MyNameHere 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (633) comment rss

  • On the post: Lawyer: Yahoo Lost Sec. 230 Immunity Because It Didn't Hand Over Personal Info; Court: GTFO

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2017 @ 01:45pm

    Re: Re:

    You are correct. However, judges tend to give plaintiffs a very hard time when they are chasing "does" through a third party. From what I have seen and read here and on other places (such as Popehat) it seems that the judges tend to want more than "that nasty anonymous person said something bad'. The end effect is that Yahoo's section 230 protections end up as a legal wall between the plaintiff and any possible defendant.

    I think the plaintiff's lawyer is right here, but that the overbroad and one sided nature of section 230 creates a legal moat that protects everything inside of it. There is no simple provision to get around it or deal with it short of a full on court order, which is hard to get when dealing with does.

  • On the post: Danish University And Industry Work Together On Open Science Platform Whose Results Will All Be Patent-Free

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2017 @ 05:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: American History

    Cool, more personal attacks. Hope you get flagged!

  • On the post: Danish University And Industry Work Together On Open Science Platform Whose Results Will All Be Patent-Free

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2017 @ 03:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: American History

    A collection of people are apparently all screwing with you. I am laughing.

    Next you are going to suggest that I am every anonymous person on here.

    I merely answered a standard, rhetorical question from you generally aimed at me. Nice to see you have the same high standard of discourse with others. Gotta wonder why you aren't banned.

  • On the post: Danish University And Industry Work Together On Open Science Platform Whose Results Will All Be Patent-Free

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2017 @ 02:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: American History

    I don't have to justify anything to you, sir.

    Please return to your village, they miss you.

  • On the post: Should Social Media Sites Be Forced To Pull Pastor Calling For War With North Korea?

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2017 @ 02:14am

    Re: Re: Re: State versus non-state actions

    Do you whine about everything?

    What you listed was the magic of me expressing my opinion.

    I didn't name-call anyone. North Korea is a hermit kingdom by definition, they keep everyone out, it's a single family in power for it's entire current existence, and it doesn't deal with others. It's a kingdom, and it's a hermit.

    How you can try to call that name calling is jaw dropping.

    As for the rest, it's my opinion. It is no more and no less valid that yours. Clicking report just to shut me up won't work. Haven't you figured that out? Just like Google firing the guy who wrote the memo, every time you click report you have basically proven my point for me.

    "Then why do you insist on returning and repeating the same mistakes over and over?"

    No mistake. Techdirt discusses issues I find important. I find it incredibly interesting to see at what level the staff (and the comment writers) will go to twist things to come to their desired conclusion. It's entertaining, it's enlightening, and it is certainly a solid indication of why there is such a gulf between groups in the western world.

    Even you make it fun, because every village needs an idiot, and you are so freaking good at it!

  • On the post: Danish University And Industry Work Together On Open Science Platform Whose Results Will All Be Patent-Free

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 15 Aug, 2017 @ 01:21am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You would be correct Paul, if it wasn't for some slight misunderstandings.

    The browser? Not free. It's "without payment up front" but it's never free. If you use IE or the Apple equivalent on a PC, you paid for it when you bought the OS. If you use Chrome or Firefox, they don't charge you but they profit from you in other ways. Firefox profits off your searches (they get paid per search) and Chrome, well, let's just say Google never does anything for free that doesn't contribute in the long run to their data mining and ad click business models.

    The only things truly "free" is on the server side, where things like Apache and mysql are pretty much actually free (and without hooks).

    Protocols? Well, every time you buy a device you pay a little for the time it took to create and maintain them. Most protocols are created by industry groups, and they never work for free - just without apparent cost. When you buy a device, a little bit of that cost is written into it.

    So yeah, free. Sort of.

  • On the post: Should Social Media Sites Be Forced To Pull Pastor Calling For War With North Korea?

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2017 @ 01:40am

    Re: State versus non-state actions

    See, the "report" button isn't meaningful anymore. There is nothing wrong with my post. Sadly, some just choose to click report.

    Techdirt has turned into a very sad, sad, place.

  • On the post: ACLU Tells Court Long-Term Cell Site Location Tracking Should Require A Warrant

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2017 @ 05:30am

    I think the problem you will have here is that location information is just a business record, required by the cell companies to justify their billing. As such, they are required to retain the records for however long the law requires (7 years?). It's not optional information, it's absolutely required for them to do their business, an integral and basic function of a cellular network.

    The third party doctrine is pretty clear, and appears to apply very clearly here.

    Legally, it's a simple question. If today's information is had without a warrant, and yesterdays as well, and last months, and Monday a year ago, so at what point does the law specific that you must stop? The answer is "it does not", except that you cannot ask for records beyond the record rentention laws (companies won't keep them).

    If cell tower / location information was NOT an integral part of offering a cellular network, the ACLU might be right. However, the information is given willingly, as part of the operation of the device. It's part and parcel of a cell phone network. You want a cell phone, the cell company has to keep records of where your phone is (generally) to offer you proper service and to bill you appropriately.

