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.

ShadowNinja’s Techdirt Profile


About ShadowNinja

ShadowNinja’s Comments comment rss

  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 3:19pm

    Re: Alls fair in love and war

    This is unfortunately true. As much as you might hate changes you have to adapt to them.

    Take the SCOTUS decision that removed campaign spending limits. Democrats deeply despise it, but of course they're raising a bunch of money under the new rules. If they didn't they'd get blown away from being so badly outspent, and big money backers would win even more control over the government.

    As wrong and bad as censorship of the web is, if jerks want to force the web to be censored then they should get a taste of their own medicine.

  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 12:08pm

    Re: Wow, a twofer!

    Infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights of The People by infringing on their 1st Amendment rights.

    Not really.

    Contrary to public opinion due to multiple generations of political propaganda, the second amendment DOES NOT apply to individuals, it ONLY applies to militias. Don't believe me? Read the 2nd amendment:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    An individual American who isn't a part of a state militia is NOT a 'militia', and therefore is not protected under the 2nd amendment.

    Besides, the whole idea of banning gun ownership in the founding father's times would have been as absurd as the idea of the government banning automobiles today. If we were rewriting the constitution would anyone seriously suggest "We need a constitutional right to own automobiles?", and would anyone take it seriously enough to put in the constitution? People depended on guns for their livelihoods at the time of the Founding Fathers. Many had to hunt for food with guns out in the frontiers, and other areas lived under the very real threat of Native Americans attacking their homes.

    Oh and to those saying that the SCOTUS recognizes it as an individual right to own a gun, guess when they did that? It wasn't in the founding father's days, nope. It was in the 'ancient' days of 2008 after decades of propaganda by gun rights advocates on the subject.

    The SCOTUS gets stuff about the constitution wrong from time to time. Just look at Plessy v Ferguson which said Separate but Equal was perfectly constitutional despite the 14th amendment. The SCOTUS eventually recognized the 14th amendment exists and overturned that in Brown vs Board of Education.

  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 10:49am

    Re: Re:

    FYI, it varies by state and such.

    Federal judges for example are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate.

    State judges are sometimes nominated by the governor and confirmed by the legislature. Other times they're on the ballot. This goes for both state supreme court judges and lower state judges. It also goes for judges in other courts to.

  • Nov 7th, 2018 @ 10:39am

    (untitled comment)

    I've seen even stupider black listing.

    There's been twitch channels that blacklisted words like 'Kill' to stop people from threatening the lives of others in chat. But one problem there, a lot of games involve killing people or other bad guys. And in this case it was a MOBA gaming tournament, where Kills is one of the most important stats in the game. And where killing the enemy heroes is very important to win the game.

    So yeah, chat couldn't use the word 'kill' when talking about a game about killing people.

  • Nov 6th, 2018 @ 12:37pm

    Re: Well....

    Well it's also been beaten into our heads for 2 decades to follow bad password policies.

    Many of the official recommendations Tim posted encourage bad password hygiene that will make you more vulnerable to getting hacked.

    • Forcing a mix of upper/lower case letters, a number, and a symbol? Check.

    • Telling people 8 characters is good enough (even worse, they say 6 is allowed!)

    • Frequent password changes (yes if someone leaves who was working it this can be necessary, but otherwise no it's not)

    • No mention of avoiding commonly used passwords.

    This XKCD comic explains a lot of why these those recommendations are bad

  • Nov 6th, 2018 @ 8:32am

    Re: We will fix this promptly!

    You joke, but there's some states with rules nearly that bad.

    My dad didn't get to vote one year because he had a last minute trip scheduled to visit a client. It was after the deadline to get an absentee ballot, and it was a state with no early voting (even today it still has no early voting).

    Oh and the worst part of that state's rules? It's illegal to vote by absentee ballot if you'll be home that day and able to show up at the polls. You have to sign under penalty of perjury that you'll be out of the state on the election day in order to get an absentee ballot.

    (The state is Pennsylvania)

  • Nov 6th, 2018 @ 8:25am

    (untitled comment)

    The really ironic part about this sting is how police officers in other states have given tickets to people for crossing the streets too slowly.

