HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

Nathan F’s Techdirt Profile

miri

About Nathan F




Nathan F’s Comments comment rss

  • Jan 19th, 2019 @ 9:40am

    (untitled comment)

    Netflix should apply Hollywood Accounting to the Bandersnatch accounting books and let the lawsuit go through. After all, no movie anywhere has ever actually netted any profit.

  • Jan 14th, 2019 @ 3:14pm

    (untitled comment)

    So if a citizen performs an act that is not currently against the law, then the law changes the government can't come back and prosecute them (assuming the act was a limited time thing and they didn't continue after the law changed).

    But it is perfectly fine for the government to perform an act that is against the law (and it KNOWS this) they can claim 'Oh good faith and besides.. the law changed in the mean time.'

    This so called Good Faith claim just sounds like an excuse by the various AG offices to arrest and charge someone they don't like but can't (legally) generate sufficient reason to prosecute.

  • Jan 3rd, 2019 @ 11:10am

    Re: Well, they're firm on silencing political opponents.

    You're as ever focused on anomalies, not the everyday problems of mega-corporation "platforms" illegally silencing people who are entirely within common law terms for expressing political views.

    If this was GovernmentBook, owned and operated by the US Government, then yes. It would be illegal to silence people for expressing their political views. Facebook however is a privately owned company and you may use their product only in a manner that they have written rules for. If you violate their rules they are perfectly within their rights to revoke your access, even if that rule has something to do with political views.

    Please remember that the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law, as in the government. It says nothing about a private corporation making up rules regarding it.

  • Dec 28th, 2018 @ 5:47am

    (untitled comment)

    It's all so innocent and devoid of subterfuge the city council did it in secret with zero public notice or input.

    No video or audio of the Dec. 11 council action is available on the city’s website and neither are meeting minutes or any record of the decision.

    This... is almost certainly in violation of Open Meetings laws and nothing that was 'approved' at that meeting has any legal strength. I expect to see a lawsuit regarding the destruction of records sometime soon.

  • Dec 27th, 2018 @ 5:57am

    Re:

    There will soon come a day where people who sue words like "nutjob" will find themselves unemployable and completely ostracized just like those who use things like the n-word.

    So.. if I use the word nutjob or.. the other n word (nutjob? numbskull? nitwit?) I will be ostracized? Something that I have noticed is that people who get all up in arms about someone talking mean about them, are often times doing that themselves.

    Civility starts with yourself, not trying to force it upon someone else.

  • Dec 18th, 2018 @ 9:51am

    (untitled comment)

    I am continually surprised by the restraint showed by YouTube and Google over all of the legislative action being taken by European countries. I personally would have just gone straight for the nuclear option and cut of Europe from services and let their citizens raise a ruckus with their politicians.

  • Dec 10th, 2018 @ 1:06pm

    Re: Re: Another Option

    Which we almost never see because it has to be an 'extraordinary' case before the judge will even contemplate having the big name company pay some stay at home wife filming her kid dancing to a song done by someone who fancied himself royalty.

  • Dec 6th, 2018 @ 1:21pm

    (untitled comment)

    For even more fun they can make it so that the current ad will finish playing when you hit the unpause button. Which, I suspect, will quickly lead to people hitting the unsubscribe button.

  • Nov 26th, 2018 @ 8:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: "And we should trust you THIS time why again?"

    Jailing someone forever for contempt of court is usually jailing the person who is on trial. What they just did was grab some third party who was not involved in the Facebook v UK fight and hold him hostage till he coughed up the documents they wanted.

  • Nov 19th, 2018 @ 12:16pm

    (untitled comment)

    The hell? Do they think she filmed the incident or something? If they wanted evidence they can request location records and text messages from the provider without having to do a warrant song and dance.

  • Nov 1st, 2018 @ 11:42am

    Re: OK, go tell your congress critter

    have Congress include a "Fairness Doctrine" so the regulated carriers like Facebook and Twitter can't selectively censor viewpoints they don't like.

    Three things. Facebook and Twitter aren't 'regulated carriers' like I think you are meaning. They do not provide access to the Internet.

