Richard 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (7496) comment rss

  • On the post: Cameron's Anti-Porn Program Tells ISPs To Do The Impossible: Only Block Bad Content; Don't Block Good Content

    Richard ( profile ), 01 Aug, 2013 @ 12:46pm

    ALL questionable content boxes will be pre-clicked

    Note that this includes "social networking" - i.e. facebook.

    So almost everyone is going to have to go through the process of filter removal.

  • On the post: Congress Abuses 'It's Classified' To Hide Stuff They Don't Want To Talk About

    Richard ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2013 @ 02:05pm

    Re: Captian Picard said it best - but Jesus said it first

    From John's Gospel

    And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

    For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

  • On the post: NJ Gov. Chris Christie: Opposing NSA Surveillance Is A 'Strain Of Very Dangerous Thought'

    Richard ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2013 @ 06:56am

    Re: OMG, the Children & 9/11

    " I remember how I felt on 9/11"

    I remember what I thought on 9/11.

    I thought - "We have to avoid creating big obvious targets for attack."

    That would have been a much more sensible course of action.

  • On the post: A 'Watershed' For The Internet, An Invitation To Use A N. Korean ISP And Other Fallout From The UK's Porn Filtering Plan

    Richard ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2013 @ 05:44am

    Re: This comment wins

    If you have access to BBC iplayer I recommend that you download the whole "News Quiz" program. That comment was the highlight of the sequence about the porn filter - but but there were other proceless gems there too.

  • On the post: Zero Tolerance Policies Put Students In The Hands Of Bad Cops

    Richard ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2013 @ 04:02pm

    Re: Re:

    What the UK is fast becoming

    In many ways - yes - but, thankfully not in this one.

    A British policeman would not have had a gun.

  • On the post: Government Argues Bradley Manning Was An Anarchist, As Case Closes

    Richard ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2013 @ 01:59pm

    Re:

    Motives aside, Messrs. Manning and Snowden, agree with it or not, were under a firm legal requirement to hold information in the strictest of confidence.

    In other words you expect them to obey orders.

    However Nuremberg Principle IV states:

    "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

  • On the post: Government Argues Bradley Manning Was An Anarchist, As Case Closes

    Richard ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2013 @ 01:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: King George III or worse

    That's not to deny that they were bad (institutionalized oppression, terrible medicine, rampant superstition, plagues,

    Institutionalised oppression - not really - that's more 1930s-40s

    Terrible medicine - true (relatively) of every era before the present.

    Rampant superstition - no worse than in the preceding (classical) era.

    Plagues - not really - that happened later - in the 14th century.

    Factor in a lower population density and you will see that they were not so bad - and certainly better than the slums of many 3rd world cities today.

  • On the post: Government Argues Bradley Manning Was An Anarchist, As Case Closes

    Richard ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2013 @ 01:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: King George III or worse

    Dark Ages was amazing for vikings and arabs.

    Not to mention Byzantium....

  • On the post: Government Argues Bradley Manning Was An Anarchist, As Case Closes

    Richard ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2013 @ 04:59am

    Re: King George III or worse

    Stop knocking the dark ages - they weren't as dark as you might suppose.

    Remember that the technology of repression was very limited then. Plus, you are aware of a number of nasty incidents from those times - but you forget that the so called "dark ages" lasted about 700 years. 700 years worth of modern oppression would look a lot worse!

  • On the post: How To Thwart Broad Microsoft Patent App Using Microsoft's Own Prior Art In Just 15 Minutes

    Richard ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2013 @ 03:13am

    Re:

    True - there is a paper from 1983 here:
    http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=801126

    and I beleive that this is far from being the earliest.

  • On the post: Senator Wyden: Public Has Been Actively Mislead By Government Officials Over Surveillance

    Richard ( profile ), 24 Jul, 2013 @ 04:20am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I think it goes further back than that...

  • On the post: NSA: Sure We Can Search Your Emails, But Not Ours

    Richard ( profile ), 24 Jul, 2013 @ 07:46am

    No need to worry!

    No need to worry then - if they don't have the technology to search through their own modest haystack how can they possibly search through all our stuff that they have collected??

    (Of course I don't really believe that - but...)

  • On the post: German Minister Calls Security A 'Super Fundamental Right' That Outranks Privacy; German Press Call Him 'Idiot In Charge'

    Richard ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2013 @ 04:37am

    Re: Re: Of Course

    Notice that I put "freedom" in quotes. Their version of "freedom" is very selective.