    One of the most infamous cases was a ticket to an elderly grandmother with a walker who couldn't go any faster. But there was one major problem with said intersection she was crossing, the crossing light was so short so that even some college athletes running at full speed couldn't get across in time.

  • Nov 5th, 2018 @ 1:08pm

    (untitled comment)

    ... Wait, if Roberts owns stock in there, and Kavanaugh can't rule on something he ruled on at a lower court level... will the SCOTUS be short 1 or 2 justices whenever this is heard then?

    Roberts can sell the stock, but Kavanaugh can't unhear something he already heard?

  • Nov 5th, 2018 @ 1:05pm

    Re: Re:

    My point was that if someone hypothetically removed over 50% of the state from the voter rolls it would de-legitimize the entire process (especially if literally everyone under specific party designations were thrown off the rolls).

    Even if 'your guy' wins in that scenario, the massive fraud through disenfranchisement would mean that even the winner's own supporters wouldn't think the election was legitimate.

  • Nov 5th, 2018 @ 11:54am

    (untitled comment)

    From the reporting, it appears that the vulnerability is the kind of mistake that was common on the web two decades ago, that once you've logged in you can access anyone else's content just by changing the URL. Basically anyone with any degree of knowledge of online security learned to block such a vulnerability at least a decade or more ago. It is astounding that such a vulnerability might still exist online, let alone on something as vital and key to democracy as a state election system.

    Wow... that's literally the kind of story that Techdirt has written about companies getting prosecutors to go after people for reporting for CFAA violations.

    That kind of incompetence should be criminally illegal for how badly you're handling confidential data.

    Also now that this is in the public, there's literally nothing to stop someone from quickly writing a bot to modify the voter registration for literally everyone in Georgia. Including cancelling it.

    Or maybe because Kemp's security is so bad it's possible to just use SQL Injection to delete EVERY Georgian from the voter roll. Or worse yet, delete the entire roll of Georgia voters from one political party but not the other. No need to make a bot that way, it would literally be just a line or two of SQL queries. Can you imagine the chaos that would cause on election day? They'd pretty much have to cancel or redo the election.

  • Nov 1st, 2018 @ 7:44am

    Re: Re:

    Yeah, the sex offender list is essentially just a public shaming list that serves no point but to scare people.

    If sex offenders are really so dangerous to our communities that we need to keep them on lists, them maybe we should just give life sentences to them if they're really that heinous so that we don't have to worry about how dangerous our neighbors might be.

    Letting actually dangerous sex offenders free and putting a ton of restrictions on them & the non-dangerous people on the list that make it super difficult to live a normal live (such as bans on 'social media sites' which the SCOTUS struck down a few years ago for being too vague) doesn't help anyone.

  • Oct 31st, 2018 @ 10:51am


    Even if you want to look up information about your candidates and where they stand on the issues, that's often impossible.

    Their websites are often filled with promises so vague that virtually anyone could agree with it, often because it only states end goals ("we want a stronger economy"), or vastly oversimplifies complex things ("we want to lower taxes to give us a strong economy").

    And it's even worse the lower the office. Good luck finding anything meaningful on them, especially if they have a common name.

  • Oct 31st, 2018 @ 9:03am

    Re: Why don't the rest of us get "good faith" exceptions...

    Silly AC, you only get "good faith" exceptions if you're going after some group of people everyone hates!

  • Oct 31st, 2018 @ 8:59am

    Re: what?

    No it worked plenty!

    We took it away from the poor individuals and gave it to wealthy corporations whose cash helps elect politicians like Scott Walker!

  • Oct 30th, 2018 @ 1:39pm


    Not to mention as others have pointed out it's possible to frame someone and get them a life sentence in jail with that kind of a precedent.

  • Oct 30th, 2018 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Who puts on the event?

    Well the President is supposed to be the head of their party. Both parties have traditionally rubber stamped basically anything their president wants when it comes to running the DNC/RNC.

  • Oct 29th, 2018 @ 10:01am


    Little known fact, in a number of areas it's actually **illegal** for straight party ticket buttons to auto-select local candidates. The machines force you to manually select all local candidates.