    Second. Facebook and Twitter are private companies and as such you have to play by whatever rules they write to use their services. If those rules include 'selectively censoring viewpoints' that go against the rules you agreed to follow, then tough luck.

    Third. They tried a "Fairness Doctrine" a couple of decades ago when it came to political advertising and news coverage. It didn't work and got dropped.

  • Oct 23rd, 2018 @ 11:09am

    (untitled comment)

    The man who falsely claimed to have purchased cocaine from Talley is a nine-time felon whose criminal record includes nine convictions for theft and another five for burglary. He has also been convicted for giving a false name to police officers after an arrest, for filing a false police report, and, while behind bars, for writing a death threat to a police officer, forging another inmate’s signature on the threat, and then reporting the threat in exchange for reducing his own charges.

    You know, I've heard the phrase 'It takes a thief to catch a thief' before but this... This is obscene. About the only good thing I can see from all that is there appears to be no physical violence in his record.

  • Oct 11th, 2018 @ 8:23am

    (untitled comment)

    How I deal with robo calls is, when a call from a number I don't recognize comes in I go ahead and pick up. I just remain silent. The automated systems on the other end are waiting for someone to say something so that it knows there is a person on the other end, if it doesn't hear anything after 10 seconds it hangs up. If there is an actual person on the other end after a moment of silence they will say something.

  • Oct 3rd, 2018 @ 11:10am

    (untitled comment)

    And just how is the officer going to know the body cam has a hit? Is it going to start chirping and cause the officers to do a general detainment of everyone in front of them to find the person who set it off? Is there going to be an army of operators at some other facility who will see the camera in active stream mode to give direction to the officers? While I'm not pleased about the implications of face recognition built into the cams, I would be pleased if some of their patents actually make the damn things turn on more often. Personally I think they should turn on automatically whenever the officer turns on the flashers, or radios dispatch that they are have something they are looking into.

  • Oct 2nd, 2018 @ 1:33pm

    (untitled comment)

    So in a future case, what exactly is stopping the police from sitting a suspect down, holding the phone up to get his face to unlock it and then proceeding. The suspect doesn't have to do anything, just sit there (unlike swiping his finger over a sensor). If providing a biometric like a fingerprint or face isn't testimonial would there even be a 4th or 5th amendment breach?

  • Sep 13th, 2018 @ 7:44am

    Re: Re:

    I have no idea how to go about looking for this but, how many cases would the SCOTUS have if they had shot down laws that were unconstitutional before they were signed and enforced and made its way to their desk? ie: would an ounce of prevention on their part (stopping the unconstitutional law) be better then a pound of cure (having to try the case before them and all the time and money involved)?

  • Sep 11th, 2018 @ 1:35pm

    Re: Burglary

    True, but there is a risk, possibly a substantial one, that the rightful owners will walk in on the burglar during the act. If they do, violence might well result, especially if we look at states where burglars and/or homeowners are frequently armed. Thus, it seems reasonable that actual burglary of a structure be considered a crime of violence.

    The problem with that is that if a homeowner walks in the crime is no longer Burglary, it becomes a Robbery. The two words have different and specific definitions. By this reasoning they can write you up for speeding if they pulled you over because one of your taillights was out. "Oh he might have been speeding so we are just going to tack that on cause it is a more serious offense."

  • Sep 11th, 2018 @ 12:22pm

    (untitled comment)

    It is times like this that I wish that the actual process of law making went:

    Legislative to write it.
    Supreme Court to give a ya or nay on Constitutionality of it.
    Presidents desk for his signature.

  • Sep 10th, 2018 @ 2:00pm

    (untitled comment)

    So.. How many signs are going to show up saying (City Name) Comic Convention but the "vention" part will be in significantly smaller font.

    Also... this isn't likely to change the behavior of the con goers, they are still going to call it Whatever Comic Con.

  • Sep 5th, 2018 @ 3:15pm

    (untitled comment)

    I see that in the future when I travel I will have to obtain a hat that has a veil that comes down to the level of my nose.

More comments from Nathan F >>