MyNameHere’s Techdirt Profile

mynamehere

About MyNameHere




MyNameHere’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 17th, 2017 @ 10:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: "A camera is a nicety, but not a legal requirement."

    I don't justify their mistakes. I accept that they are human and mistakes happen. When you consider all of the hoops (flaming and otherwise) that they must jump through, and how a simple thing like forgetting to seal one evidence bag or making a mistake on a case number of a form can set someone free, it's an incredibly frustrating situation.

    Police deal every day with people the rest of us would rather never see. Like a fireman who runs into a burning building, cops often have to go into a situation where people are dead, dying, trying to kill each other, and angry / confused /drugged / armed to do the same to anyone else including the police. They have to deal with liars, crooks, criminals, drug addicts, wife beaters, child abusers, and a whole long cast of people who would try the patience of the most relaxed person on the planet. Most poeple here wouldn't last a single shift dealing with the stuff they have to deal with.

    So yes, they make mistakes.

    So yes, they lose their cool.

    So yes, sometimes they use excessive force, and yes, sometimes people die as a result.

    It sucks.

    The cops aren't going to do anything because you aren't rewarding any behavior except standing back and letting the criminals run free. it's much easier for them not to make the traffic stop, it's easier not to stop the drugs that might kill a friend or a family member. It's tons easier not to rush into a situation with an armed suspect and deal with it. It would be way easier just not to show up.

    When they do their jobs, people cuss them out. When they don't do their jobs, people cuss them out. When they make a minor mistake, people cuss them out and perps walk. When they make a major mistake and someone dies, every back seat driver is there to review the video 100 times over saying "I would never have done that!", without understanding the context that it happens in, what all the cop had to deal with right before, or what happened to them last time in a similar situation.

    I don't excuse them - I accept them as human. I wouldn't want their job, it sucks, there is little upside and plenty of people chewing the out and calling them knuckle draggers.

  • Dec 17th, 2017 @ 6:28pm

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

    "You really are this stupid, aren't you?"

    Paul, perhaps you just need to shut up. Seriously, you didn't read my post, you just jumped to a conclusion you like.

    I said that if it's acceptable to show up to a protest in full protective gear, gas masks, carrying hockey sticks and baseball bats, what would be wrong with them showing up with machine guns?

    At what point does showing up looking for a fight cross the line from protest and move along to rioting?

    You would have a point if everyone was protesting peacefully, not in the middle of traffic, were not breaking windows and setting fire to businesses, not popping off rounds (Ferguson had plenty of all of this). If the police stand back and do nothing, the whole place will literally be burned to the ground, destroyed, and you and your ilk we go on about how the police are lazy fuckers who won't do anything.

    They can't win.

    How about you try cause and effect? If people don't show up for a protest looking like players out of Rollerball, don't show up armed and ready to resist like hell, don't try to break down barricades, burn down buildings, or hurt each other... do you think that the police will just show up and start shooting them?

    There are exceptional cases where things happen on both sides. I know you will gladly point at them. Then again, I can point at any of the G7/G8 meetings of the last 20 years, and the insane tactics used by AntiFa style groups who try to infiltrate security zones, and when they don't succeed, turn around and start destroying anything in their way.

    Perhaps if both sides (not just one) stepped down a bit, things would get better. But showing up looking like they want to fight and cause trouble, protesters will be met with equal if not stronger force to stop it from happening. You would bitch endlessly if the police didn't do it, especially if it was your home or your business destroyed while police sat by and watching protesters exercising their first amendment with a lighter and gas.

  • Dec 17th, 2017 @ 5:58pm

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

    Again, you miss the point.

    First off, remember that streaming video is currently the most popular use for the internet. 70% of peak US prime time traffic is streaming video. Consumers have spoken, this is how they want to use the internet.

    Second, nobody is saying that video streaming services will have to negotiate with anyone to be able to deliver their product. What I said is that Verizon may deal with a Comcast or similar so that they can offer their products on each others systems with dedicated peer to assure timely delivery. NN would have forbidden that.

    "Do you really want to turn the Internet into cable TV V2, and hand control over to those monopolistic corporations?"

    Nope, and I am not even suggesting it. Rather I am pointing out that for consumers (who want streaming video so much) certain restrictions of NN actually are hurting rather than helping. More choice for consumers is always a good thing.