    It's a desperate way for local government officials to try and protect themselves in wave election years by hoping that voters for the other party won't check to make sure that they selected candidates in local offices.

  • Oct 29th, 2018 @ 9:57am

    (untitled comment)

    The state's government has pointed out e-voting machines only need to comply with state laws, not actually be accurate and/or idiot-proof.

    The state's laws are seriously fucked up if voting machines don't need to be accurate.

    The move to paperless voting has eliminated the backup system everyone looks to when things go wrong: the paper trail. The Hart eSlate machines produce no receipts, leaving it up to voters to catch errors before submitting their votes.

    This brings up another issue with electronic voting machines that's often ignored. Electronic voting machines with no paper record are actually illegal in a number of states that they're used in. They're illegal because they don't comply with the state's recount laws for close elections (which typically happen automatically if the margin of victory is below 0.5%).

    Yet those laws are not being enforced in many states.

  • Oct 26th, 2018 @ 12:51pm

    Re: NO, the PIRATES did it to themselves.

    Have to start at the very foundation by stating that creators have (in the US / UK legal tradition) CLEAR EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR WORKS. It's explicitly in the US Constitution. -- But of course Techdirt doesn't agree with the Constitution, SO completely overlooks the fundamental Right of Creators and asserts that pirates somehow have the better moral case.

    Except this story is about Canada, where the constitution doesn't apply.


    • Copyright was defined for a limited 14 year period in the founding father's time. And it's gotten more and more absurdly long since, it's up to Life plus 70 years today, and life plus 100 years in some countries.

    • The Constitution can be changed, the founding fathers knew they weren't perfect, hence they put a thing called amendments in the constitution, which is where the bill of rights came from. The founding fathers also rarely ever all agreed unanimously on anything.

    Now, since we know there's a whole lotta infringement going, on any given notice isn't unlikely to be false accusation. There are special provisions of laws to handle the volume of a type of small-claims not worth clogging real courts with. That's the system, pirates: you claim creators aren't losing money, but it's IRRELEVANT:they do have the Rights attending creation to BILL you for unauthorized downloading. PERIOD.

    Except a few problems with that:

    • The accuser isn't the only to have rights, so do the accused.

    • No, these 'small-claims' are NOT authorized through 'special provisions'. It's an attempt to abuse out of court settlements to shake down a ton of people for quick cash.

    • Their 'evidence' against the vast majority of these people is shaky at best, and would likely not survive in actual court, due to lack of proof that it was that person who did the piracy.

    Also: no ISP, supposedly neutral carrier, gets to control the free speech of the parties alleging infringement in communicating to the alleged infringer.

    Umm... what? So it's a violation of your free speech rights if you tell me to send a message and I say no?

    The always interesting point is that apparently all ISPs believe it's their place if not duty to lay out money for attorneys / lawsuits to protect pirates. Pretty clearly it's because promoting piracy and the notion of free content easily available DOES put money into ISP accounts. -- What needs changed in law is ISPs taking the side of pirates. That makes them legally liable in the US. See Grande Comm suit et al.

    ... You know it costs the ISP's money to act as the copyright troll's messenger, right? Not only do they need to hire a bunch of people to process these claims (assuming they just roll over and never question anything the copyright holders tell them), it can cause them negative publicity for blindly handing customer info over to third parties & violating their privacy rights, which can cost them customers. Plus there's customer privacy laws they could potentially violate as well for turning said info over.

  • Oct 26th, 2018 @ 12:11pm

    Re: This is going to be Fun..

    and I REALLY love Christians(and other) that dont know their OWN religious history..

    Or their own religious teachings.

    A poll from a half decade ago found that a majority of Christians in Western countries believe that non-Christians who live a good & moral life can get into heaven. But if they read the bible or listened to their preacher they'd realize that such beliefs contradict their own religion. (they worship other gods a sin in Christianity & haven't been baptized)

    Another piece of irony, when they polled a ton of Americans on their knowledge of Christianity and other major religions, the ones who knew the most about those religions were... Atheists. And the Christian denomination that scored highest on knowledge of Christianity? Mormons, even though a lot of Christians don't consider them a part of Christianity.

More comments from ShadowNinja >>