    The point I was making is that they are happy to sacrifice lives in the name of "freedom" when it suits their agenda - and equally happy to sacrifice freedom to "save lives" when that is more convenient.

  • On the post: TV Station Issues DMCA Takedowns On Videos Of Its Fake Asian Pilot Names Debacle

    Richard ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2013 @ 06:14am

    Parody

    Surely this is fair use as parody - OK they didn't make a new parody video - but then again they didn't need to...

  • On the post: German Minister Calls Security A 'Super Fundamental Right' That Outranks Privacy; German Press Call Him 'Idiot In Charge'

    Richard ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2013 @ 03:21am

    Of Course

    Of course lives are only more important that other human rights in the West. In other parts of the world eg Iraq, they work to quite a different equation. How many lives have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan in the cause of "freedom".

    The reality is that these people engage in doublethink on these issues - and the real imperative is the political need to be seen to be doing somnething (and by the way to provide business for all the companies that make money out of politcians "doing something").

  • On the post: Prime Minister David Cameron: Google, Bing and Yahoo! 'Enable' Child Porn

    Richard ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2013 @ 02:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: wow

    Sadly the typical British MP is not the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to this issue.

    The fact is that all kinds of disreputable behaviour are represented in the media yet only a few types (usually involving sex or certain types of violence) are ever accused of provoking the same thing in the real world.

    Without some further, and much more carefully obtained, evidence you would have to either assume that the argument works everywhere (in which case any fictional portrayal of wrongdoing of any kind would be off limits) or nowhere.

  • On the post: Prime Minister David Cameron: Google, Bing and Yahoo! 'Enable' Child Porn

    Richard ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2013 @ 08:27am

    Re: Re: wow

    Would he have abused and murdered a child if he had never seen CP in his life?

    Put on your wall in big letters

    "CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION"

    Given an individual like Mr Bridger who has the capability and desire to do what he did then the question " would you expect him to view CP?" is equally invalid.

    Look carefully at the "accounts you have read" and ask yourself whether there is any real evidence for causation.

    I could point to the fact that scaremongering about CP can also lead to violence. Someone I knew was murdered because he had "allegedly" had CP images on his computer. Ask yourself if the person who murdered him would have done so if he hadn't read all the scaremongering that goes around. Now ask yourself if David Cameron's speech should itself be banned on his own argument!

  • On the post: Faulkner Estate Can't Sue Sony Because Owen Wilson Misquotes Nine Word Faulkner Quote In Movie

    Richard ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2013 @ 07:13am

    Re: Re:

    Actually I think the dichotomy is a false one.
    Fair use is a right under the law, and it may be raised by the defence in an infringement case. Typically the plaintiff will feel that he is better off ignoring it initially rather than drawing attention to it by attempting to show that the use was not fair.

    Hence the confusion arises as a result of the tactics employed by plaintiffs. Over time this confusion has even spread to judges. However as the law was written the plaintiff does have to show that the use was not fair and should really consider fair use before initiating procedings.

    I think further that our confused coward is also mixing up the concept of a defence with the concept of a mitigation.

    A defence is a defence - it means you have not broken the law at all. The concept where "you broke the law but we'll let you off because..." is called a mitigation and it is quite different.

  • On the post: Prime Minister David Cameron: Google, Bing and Yahoo! 'Enable' Child Porn

    Richard ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2013 @ 07:25am

    How many

    What he calls "simply appalling terms" are just certain combinations of characters. It is unlikely that you can ban these combinations of characters (in every possible language) without inflicting significant collateral damage (on the IKEA catalogue?).

  • On the post: Faulkner Estate Can't Sue Sony Because Owen Wilson Misquotes Nine Word Faulkner Quote In Movie

    Richard ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2013 @ 09:17am

    Re:

    You are confused.

    Let me clear up your confusion by quoting wikipedia (which you might have consulted before postinbg your comment).

    "The frequent argument over whether fair use is a "right" or a "defense"[30] is generated by confusion over the use of the term "affirmative defense." "Affirmative defense" is simply a term of art from litigation reflecting the timing in which the defense is raised. It does not distinguish between "rights" and "defenses", and so it does not characterize the substance of the defendant's actions as "not a right but a defense"."

Next >>