  • Dec 17th, 2017 @ 5:27am

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

    Yes, and read my post.

    Let's say Comcast and AT&T want to play in each others neighborhoods. They both know they are suffering from cable cutters, so they each agree to offer IP TV style service in each others coverage areas. They work out the peering and such so that they have no problem with the "local loop" issue, because they are both supporting each other's products.

    Now, was this bad for the consumer? You suddenly have twice as many options for viewing. Is this bad?

  • Dec 16th, 2017 @ 11:25pm

    Re: "A camera is a nicety, but not a legal requirement."

    Body cameras and in car cameras have good points - and they have bad points. Officers are only too aware of what those bad points are.

    Video creates a situation where back seat drivers and Monday morning quarterbacks can bitch and complain about anything and everything that happens during a stop, and arrest, or a significant event. Very few people would be comfortable to have not only their own boss but the entire public watching over their shoulder and second guessing everything they did, and cops really are caught in a bad situation.

    Literally, they cannot win.

    The legal system is (some would say rightly) heavily tilted towards the defendant. If the police, officers, lawyer, court official, clerk, or any of the other people and agencies between arrest and conviction at any time fail to cross a t, dot an I, or do not say and do the exact perfect words, the defendant walks. The pressure put on officers not to make even the tiniest mistake while they are dealing with someone is so high, that in many cases it appears to be leading to them doing nothing.

    "Without continuous monitoring, police are too easily tempted to commit violence or malfeasance or perjury. Even then, the cameras they have are not enough."

    We are reaching the point where fewer and fewer people want to be police officers. They risk their lives, they risk their families, and they risk having to deal with endless video reviews. They deal with hardened criminals who get to walk if the officer so much as stubs their toes.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fewer+people+becoming+police+officers

    At some point, something will have to give. My guess is that within a very short time, police officers will no longer actually do anything at a crime scene, they will make a video, file a report that says "see video" and they will stop there. They won't want to deal with criminals, they won't want to try to prevent crime, and they won't want to deal with the problems of society, because they will get dragged up on the carpet for everything they do.

    Can you imagine having a camera on every second of your life? Take the last of the coffee at work and don't refill it? You get dragged in front of all of your coworkers and disciplined, 1 week without pay.

    Cross the street on a red light? Ticket in the mail.

    Tell a little white lie to get out of a date or dinner with friends? We'll send it to them and they can hate you for the rest of your life.

    I can't imagine anyone here having the attachments to be a police officer or face what they have to face.

  • Dec 16th, 2017 @ 6:30pm

    Re: Re:

    Think about it. Were all the arrests before cameras tainted because of a "lack of evidence"? Nope.

    A camera is a nicety, but not a legal requirement. What would you say if in the same case the camera was broken or failed to record for technical reasons? Would the case be more or less tainted? What happened if the camera's view was obstructed, or the angle to the car not correct? Do we suddenly let a guilty guy drive away?

    "the cops are, apparently, allowed to do whatever the hell they want."

    They aren't. it isn't "turn off the camera and start beating them in the head". They didn't hold them at gun point and make them confess. They did what they had to do, they had probably cause and used the drug dog as an additional reason to more completely search the car.

    Wanting to protect their sources isn't a bad thing. There is no reason for the police to help the criminals.

  • Dec 16th, 2017 @ 5:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Hi there.

    I know what a local loop is.

    IP TV can be delivered over standard internet network. They bought a streaming company, which means they could offer it as a streaming product.

    You don't have to have control of the local loop to deliver internet content, last time I looked.

  • Dec 16th, 2017 @ 4:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    By your logic, you would have no problem with them showing up with machine guns, right? After all the EXPECT A FIGHT, RIGHT?

    Reality is bad things happen. But none of it justifies showing up in full gear and running around attacking businesses and people for fun. Recording it doesn't suddenly turn it into news instead of just a series or criminal acts.

    Do you think the gas stations and businesses of Ferguson just spontaneously com busted?

    Silly rabbit!

  • Dec 16th, 2017 @ 8:04am

    Re: Re:

    IP TV has no "local loop" requirement. Netflix is just a version of IP TV.

  • Dec 16th, 2017 @ 1:25am

    (untitled comment)

    I think you guys miss the point of all of this.

