know? Or that the personnel assumed that GTL would never mistakenly hand over calls they shouldn't, so they ignored any indications to the contrary? Or what?

  • On the post: Verizon Just Obliterated Ajit Pai's Justification For Killing Net Neutrality

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 01 Nov, 2018 @ 05:14pm

    Re: Just them huh?

    How do you propose to fix the problem, then?

  • On the post: Verizon Just Obliterated Ajit Pai's Justification For Killing Net Neutrality

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 01 Nov, 2018 @ 05:13pm

    Re: Re: 'Also if you could somehow shoot our competition again...'

    How exactly is the FCC granting them a "faux natural monopoly"?

  • On the post: Google Says Our Article On The Difficulty Of Good Content Moderation Is… Dangerous

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2018 @ 06:35pm

    Re: Re: Common Law

    I think that the use who keeps harping on Common Law is a troll, since someone who was genuinely that passionate about it let slip at least a few hints as to what it is beyond "the foundation of American Law", "that which the TD commentariat is ignorant of", etc

  • On the post: Another Report Shows That FOSTA Increased (Not Decreased) Sex Trafficking; Where Is The Outrage?

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 22 Oct, 2018 @ 04:42pm

    If I had no morals, or if I had unshakable faith that FOSTA actually works, I'd accuse everyone claiming that FOSTA backfired of either being sex traffickers or taking bribes from sex trafficers, convene a congressional investigation to call in those police chiefs to rake them over the coals for lying, comb through the police records showing increases in sex trafficking and pimping looking for anomalies so I can triumphantly declare them to be fake, and so on.

  • On the post: ISU Student Groups Changing Names En Masse To Protest School's Ridiculous New Trademark Policy

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 17 Oct, 2018 @ 09:57pm

    Re:

    How many Horcruxes do you think it has?

  • On the post: Facebook's Latest Fake News 'Purge' Terminates Several Accounts Known For Their Criticism Of Law Enforcement

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2018 @ 09:51pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Search engines cause most of the damage of defamation. Section 230 is relevant because liability is relevant.
    How would search engines even work if you held them liable for defamation found through them?

  • On the post: FBI Releases Guidelines On Impersonating Journalists, Seems Unworried About Its Impact On Actual Journalists

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 16 Oct, 2018 @ 09:43pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I didn't say HE was the bad guy. Journalists know people on all sides.
    Then why would Masnick be worried about these bad guys saying "the wrong thing to the wrong person"?

  • On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2018 @ 03:50pm

    Oops

    Sorry, I thought you were the "evolution implies Social Darwinism person" replying to me.

  • On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 27 Sep, 2018 @ 02:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahh...

    Interfering with that mechanism will result in an increase in the pollution of the gene pool.
    1) Wouldn't that require a utilitarian moral system? I'm not a utilitarian, so I'm not going to let the ends justify the means. 2) Even if I was a utilitarian, why would decreasing the number of people with genetic diseases necessarily increase total happiness? Why would using medicine to keep them alive lead to less total happiness? Or are you saying that a utilitarian, for some reason, would try to maximize gene pool purity over maximizing happiness? Why would a utilitarian consider "pollution" of the gene pool to be bad? 3) So far as I can tell, your position is that if evolution is false, then a person with a genetic disease dying before reproducing does not decrease the likelihood of that disease showing up in future generations? Is that right? If so, what is the mechanism that keeps reintroducing the genes in question? Do all genetic diseases come from spontaneous mutations rather than inheritance?

  • On the post: Twelve Rules For Not Being A Total Free Speech Hypocrite

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2018 @ 04:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Ahh...

    If evolution is true then we must allow the weak to die so that evolution can continue to allow humans to evolve.
    Why must we? Why would evolution imply a moral imperative to allow humans to continue to evolve?

  • On the post: How Regulating Platforms' Content Moderation Means Regulating Speech – Even Yours.

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2018 @ 04:00pm

    Re:

    I'm curious as to how you would apply that to, say, Reddit. Reddit is a for-profit corporation, yet the vast majority of the forums (subreddits) it hosts are administered and moderated by people who aren't doing so on behalf of any corporation. Should those moderators be able to delete posts and ban users as they see fit, since the mods aren't acting on behalf of a corporation, or since this is all taking place on Reddit's servers should those mods have to follow the same restrictions as placed on the Reddit corporation itself?

  • On the post: Appeals Court Rejects Sketchy Plan To Pretend To Sell Patents To Native American Nation To Avoid Scrutiny

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2018 @ 01:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the Animus?

    But if you want to call him one, in public, and cause him injury (which was Techdirt’s entire purpose, as stated by many posters)
    If he lost any book sales, business deals or such, it's going to be because people were convinced that he didn't invent email, since that's his entire claim to fame. No one is going think he's skilled with technology or a good business partner merely because he *believes he invented email.
    be prepared to defend your version of the truth in front of a jury. It should be no problem if you are right, but could get a little sticky if you are not.
    1) As noted above, U.S. defamation law doesn't work that way when it comes to opinions based on disclosed facts. 2) About the only way that one could prove Shiva doesn't believe what he's saying is if he had been stupid enough to write someone an email admitting to it.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Rejects Sketchy Plan To Pretend To Sell Patents To Native American Nation To Avoid Scrutiny

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2018 @ 01:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the Animus?

    Having read some of Shiva's statements, I think that he's deluded himself into believing his claim that he invented email. But that has nothing to do with the merits of the lawsuit he filed against Techdirt, or whether or not Mike's lawyers mislead the judge.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Rejects Sketchy Plan To Pretend To Sell Patents To Native American Nation To Avoid Scrutiny

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2018 @ 01:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the Animus?

    Of course it's possible. That doesn't make a bit of difference to what U.S. defamation law currently IS. If you're talking about what the law should be, I don't think honest differences of opinion means that a jury should get to decide the logical or illogic of statements like "due to X, Y and Z John Doe is a liar/fraud", where X, Y and Z are all publicly available true information.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Rejects Sketchy Plan To Pretend To Sell Patents To Native American Nation To Avoid Scrutiny

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2018 @ 12:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the Animus?

    Whether "X, Y and Z make Shiva a fraud/liar" is logical or not is a question for a jury? According to 1st amendment lawyer Ken White (Popehat) it is not a matter for a jury. I'm going to trust his expertise over that of some random person on the Internet.

  • On the post: Appeals Court Rejects Sketchy Plan To Pretend To Sell Patents To Native American Nation To Avoid Scrutiny

    Khym Chanur ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2018 @ 12:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the Animus?

    There is no legal difference between saying “you are a liar and a fraud” and “it is my opinion that you are a liar and a fraud”.
    However, there is a legal difference between "it is my opinion that you are a liar and a fraud" versus "due to X, Y, and Z you are a liar and a fraud" where X, Y and Z are publicly available pieces of knowledge which are true.

Next >>