SirWired 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (207) comment rss

  • On the post: Defense Department Spied On Social Media, Left All Its Collected Data Exposed To Anyone

    SirWired ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2017 @ 11:20am

    This doesn't seem like a big deal

    This is a little sloppy, but it was just a collection of publicly available information that anybody that cared to could have assembled. It's not exactly Top Secret stuff here; I'll bet it was FOUO, if it was classified at all.

    And this doesn't raise any civil-liberties questions at all. If you post something on the internet for all to see, then there's no civil-liberties implications to the government including themselves as part of "all". They can use this data for whatever purposes they like, just like you, citizen, can.

  • On the post: Algorithmic Videos Are Making YouTube Unsuitable For Young Children, And Google's 'Revenue Architecture' Is To Blame

    SirWired ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2017 @ 06:42am

    No, this really is just some sick *bleeps!*

    I'm having trouble figuring out how this is the fault of Google's "Revenue Architecture". There's more than enough non-disgusting content on YouTube Kids to keep things running indefinitely, giving Google all the views it needs.

    Some sick a$$holes slipping this stuff past the filters is because they are sick a$$holes. If they really just wanted to make money with algorithmically-generated videos it would not be difficult to do so with not-unsuitable content.

  • On the post: Competition Dodges A Bullet As T-Mobile, Sprint Merger Dies

    SirWired ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2017 @ 12:38pm

    Sheesh Sprint; don't you realize you suck?

    Given how terrible Sprint has been for years, I have no idea why they thought TMo would let them retain control.

    Personally, I don't think it would have made much difference competition-wise if TMo has bought Sprint, if for no other reason that Sprint isn't particularly competitive now.

    Really, turning down this merger might have long-term anti-competitive effects, because if Softbank stops throwing good money after bad, their spectrum could very well go to VzW or AT&T instead.

  • On the post: First Circuit Appeals Court Latest To Overturn Playpen Suppression Order

    SirWired ( profile ), 02 Nov, 2017 @ 08:27am

    Can you read your own quotes?

    "In fact, the court praises the FBI for applying for a warrant it likely knew violated pre-rule change jurisdiction limitations."

    The court did NOT say that the FBI likely knew the warrant was invalid; it DID mention that the defense asserted this, but explicitly refused to accept this assertion.

    The court DID praise the FBI for making it explicit to the magistrate what it was asking for when applying for the warrant.

    The FBI applied for the warrant, made it clear what it was asking for, engaged in no judge-shopping jurisdictional games when applying for it (the hosting server was located in the district the warrant application was flied in), and the warrant was granted in a reasonable, if ultimately ruled incorrect, application of the rules. This exactly the sort of situation the good-faith exception exists for. This was not at all like the cases where officers make up their own traffic laws and then use them to justify stops, or shopping around for an ignorant magistrate to obtain what is obviously a completely bogus warrant.

    I'd also like to point out that the rule, as applied here, made little sense to begin with, and there's a reason it was quickly amended so as to not make this a problem in the future. How is justice served by having to apply for 94 separate warrants for what is essentially the same search? It'd be a pointless waste of judicial and law-enforcement resources. Moreover, there's no reason to think that if the FBI HAD filed all this pointless paperwork, that any of the applications for the warrants would have been refused.

    There can certainly be an argument over if we should ever have a good-faith exception to the "poisonous tree" doctrine, but if there is going to be one, it was certainly applied correctly here.

  • On the post: Move By Top Chinese University Could Mean Journal Impact Factors Begin To Lose Their Influence

    SirWired ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2017 @ 03:31am

    Errr... wha?

    "One of the advantages of this idea is that it recognizes that publishing in non-academic titles can be just as valid as appearing in conventional peer-reviewed journals."

    While it certainly is a worthy goal to encourage scientists to write articles that can be understood by mere mortals, page-views are a piss-poor way of deciding if an article is valid or not. In fact, an crackpot with startling (but entirely bogus) conclusions is likely to get a LOT more pageviews than another scientist publishing correct information that is inherently less dramatic.

    China already has enough difficulty with scientific integrity; putting the popular (non-peer-reviewed, and often utterly ignorant) press on the same level as even that most-basic level of quality control is not likely to help with that problem. Though I suppose it'll help confine the bogus research to China, instead of causing issues with academia at-large.

