Dan 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (425) comment rss

  • On the post: Helicopter Footage Obtained By The ACLU Shows Pervasive Surveillance Of Peaceful Anti-Police Violence Protests

    Dan ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2021 @ 11:49am

    Re: Re:

    I think this to be a symptom of too much fear for their own sake. I am 100% for the police being able to perform their jobs and get home at the end of the day. But not at the expense of the general public. I see it as part of their mandate to take risks so that the genal public doesn't have to. If the answer to an adverse situation is a hail of bullets, there is something wrong. I see it as backward that an untrained individual is believed to be able to completely retain their composure more so then a trained professional. The alternative being a civilian gets shot, just for the sake of "better safe then sorry". Most of the time that sentiment is seen as anti-cop. But I would be surprised if that is the norm for private security. I would think that a private security firm would be reluctant to field an individual that poses that kind of professional liability.

  • On the post: Helicopter Footage Obtained By The ACLU Shows Pervasive Surveillance Of Peaceful Anti-Police Violence Protests

    Dan ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2021 @ 11:34am

    Re: Re:

    Facial recognition tech is NO WHERE near where it needs to be, for law enforcement to use it in the way they have been. Another case of politicians/government not understanding technology, at all.

  • On the post: Helicopter Footage Obtained By The ACLU Shows Pervasive Surveillance Of Peaceful Anti-Police Violence Protests

    Dan ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2021 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re:

    I think the real question here is, "what does someone need to see in the performance of their jobs?". This is true in any profession. We all have people who come into our own homes to provide services and give private information to others for the same reason. In the case of law enforcement, would we want them to be more proactive or reactive? We could have the utmost in privacy if police stayed at the station and only made an appearance when called. They would be dealing with crime instead of preventing it. A speedster can then get away with it until he causes a fatality and then pays the price. A sad consolation to those others involved. There is a line to be drawn here, and there are benefits and pitfalls, where ever that is. There have been case studies that have proven that increased patrolling does not impact crime as much as one would think, but the increased presence does give the perception of less safety. (Look it up.) I'm not making an argument that we need more or less. (I think less.) But, we all need to decide how much is too much and live with the benefits/consequences, regardless. This case provides just the discussion needed. Congratulations to all of you for the good comments on this.

  • On the post: Helicopter Footage Obtained By The ACLU Shows Pervasive Surveillance Of Peaceful Anti-Police Violence Protests

    Dan ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2021 @ 11:03am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I didn't read the paper you mentioned, but you are correct in the misgivings about the whole, "I've got nothing to hide" thing. The thinking is backward, especially when a cop tells you that. A true criminal has absolutely nothing to lose, except his freedom (aka incarceration). In contrast, someone on the other end of the scale, like a law enforcement officer has everything to lose. Hence, things like his personal address etc. are not public knowledge, out of a matter of necessity (aka. concern of retaliation). Your average citizen is more toward that higher end of the scale, not the lower. When someone says, "they have nothing to hide", what they actually mean is, "I have nothing to hide from the government". That too is a foolish notion, but it explains things like the decisions we make every day about to whom to provide information about social security numbers, credit cards numbers, etc.

  • On the post: Helicopter Footage Obtained By The ACLU Shows Pervasive Surveillance Of Peaceful Anti-Police Violence Protests

    Dan ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2021 @ 10:44am

    Re:

    I thought to that this seemed like a waste of money. I was going to mention that in my comments above. But I had a second thought. What would be more expensive? 1) Having several cops in helicopters.
    2) Having a multitude more, covering things on the ground. Since wages are the biggest expense, 1) is the most cost effective. You aren't missing anything, money wise. As a side note, maybe someone higher up has also made the realization that some of these rank and file officers don't have the professionalism to deal with the public properly in regards to force and keeping them at arms length until actually needed, might save on a few lost lawsuits later.

  • On the post: Helicopter Footage Obtained By The ACLU Shows Pervasive Surveillance Of Peaceful Anti-Police Violence Protests

    Dan ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2021 @ 10:30am

    Re: Re: we can't have our cake and eat it too

    I had this exact discussion the other day, only about homicide. "Why didn't the [bias] media cover this murder?" My reply was, was are any of them even news worthy? (Too many to cover them all.) The point being...bias in the choice, yes because covering them all in impractical/impossible. To directly answer your question... since Snowden, the Feds are looking at them all. No bias there. At the federal level the 4th Amendment is already dead. And property rights are dead at all levels (Civil Asset Forfeiture). If this is the biggest fish you have to fry, you're just not paying attention.

  • On the post: Helicopter Footage Obtained By The ACLU Shows Pervasive Surveillance Of Peaceful Anti-Police Violence Protests

    Dan ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2021 @ 10:12am

    Re: Re: we can't have our cake and eat it too

    I'm going to blow past all that by saying the 4th Amendment in no way covers public areas. Only case law would cover that. By my guest.

  • On the post: Helicopter Footage Obtained By The ACLU Shows Pervasive Surveillance Of Peaceful Anti-Police Violence Protests

    Dan ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2021 @ 10:10am

    Re: Re: we can't have our cake and eat it too

    "The government should never engage in spurious surveillance..." Shoulda, woulda, coulda... They don't need a warrant for general public surveillance of this type. They watch us, we watch them. We're finally making some headway in exposing bad policing by observing them personally in public without repercussion and you want to endanger that liberty by saying they can't. Bad call...