    So all they are left with is to argue the third party doctrine, which seems to be holding up well after 50 years. Nobody is forcing a cell phone into anyone's hand. You have to sign a contract to obtain service, which generally includes verbage in regards to location / cell information. There are no surprises here.

    Seems like the ACLU is arguing a very difficult point, legally, with pretty much everything pointing against them.

  • On the post: Should Social Media Sites Be Forced To Pull Pastor Calling For War With North Korea?

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 12 Aug, 2017 @ 05:01am

    State versus non-state actions

    It's not a simple subject, but perhaps it's a little easier if you look at the intended source and the intended target.

    The pastor wants the US (country) to go to war with North Korea (hermit kingdom). He is not asking individual Americans to randomly pop off North Koreans they meet in the street or anything like that, it's a state on state concept.

    Hate crimes are different. It's group on group - the proverbial "kill all fags" mentality. ISIS and other terror organizations work in this manner, they want to inflict pain on random people without discretion. They have no intention by the actions to win a war, it's all about making the other group's life suck a little more.

    Religion falls sort of in the same category. It's one the reasons that Trump's travel bans have had such a hard time in the courts, as they are aimed at a religious group that spans the world and exists in no small part already inside the US. If the pastor said "if you meet a muslim you should kill him" it would be unacceptable (and have some legal implications, I am sure).

    It is one of the ways that Israel has managed to stay aloof. Being both a country and a religious group, they often seem to be playing with their standing to gain sympathy. When they fight and attack the Palestinians, they are Strong Israelis protesting their country, and when they are attacked, they scream about killing jews. They have managed to put themselves in a unique position where everything negative against them can be turned in to an attack on the poor jewish people, rather than on the state.

    So for me, a pastor (or anyone else) encouraging or discouraging war is expressing an opinion as to how their country should be run. There is no reason to shut it down.

  • On the post: Mozilla Study: Zero Rating Isn't The Miracle Broadband Duopolies And Facebook Pretend It Is

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 12 Aug, 2017 @ 02:01am

    "That's why India banned Facebook from engaging in this behavior"

    Facebook merely failed to grease the correct palms and include the correct government officials in the plan. Otherwise it would have gone through like salsa through a goose.

    For what it's worth, it seems all of the links in this sort link back to this story. Sort of hard to read a report that isn't linked.

  • On the post: Court Sends John Oliver, HBO Back To State Court To Fight Bob Murray

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2017 @ 01:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All over except formalities, then.

    I wish I had your certainty. Searching Google find plenty of examples of Time Warner settling lawsuits, and often for insanely huge amounts. While the freedom of speech issue is special and nice, they do run a bottom line business.

    Going all the way to judgement risk making case law that goes against you as well. HBO may have been willing to take on the lawsuit to start with, but over time they may find it less enjoyable if the it looks like there is even a small chance of a judgement against them.

    While you may feel Oliver's spiel was all protected speech, there are a significant number of points for the jury to grab onto and decide "this was over the line". HBO may not want to be in a position to take that risk.

    HBO is part of Time Warner. Time Warner is a public company that has to answer to shareholders and speedy resolution of a legal case is almost always best for executives who work on a quarterly basis.

  • On the post: Disney Pulls Content From Netflix As Users Face An Annoying, Confusing Rise In Streaming Exclusivity Silos

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2017 @ 12:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Actually, Youtube works because it generally avoids paying for content, except for a small percentage of ad revenue. Quite a bit of Youtube is 100% free to them, so they get to keep all the revenue.

  • On the post: Court Sends John Oliver, HBO Back To State Court To Fight Bob Murray

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2017 @ 11:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: All over except formalities, then.

    I don't think it's "outspend" as much as willing to make the other side spend more than the settlement would cost. Big corporations tend to shy away from it, especially publicly traded companies such as TWX. There is a point where "tell Oliver to say no more" and giving Bob a couple of million is way cheaper than fighting it out and hoping that a jury likes your arguments and isn't turned off by the british dude.

    I have little doubt that Bob Murray will pay to see this one go all the way to the river. HBO may be willing to fold and take the loss to avoid making it worse.

  • On the post: The Nation's Telcos Are Hemorrhaging Customers Because They Refuse To Upgrade Their Networks

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2017 @ 09:05pm

    Re: Re: huh?

    I think the contradiction you have is the same as almost everyone else. We want the benefits of a free market and competition to drive innovation and keep prices low, but at the same time we love regulation that furthers our personal view of the way things should be.

    Essentially, your desire to have online competition in video and other high bandwidth areas means that you want the ISPs and such to have their hands tied by regulation. You want to create the level online playing field regardless of cost or effect. I can udnerstand your point of view.

    However, NN is fixing things from the wrong end. The real solution would be mandated breaking up of the media conglomerates who have turned themselves into content providing verticals. Getting the neutral ISPs away from the not-so-neutral content providers and distributors would be a big step in the right direction.

    Your competition issues are inherent in the current ownership situation. UNtil you change that situation, everything else will be King Canute situation. The tide will find a way around the rules and we will be back at square one.

