RedBeard’s Techdirt Profile

redbeard

About RedBeard




RedBeard’s Comments comment rss

  • May 13th, 2016 @ 12:01pm

    A PC?

    For example, one patient recently undergoing a heart transfer had the procedure interrupted for five full minutes after a PC connected to an essential piece of monitoring equipment began a scheduled anti-virus scan:

    Who the hell thinks it is OK to use a PC to run an essential piece of medical equipment during a heart transplant? I assume said PC was running windows, poorly secured and connected to the hospital network which also was connected to every other PC in the building . . . what could go wrong!

  • May 12th, 2016 @ 11:03am

    Re: Re: Conservatives complaining again

    You do realize that it was insiders who leaked it

    I think you mean Former Facebook Workers, so they may be disgruntled former workers. I know it's an easy reach.

    In the case of FB, guess what, a lot of folks (for better or worse) get their news from FB. And what better way to guide conversations than by simply not letting certain articles see the light of day on FB.

    You can easily replace "FB" with "Fox News" in your sentence above, especially for older Americans, but I don't recall Congress being too concerned with the claims of conservative bias that have been made against Fox News.

  • May 11th, 2016 @ 1:54pm

    Re: Re: Conservatives complaining again

    The difference is everyone knows that Fox news, CBS, NBC, CNN are biased.

    I beg to differ, I know a number of people that assure me that only CBS, NBC, CNN and MSN are biased. Fox is "Fair and Balanced"! I am not being snarky :(

  • May 11th, 2016 @ 1:36pm

    Re:

    If you want to make the argument that they can do whatever they want and have no public responsibility to be neutral or unbiased, then make that argument, but if you do it without acknowledging the massive negative effect this will have on freedom of speech in the increasingly privatised public square, then you are leading sheep blindly to the slaughter.

    Facebook has no public responsibility to be neutral and/or unbiased. While is a nice ideal to think that corporation should have some concern for the public, the fact is they do not, unless specific laws have been enacted requiring such public responsibilities. Public corporations are mainly responsible to their shareholders. With very few exceptions corporate actions that benefit the general public are profit driven.

    Facebook enables massive public speech, curating their news feed in no way prevents the news from being reported. You should be much more concerned about the domination of the fourth estate by a small number of corporations. This domination effectively allows a relatively small number of corporations undue influence on what is and what is not reported. Which of the following news outlet would be considered unbiased?

    MSNBC;
    The New York Times;
    Fox News
    Huffington Post
    Drudge Report
    CNN . . .

    Every day editors choose which news stories to air/print/publish and invest in. None are unbiased although some are surely more biased.

    If Congress is concern about unbiased news perhaps, they should consider legislation to reinstate some form of the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine that the republicans pushed to have repealed. Although I have no idea how this could be implemented without conflicting with the First Amendment. Access to the internet is probably the best hope to limit the impact of the government and corporations on the free flow of information.

  • May 5th, 2016 @ 12:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok then

    "Good point! That would explain why Tesla's cars are getting remote-hacked left and right... oh wait, no, they aren't."

    So, since no one has found a way in yet, that means it will never happen. OK, I guess you are right history has shown that time and time again, right... right... oh wait, no history has not shown that. Ever. If there is a door someone will find a way to open it.

    LOL You are a very optimistic chap or maybe you have stock in Tesla . . . .

  • May 4th, 2016 @ 11:00am

    Re:

    If car manufacture’s need the ability to "nuke it from orbit” to address an attack on their systems, it is incumbent on them to design their system(s) with this ability in mind. They also need to separate critical systems from non-critical systems within the vehicle.

    Neither open-source software nor draconian-grade deterrence will solve the problem. Linux is open-source software, but it is not now or will it ever be completely secure. Draconian-grade deterrence has yet to end murder. In addition, draconian-grade deterrence rarely deter people with adequate resources, people that believe they are smarter than everyone else or governments.