  • On the post: Disney: The Only Fun Allowed At Children's Birthday Parties Is Properly Licensed Fun

    SirWired ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2017 @ 03:22pm

    Re: Re: C&D's aren't very fear inspiring

    If Disney doesn't own "huge swathes" of our common or popular culture. E.g., one can totally sell a costume of a generic princess without paying Disney one thin dime.

    But if that princess is a spitting image for Snow White or Elsa, then Disney most certainly does own that, since they did the design.

  • On the post: Marketing Guy: Google Image Search Is A Honeypot Set Up By Aggressive Copyright Litigants

    SirWired ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2017 @ 03:24pm

    I just don't get it TechDirt

    Just recently (it showed up in the "related articles" box), you took Disney to task for having the gall to enforce their copyright against a costume company shamelessly ripping off Disney's characters. And how, while they were legally in the right, should have just let things slide.

    But when a photographer goes after some small-time moron using some photos without a license, that's just A-OK?

    Do large companies have fewer intellectual property rights than individuals? Do costume companies have more rights to use IP without payment than this random idiot?

  • On the post: How To Avoid Future Krack-Like Failures: Create Well-Maintained 'Fat' Protocols Using Initial Coin Offerings

    SirWired ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2017 @ 04:37am

    How is this not DRM for protocols? Also, how does that improve security?

    It sounds like what is being suggested is that you must pay to use the protocol, and it won't work if you don't pay. How is that not DRM?

    Also, how is paying protocol developers in this way supposed to improve security? Where's the incentive to not simply sell your coins when they become valuable? Where's the incentive to not simply sell your coins when you've been informed of a show-stopping bug?

    It used to be "but... Internet!" was presented as a solution to all sorts of random ills. Now it's "but... cryptocurrency!"

  • On the post: Court Has No Problem With All House Residents Being Forced To Hand Over Fingers To Law Enforcement

    SirWired ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2017 @ 03:53am

    This is a reasonable exception

    I agree with the court's conclusion that the fingerprint is not testimonial; I don't think passwords are testimonial either, but it's certainly problematic if the government can lock you up indefinitely if you are actually incapable of providing the correct password (because you forgot or the device isn't actually yours.)

    That's not a problem with fingerprints; if your fingerprint doesn't work, it doesn't work.

    Note to self: Use a knuckle or something...

  • On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case Involving US Demands For Emails Stored Overseas

    SirWired ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2017 @ 03:44am

    Wait? What?

    "Owning people"? What on earth are you talking about?

    All I'm saying is that the US government's jurisdiction should be limited when it's regarding data whose only connection to the US is that it happens to reside on a server owned by a company that has business in the US.

  • On the post: The Cable Industry's Ingenious 'Solution' To TV Cord Cutting? Raise Broadband Rates

    SirWired ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2017 @ 09:47am

    Doesn't help out everyone, but look into EarthLink

    I'm a TWC (okay, offically Spectrum, whatever) customer who officially gets internet-only through Earthlink.

    It's a very strange setup; I have an Earthlink-owned IP address (and an Earthlink e-mail if I chose to use it), but other than that, it's TWC all the way... TWC bill (with a line that says "Earthlink Internet"), TWC support, and if I didn't have my own, a TWC-supplied modem, the works. I pay a long-term rate only $2 more than Spectrum's temporary promo rate. I've received routine speed upgrades in lockstep with regular TWC customers.

    I called them on the phone, signed up, and I had to reboot my cable modem to pick up the new IP; that was it. No tech visit, no sign up fee, nuthin...

    I think EarthLink has similar arrangements with several providers (not just Spectrum)

  • On the post: Disney: The Only Fun Allowed At Children's Birthday Parties Is Properly Licensed Fun

    SirWired ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2017 @ 02:04pm

    C&D's aren't very fear inspiring

    The point of the exercise isn't to discourage a single company (though this does appear to be a pretty large outfit) where a C&D or nominal licensing fee might make sense. The point is to strike fear into everybody else, and a C&D to one place isn't going to do that. (And only charging the licensing fees they'd have to pay anyway makes about as much sense as letting any shoplifter go if they just pay for the value of the item they were trying to steal.)