    You want to be able to say the consumer has choice? Offer them choice. Just have everyone already in the telecom world offer a selection of similar products at similar prices, peer well with each other to assure good service levels, and stop worrying. Suddenly, the consumer has a dozen "cable" providers to go along with the dozens of IP phone offerings and so on, and suddenly you all look like the good guys.

    You don't have to throttle anyone else, because everyone else is giving you access to their customers as well.

    Outsiders try to play? Just make sure your peering doesn't favor them and call it a day. Crappy delivery will kill them.

  • Dec 16th, 2017 @ 1:19am

    (untitled comment)

    I was trying to figure out where there is the "right to force the police to video my stop" in the constitution. I don't see any.

    Stopping the camera / disabling it is a bitch move and should be handled accordingly. But having the camera turned off in and of itself isn't a violation of rights. If that was the case, then every stop made before in car cameras were common would be a rights violation.

    It's pretty hard to take serious someone who is (a) on parole already, and (b) driving with drugs in the car, and (c) in a rental car with nobody listed as the driver.

    10 minutes to run a few IDs through two databases isn't excessively long, the officer could very well within reason tried to contact the rental agency as well to confirm that the car was not stolen (but yet unreported) and that one or more of the people in it were in fact allowed to drive. That could have taken much longer and would still have been reasonable.

    The courts did say that excessive delays were a violation. In this case, at least from the descriptions given, they don't appear to have been unreasonable. The K9 unit arrives within 10 minutes of the initial stop, that is a pretty reasonable amount of time.

    Pretty much all about nothing. The police did their job and stopped a convicted felon who may have transported illegal drugs over state lines. Rather than slapping them on the head, how about a little pat on the back?

  • Dec 15th, 2017 @ 11:11pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I do enjoy posts like yours, because I can hear the scorn and moral self-righteous attitude just dripping from the edges.

    Reality is slightly different.

    If you go to peacefully protest, you don't need "protective gear" You are protesting passively. These guys are not. They show up with basic body armour on, masks, dark clothing, protective head gear, and the like. They show up looking for a fight - and looking to film it.

    So, are they reporting the news (as a journalist would) or are the creating the news? Are they standing back and reporting what is going on, or are they in the middle of it encouraging people to do bad things for the camera to make a "better video"?

    Are they reporting on protests, or are they egging people on so they can get more views on YouFaceTwitter?

    There is a point where they are no longer reporting, but causing and encouraging. Where that point is, I don't know - but from what I saw on the video, they crossed it a long time before they even pushed record.

  • Dec 15th, 2017 @ 8:58pm

    Re: Re:

    So What?

    Well, let's say that they are busy making tons and tons of the same sort of request, over and over again, trying to trick the agency into disclosing two or three more words that they may forget to redact on a single copy.

    Meanwhile, someone is actually trying to do a serious request to further a lawsuit or to track down something signficant. They are in line behind the thousands of near duplicate requests that have to be processed ahead of them.

    Muckrock wants to be the kid in the back seat yelling "are we there yet" over and over again until you give in and give them whatever it is they want, no matter how much hard it does to others.

    Overloading the system isn't helping anyone get information. it's just slowing everything down and making a mockery of the concept.

  • Dec 15th, 2017 @ 5:22pm

    Re: Re: Fake News

    Great post, but a little bit, umm, twisted.

    Blocking of Bittorrent and such was at the time in no small part a network congestion issue. At peak, torrent was well over 50% of the traffic on a network, and people seeding and such was driving up network congestion to a point that other customers were getting slow service. Throttling or even outrightly blocking what was causing massive network congestion shouldn't be an issue. Even under NN rules, it could have been done.

    You also list Canadian and European ISPs.

    Blocking 4G video on wireless networks is also very much a network congestion management thing. 2011 is a long time ago when it comes to wireless development, people pushing video over the network at that point were literally killing regular network availability for everyone else. Good network management says deal with the issue. This will be a recurring theme going forward, wireless has limits.

    " ā€œIā€™m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.ā€"

    In a free and open market, companies looking to innovate do exactly that. Your paragraph, more than anything, explains why Net Neutrality wasn't good for consumers in all ways.

  • Dec 15th, 2017 @ 6:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is intentionally impeding an active criminal investigation...

    A federal department being unhelpful to state AGs on a fishing expedition would usually lead to cheering around here.