    The only reasonable options are to require auto manufacturers to implement reasonable security system for critical auto systems; ensure that failure to do so results in punishment that are harsh enough to force compliance; and subject people that cause harm punishment that fits the crime. We have plenty of laws that deal with punishment for harm caused by a person’s actions. Doing it on a computer does not make one a super villain that should be imprisoned for life.

  • May 4th, 2016 @ 10:33am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Congratulations, you just shut down Tesla's incredibly effective and efficient system of fixing car software bugs by deploying remote updates!"

    Efficiency and security often do not go together. It is inefficient for me to have to enter my password 27 time a day to use my computer . . . should we get rid of passwords?

    This efficient system increases the potential for a security breach to impact large numbers of vehicles by orders of magnitude.

  • Dec 17th, 2015 @ 1:08pm

    Re: " really dangerous" indeed

    The problem appears in part to be COX's policy was to accept the DMCA notification as a strike against a customer and followed through with eventual termination. BUT the following termination COX would immediately reconnect the "infringer". Cox was being lazy by accepting an accusation as proof of infringement in their policy.

  • Dec 17th, 2015 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "To be eligible for any of the limitations, a service provider must meet two overall conditions:

    (1) it must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of
    terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers"

    This is where ISPs should take a stand in their policies, and clearly state that an infringer is someone that has been convicted in an appropriate court of copyright infringment, i.e., an accusation of infringment is not proof of infringment.

  • Dec 15th, 2015 @ 10:23am

    Re:

    FRCP 65, 17 USC 502, 15 USC 1116, 15 USC 1125, and 28 USC 1651 does not require third parties that were not violating copyright or trademark to forever police other potential violators of copyright or trademark. An injuntion for a specific case is one thing, it is another SOPA like thing to allow the RIAA to be the arbitrator of copyright/trademark violations and allow them to force CloudFlare to be its police force.

  • Dec 15th, 2015 @ 10:14am

    Judge is writing new case specific law

    It is one thing for a judge to permanently enjoin a specific person/organization from violating copyright or trademark following an adjudicated case. However, a permanent injunction, against a third party, requiring them to ad infinitum shutdown other third party entities, that were also not a party in initial case, at the request of the plaintiff without further judicial review is ridiculous. The future accused entities are not allowed any due process. The judge is in effect writing a new case specific law by requiring CloudFlare ad infinitum to terminate services supplied to other parties not associated with the initial case.

    This would be the same as requiring a landlord to within 48 hours evict any tenant that is accused of violating copyright by the RIAA, because the RIAA won a case against a single different tenant 20 years ago.

  • Oct 21st, 2015 @ 11:37am

    Nothing to hide

    "An intercepted conversation involving Raphael, collected during routine surveillance of Pakistani officials, seemed to suggest the State Department advisor was passing on state secrets."

    Hmmm. What do some of those, umm . . . patriots say about snooping, "If you don't have anything to hide you don't have to worry about the government spying on you." Well this is a perfect example of how wrong they are.

  • Oct 7th, 2015 @ 10:22am

    Re: Re:

    "And there have been court cases - not just with schools but with employers as well - whereby the school/employer was held liable for the off-property conduct of the student/employee."

    Citation please, for a case where a student, not acting as an agent/representative of a school, resulted in the school having any liability for the student's off campus activity. That sounds like a very interesting case.

  • Oct 7th, 2015 @ 10:02am

    (untitled comment)

    "Sadly, many Chinese appear to be embracing the score as a measure of social worth, with almost 100,000 people bragging about their scores on the Chinese equivalent of Twitter."

    Not surprising at all . . . 100,000 people just raised their scores by twitting their support of the system. WTG

  • Sep 29th, 2015 @ 11:21am

    Re: video ads is the issue

    Video ads forced my hand. A few sites I visit regularly load multiple videos per page and quickly drained my battery. Soooo added ad blocker for those sites. I don't mind ads if they are not intrusive, so there currently is no need for me to block techdirt ads . . . Thanks for the option!