  • On the post: Court Sends John Oliver, HBO Back To State Court To Fight Bob Murray

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2017 @ 07:55pm

    Re: Re: All over except formalities, then.

    "Murray has filed over a dozen defamation lawsuits against journalists and newspapers, none of which reached judgment in his favor."

    You have to be careful here. Many of the cases never make it to a final judgement, they seem equally split between pre-trial dismissals and out of court settlements. There aren't that many instances where the case ran completely to conclusion on it's merits.

    Let's just say both sides have a lot of money and a lot of time on their hands, but don't be shocked if you see some sort of settlement to resolve the issue. Putting it in front of a jury in WV would not be the best thing for HBO at this point, the judge may play impartial but the jury is less predictable.

  • On the post: The Nation's Telcos Are Hemorrhaging Customers Because They Refuse To Upgrade Their Networks

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2017 @ 05:22pm

    Re: Re:

    Joe, 6000 meters is exactly 19685.04 feet.

    Every feed box requires to be maintained. The 6000 meter limit means that if there are only 2 or 3 hours on a given run, then you have to consider those costs covered by only 3 potential subscribers.

    Also, it would not be very functional to provide copper wire connectivity to everyone in the town back to a single CO, as the distances (when you consider the route the wires must take) might require multiple sections. Modern networking basically says that you run from your CO to a remote point, install a small switching building, and have all of the local connections terminate there. At that point, they are turned into IP traffic, plugged into a router. It's way easier and cheaper to connection router to router with a single fiber optic run, which can generally go the full distance for most local phone companies without needing any boosts.

    There is also the question of maintenance. Installing and maintaining all the cable isn't anywhere near as easy as maintaining a fiber to the neighborhood setup.

    Fiber optic is generally the same. The biggest advantage is that you can splice and divide the fiber with junctions and you can do this over a much longer distance. So your 6000 meter DSL can become 20 miles or more.

  • On the post: Court Sends John Oliver, HBO Back To State Court To Fight Bob Murray

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2017 @ 06:55pm

    Oh Snap

    It appears this case isn't going as forecast by the Techdirt soothsayers. The remand back to state court is a solid win for Murray and a pretty substantial loss for HBO, as they can't fight the case in their preferred setting.

    The ACLU thing is also interesting. My guess is that there will be plenty of legal wrangling, but it does appear that there may be some truth to the idea that the ACLU filed the brief in part because of the fund raising the Oliver did for them as a result of this case. Failing to disclose that in the brief seems to be a little more than an oversight.

    I still don't think Murray is going to get a big win here, but so far it appears to be 2-0 for Murray.

  • On the post: Disney Pulls Content From Netflix As Users Face An Annoying, Confusing Rise In Streaming Exclusivity Silos

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2017 @ 04:02am

    Re: Re:

    Nice personal attack, hopefully more people will flag your abusive comments.

    But to address you point, I am not gleeful. I am not happy or unhappy about any of it.

    I am just pointing out how naive concept that content companies would somehow make the same content and charge significantly less while delivering it all on demand.

    As streaming (and the delivery) becomes easier for everyone to do, these companies will move to control their own destinies rather than allowing third parties to scoop a chunk of the profits.

    Cutting the cord doesn't make the costs go away...

  • On the post: North Carolina Passes An Entirely Misguided Restore Campus Free Speech Act

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2017 @ 02:09am

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

    I understand violent protest, it's generally the results of people too unreasonable to accept that others have an opinion, and can only see violence as a way to stop that opinion.

    "Roosh V, who has spoken on college campuses before, once advocated for the legalization of rape. "

    Actually, what he specifically advocated is to have the standard of consent moved from the moment just before the sex act to "she came home with me and crossed the threshold". While don't agree with him and I do see how it might lead to some unfortunate criminal acts, it's one of those things that sits just inside the line.

    He is a distateful human, I think we both agree. Yet, if you truly believe in free speech, you can understand that he has the right to say it, and you have the equal right to disprove him.

    " Milo himself got right up on that line during one of his speaking engagements when he outed a trans student, thus opening that student up to possible harassment and violence. "

    Is that Milo's fault, or a fault of a society unwilling to accept someone who may be different from them? Again, I think Milo is a classic meglomaniac ass, but at the same time I understand that what he says generally falls into protected free speech.

    So you see, you can line them up, from the KKK to Sarah Palin, from Milo to the Westboro church and on through to Alex Jones, and while most of them are disagreeable to a greater or lesser extent, I understand and accept that just about everything they say is protected (but gross speech). I also think that in most cases, exposing these roaches to the light is the easiest way to make the scurry, and makes them easier to swat and kill their demented ideas.

    The cure to speech you don't like is more, not less.

  • On the post: North Carolina Passes An Entirely Misguided Restore Campus Free Speech Act

    MyNameHere ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2017 @ 10:25pm

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

    If outing someone as gay or trans is a crime, then plenty of magazines and such would be in big trouble. Outing in and of itself does not appear to be illegal. Morally unacceptable, perhaps, but free speech isn't just speech that agrees with your morals.

Next >>