    The criminal investigations, as they are right now, don't amount to very much. They may also not be within the purview of the states involved, as while there may be victims in their state, it's unlikely that the crime occurred there. There are 50 states, the chance that the victims and the person(s) who posted these up being in the same state is small.

    Since it goes across state lines, and it involves a federal agency, it's also likely to be a federal matter, ie interstate wire fraud. When push comes to shove and it turns out to be two 4chan teens from estonia, the whole thing will fall apart.

  • Dec 15th, 2017 @ 3:37am

    (untitled comment)

    Of course Muckrock discovered disturbing details, because they themselves are the ones getting people to ask for this very information:

    https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/fbi-officials-25423/

    What Muckrock tries to do is to get many, many people to ask for the same information, hoping that the responsive documents provides will be either non-redacted or will have redacted information in one set revealed in another.

    It's an abusive way to try to circumvent the system. They should be surprised when the FBI (or any other agency) gets tired of playing their version of whac-a-mole.

    Muckrock's campaign is basically the reason that FOIA requests by normal people for normal things are delayed do long. They have literally clogged the piped with their shit.

  • Dec 15th, 2017 @ 3:23am

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

    The regulatory branches of government is where the rubber meets the road, as it were. These agencies and departments have to take the laws as passed and turn them into functional operations.

    What that usually means is explaining the methods by which someone complies with the law, setting the standard for things like record keeping, documentation, and the like.

    Those agencies aren't suppose to make new law. They are suppose to apply existing law, and provide the guidance and procedures needed to make it happen.

    This is why the FCC under Wheeler has to put the internet companies under Title II. Unless they were in this title, the Net Neutrality rules could not be applied, because under Title I the FCC didn't have the power to regulate in this manner.

    It's a bit of a "by the back door" way of doing things. The FCC could not regulate the internet as it was, but they did have the power (by court decision) to reclassify it. Wheeler used that to pull the internet into an area where congress has granted the power to regulate.

    The flip side of this, of course, is that the FCC has the power to reclassify, and if you feel Wheeler was within his power to put things into Title II, then you have to agree that Pai has the power to put them back to Title I (where they belong).

    What Wheeler's FCC did was end run the process, using the powers granted narrowly to do X and the powers granted narrowly to do Y, and combine them to be able to create a whole set of regulations for an area that has never been specifically set up as regulated by congress.

  • Dec 15th, 2017 @ 2:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Pai is intentionally impeding an active criminal investigation...

    "Oh absolutely, nothing at all."

    If it was any other subject, you guys would be going on about uppity state AGs sticking their noses into something that isn't there responsibility. In this case, because you like what they are looking into, you are all supportive. But really, is there anything going on here?

    "So long as you ignore the widespread, fraudulent submission of comments submitted to a government agency for public input using people's names to submit comments without their knowledge or consent, and/or despite the fact that some of the one's who were submitting comments were dead at the time."

    At this point, there is nothing to suggest it's anything more than a Boaty Mc Boatface style prank. It was done so blatantly and with so little concern for getting caught, that it has to make you wonder.

    "I'd like to say that I'm surprised that you are still trying to drag 230 into this"

    I am not still trying to drag it in, it's the first time I mention it. The FCC isn't any more liable for comments on their website than Techdirt, by local standards. The fraud you allude to isn't done by the FCC, but by a third party. They are your rules, apply them.

  • Dec 14th, 2017 @ 10:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice story

    Posts here are not anonymous. Techdirt (and their various partners) log IP addresses and other information with every visit and every post. That information is used to assign you your special snow flake next to your posts. As an example, I know you made this post and the one above it (same snowflake). In a truly anonymous system, there would be no way to know that.

    I also feel confident that, if someone tried to go after my posts via Techdirt that Mike and all of his legal friends would scream "section 230!" and block every attempt possible to reveal any information about me, because that is how they roll (or at least, how they expect everyone else to roll!).

  • Dec 14th, 2017 @ 9:13pm

    Re: Pai is intentionally impeding an active criminal investigation...

    Except that, beyond some arm waving by state AGs, there isn't much going on here. I don't even think they have found an actual crime to charge anyone with.

    Let's also go section 230 on this. The FCC website is just an innocent provider, they didn't write the comments and are not liable for them. If you want to charge someone, go after the publisher.

    See how much that sucks?

More comments from MyNameHere >>