  • On the post: Helicopter Footage Obtained By The ACLU Shows Pervasive Surveillance Of Peaceful Anti-Police Violence Protests

    Dan ( profile ), 24 Nov, 2021 @ 06:38am

    we can't have our cake and eat it too

    I do see the point in complaining about this, but we can't have our cake and eat it too. There has been numerous court instances of it being clarified that the people have the right to film police in public spaces. I draw the line at public surveillance cameras, but if they want to put actual bodies in the air, as human individuals they can make the same argument we have. I don't like it, but I see more value to be gained in the public retaining the right to film cops then disallowing it for both sides. If they didn't do this, they would have officers on the ground. More then are in those 'copters. Keeping both apart unless necessary, may be the better option right now.

  • On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas

    Dan ( profile ), 29 Sep, 2021 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think some here are operating under the fallacy that Facebook "needs" a specific reason to moderate anybody. It doesn't. Stossel, and I'm a fan BTW, is suing for being moderated for being attributed as saying things he didn't say, not freedom of speech. He knows exactly what he is doing, suing for the correct thing. Under Section 230, he can go after those who attributed him incorrectly. If those organizations happen to be owned by Facebook, he can sue on those grounds only. If not, he has to sue elsewhere. But suing for the moderation in and of itself, would be a lost cause, as platforms are free to moderate for (from the text), " restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." "Otherwise objectionable" is an extremely low bar to satisfy in regards to moderation. There are a million things that are "otherwise objectionable". The "speech" argument is only applicable to government, if you are talking about Amendment #1. Section 230 makes that point explicitly.

  • On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas

    Dan ( profile ), 29 Sep, 2021 @ 10:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't believe moderating is considered "speech", at least as it applies to Section 230 section (c). The actual text makes no effort to define what speech is, but it does make clear that moderation does not void protection under the act. The act of moderation is "speech" of course, but under section (c) it's not a consideration.

  • On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas

    Dan ( profile ), 29 Sep, 2021 @ 06:43am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I don't see the distinction. The upper level internet backbone (aka. their provider) is protected from what Facebook says. That is how Section 230 works for everyone. It's a protection for the level above. It has NEVER protected the one doing the actual speech, Facebook or the individual. The same is in effect here. It just not Facebook who is receiving the benefit, in this case. That doesn't mean that it's not at play.

  • On the post: Area Free Market Proponent Sues Facebook For Defaming Him By Moderating His Personal Marketplace Of Climate Change Ideas

    Dan ( profile ), 29 Sep, 2021 @ 05:50am

    Re:

    I'm confused as to why you think that's true. Perhaps you could expand on that.

  • On the post: Sixth Circuit Reaffirms It's A Fourth Amendment Violation To Chalk Car Tires For Parking Enforcement Purposes

    Dan ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2021 @ 09:48pm

    Re: Re: They would never store this data on insecure servers, wo

    I'll bet you good money they would disallow public viewing on "privacy" grounds. Even although we would have none with the cameras.

  • On the post: Sixth Circuit Reaffirms It's A Fourth Amendment Violation To Chalk Car Tires For Parking Enforcement Purposes

    Dan ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2021 @ 07:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: A victory? Maybe not.

    The goal is likely never to generate revenue, but it always does. I was in a courtroom once for a violation under the [then new] "Scott's Law". In just the 30 minutes I was there, the county earned about $2000.00 in fines, including myself.

  • On the post: Sixth Circuit Reaffirms It's A Fourth Amendment Violation To Chalk Car Tires For Parking Enforcement Purposes

    Dan ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2021 @ 07:46pm

    Re: Re: A victory? Maybe not.

    I'm sure they would NEVER use an insecure server. An insecure server programmer, maybe. LOL

  • On the post: Sixth Circuit Reaffirms It's A Fourth Amendment Violation To Chalk Car Tires For Parking Enforcement Purposes

    Dan ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2021 @ 02:03pm

    A victory? Maybe not.

    Not to be the eternal government cynic but, when I saw the first "victory" on this issue I thought, wait a minute...

    If it is established that chalking tires is disallowed, that gives our constitution loving government an excuse that continual surveillance of pubic places as "necessary" to establish the whereabouts for a particular vehicle. Gee, I wonder what else they are going to use those recordings for? My mental list has more red then green, right off. They would never abuse this, would they? /sarc

  • On the post: Netflix Finally Faces Competition, Tries To Pretend Otherwise

    Dan ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2021 @ 07:26am

    Re:

    I had an ex-wife that worked for Comcast. That first year they had a subscriber dip... LAYOFF. Hope Netflix doesn't follow the same path.

  • On the post: Netflix Finally Faces Competition, Tries To Pretend Otherwise

    Dan ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2021 @ 07:23am

    Re: Re: If those other companies would have been smart...

    That would have been a great option too. I could see hesitancy in doing that, as Netflix would have been [more of] an industry juggernaut. (And my skepticism says the government would have ultimately bitched. "ANTI-TRUST ISN'T ALLOWED, OUTSIDE OF TELECOM!")

  • On the post: Netflix Finally Faces Competition, Tries To Pretend Otherwise

    Dan ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2021 @ 06:25am

    If those other companies would have been smart...

    If those other companies would have been smart, they would have pooled all their offerings into one competing streaming service and completely steamrolled Netflix by now. But greed wins out. Market segmentation is king, and VPN services along with piracy, is going to have a robust year.

Next >>