    And I'm pretty sure the costume company is getting a lot more value from Disney coming up with this IP for these guys to rent out than Disney would get from "free advertising".

  • On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case Involving US Demands For Emails Stored Overseas

    SirWired ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2017 @ 04:09pm

    Should probably depend on the nationality and residence of the target

    There's a happy medium between "If a US company has access to the data, they must cough it up, no exceptions" and "If I select a foreign server, the Feds are powerless to execute a US warrant on my data."

    Guidelines that would make sense would take into account the residency and nationality of the target. It doesn't make much sense that I can help to insulate my affairs from law enforcement investigation by telling Amazon, or whomever, to store my data in another country, even though both Amazon and myself are US entities.

    Now, if if the target is foreign, and the data is stored local to the target, even if the company holding the data is local, certainly the privacy laws of the target's country should be taken into account.

  • On the post: Disney: The Only Fun Allowed At Children's Birthday Parties Is Properly Licensed Fun

    SirWired ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2017 @ 12:31pm

    It's about a deterrent, not this individual company

    It's almost certain that Disney's legal costs will exceed anything they could hope to recover from this company, but it's a perfectly sensible exercise of copyright for the copyright holder to nevertheless pursue such a case as a warning to any random schmuck that wants to trade off Disney's IP without paying for it.

    Certainly Disney makes boatloads of cash off of licensing, and they'd like companies to be aware that there's real peril to your business involved if you try and avoid giving Disney their cut. They might not recovery much from this place, but if it deters a larger number of other businesses from doing the same thing, that's still a win.

    And if they are going to file a copyright action already, they might as well toss in trademark claims while they were at it in order to deflect any future claims of abandonment by others; it's not like it costs much extra to add those to the suit.

  • On the post: Fired Cop's Attorney Argues His Client Is Being Punished Unfairly Because The Public Got To See His Misconduct

    SirWired ( profile ), 18 Oct, 2017 @ 08:41am

    Thinking back to that old Jim Carrey movie..

    From "Liar, Liar":

    [During a trial, where Jim Carrey plays a lawyer forced to tell the truth]
    JC: I object!
    Judge: On what grounds?
    JC: Because it's completely devastating to my case!

  • On the post: Analysts Predict Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Will Be A Massive Job Killer

    SirWired ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2017 @ 10:40am

    Won't be a problem much longer

    All the carriers are in the process of deprecating their 3G networks in order to free up that bandwidth. When that process is complete, everybody will be on VoLTE/LTE (and whatever 5G standards come around.)

    This presents no more of a problem than when Sprint bought Nextel and their odd-duck iDEN setup.

    I'm pretty sure Sprint and TMo noticed this in their business case when figuring out the price/costs for the merger.

  • On the post: Analysts Predict Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Will Be A Massive Job Killer

    SirWired ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2017 @ 11:02am

    Meh; I'm not against this one.

    Sprint is in the death-spiral; they don't have enough subscribers to pay for the capital costs of a properly-provisioned nationwide network, and certainly don't have the funds to make any transition to 5G when those standards stabilize.

    Making TMo stronger is a better choice for competition than leaving noncompetitive Sprint struggling until Softbank gets tired of dumping money into it.

  • On the post: Sheriff, Deputies Indicted After Subjecting Entire High School To Invasive Pat Downs

    SirWired ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2017 @ 12:12pm

    Re: He had no authority even for a single search

    Dammit... this was meant to be in response to AC #1.

  • On the post: Salt Lake Comic Con Fights Back Against Judge's 'Unprecedented' Gag Order

    SirWired ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2017 @ 12:16pm

    Judge Battaglia, Please Report to the Principals Office...

    You know you've made a bad order as a judge when the appeals court issues a special invitation to you to explain yourself, since apparently they can't figure out why you did what you did.

  • On the post: Sheriff, Deputies Indicted After Subjecting Entire High School To Invasive Pat Downs

    SirWired ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2017 @ 12:11pm

    He had no authority even for a single search

    Without even the barest hint of reasonable suspicion (a vague hunch doesn't qualify), he had no authority to search even a single student in this fashion, much less every member of the student body.

    And: "Hypocrisy. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." I'm pretty sure the SCHR has never said "It's okay if officers perform intrusive searches on a single student for no legit reason."

Next >>