Dwight Brown’s Techdirt Profile


About Dwight Brown

Dwight Brown’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 8th, 2019 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Re: Pants on fire.

    Except "Crimetown" was an existing show, and the first "season" was available everywhere RSS was spoken.

    (While I'm at it, can we get rid of this hideous neologism of podcast "seasons"? Podcasts do not have 'seasons". The idea of a "season" is an artifact of the bad old days of broadcast television: it has no relevance to the world of podcasts, or the world of 2019.

    If you want to do a block of thematically related episodes, fine: call it "a block of episodes". Don't call it a "season".)

  • Feb 8th, 2019 @ 12:35pm

    Pants on fire.

    "The existing shows will not be made exclusive to Spotify. They will continue ... you’ll continue to get them where you get them now."

    Which is an absolute lie. They made season 2 of "Crimetown" exclusive to Spotify when they released it in October.

    (No link to "Crimetown" because, seriously, fark those guys and fark Spotify.)

  • Aug 1st, 2018 @ 12:29pm

    Re: Re: Bad cases make bad laws...

    "It is also illegal in most States to publish plans for building a silencer or converting a semi auto rifle to full auto."

    No, it isn't. I regularly see publications on both of these subjects at the gun shows I attend. You could also mail order a wide variety of books covering both subjects from Paladin Press, back when they were still in business.

    Any such law would be deemed unconstitutional immediately, just like the current injunctions will be on review.

  • Jun 26th, 2018 @ 10:48am


    "How's this for a possible solution: a gun with a built-in camera that won't fire unless the camera is live streaming to a public server?"

    So if I'm an armed and dangerous criminal planning a crime, I invest a little money upfront in a signal jammer. Then if it comes to a shootout, I can shoot at the police and not worry about return fire until my battery runs out.

    (Yes, I know, signal jammers are illegal. Which I'm sure is going to stop my hypothetical armed and dangerous crook: "Oh, my God! I don't have a problem with shooting at the cops, but don't turn me in to the FCC!")

    Even if you think that's a crazy hypothetical, everyone who has a cellphone knows there are places where the signal stinks on ice: do you want a police officer to be unable to defend herself and innocent civilians because AT&T's 5G service isn't working at her location?

  • Jun 26th, 2018 @ 10:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No camera footage, no pay.

    "Sorry, but if you're going to tell society that a person needs to be locked up for a few decades, both society and the defendant get to see the evidence that says why, and that includes victim testimony."

    Agreed, though I would make a distinction between evidence in a criminal trial that both sides have the right to, and Joe Random being able to obtain hundreds of hours of body camera footage through a FOIA request. I think there are situations where individual privacy has to be respected, and that may mean that some body camera footage just isn't available to the general public. You should be able to put a legal structure in place that addresses both public accountability and personal privacy, but I feel like the law just hasn't caught up with the technology yet.

    "And now you're either throwing all that footage away at the end of the day unless you know something happened, or finding a secure place to store multiple gigabytes per officer per shift."

    Yeah, that's one of the things about body cameras that fascinates me as an IT guy: how is all that body camera data stored and how long? What are the default retention settings ? What does the physical infrastructure for that look like? And what's the UI for retrieving and managing the footage?

    Unfortunately, I haven't found the guys who do that in either department I volunteer with. Yet.

  • Jun 26th, 2018 @ 9:09am

    Re: Re: I'm pro GOOD cops.

    Sorry about that, chief. I'll strive to do better in the future.

  • Jun 26th, 2018 @ 9:08am

    Re: Re: Re: No camera footage, no pay.

    "The cameras should NEVER deactivate. 100% active 100% of the time. It's too easy otherwise to claim problems with the camera."

    Do you really want body camera footage of cops taking a dump?

    Do you want footage - publicly accessible to anyone who files a FOIA request - of police interviewing a rape victim?

  • Jun 26th, 2018 @ 7:15am

    I'm pro GOOD cops.

    I'm anti BAD cops.

    I've been through two citizen's police academies (one in a large municipality, the other in a smaller city) and do volunteer work with the police departments. I've had the change to hang out with and talk to some of the officers.

    The one thing I hear regularly from my local officers is "Good cops LOVE body cameras. If you get into trouble, the body camera will prove you were in the right." Here in Texas, we had a recent case where a state trooper was accused of sexually assaulting a woman he had arrested: the department released all of the body camera footage (with only her personal identifying information redacted) which proved definitively that the alleged sexual assault never happened. Her lawyer actually publicly apologized to the officer.

    With all that said and my biases stated: five body cameras failing? That's unpossible, in my opinion.

    "The cord was damaged but did not affect the camera's functionality."

    You're supposed to check your gear before you go out on the street. If I was a cop, I wouldn't go out with a gun or a Taser that was damaged: why would I go out with a body camera that was damaged?

    I work in IT. If I had FIVE different pieces of equipment from the same vendor fail at the same critical moment, I would be on that vendor like a fat man on an all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet for a damn explanation, and I'd be releasing the vendor's explanation and plan for corrective action to every newspaper, TV station, and blogger in the area once I received it.

    Given what I've seen elsewhere, even with my own biases, I'm not inclined to give the Albuquerque PD any slack here. And I agree with the other commenters who suggest this constitutes spoilation of evidence.

  • Mar 28th, 2018 @ 1:46pm

    Okay, so we can't boycott Huawei because that's protectionist.

    Can we boycott them because their products are [utter crap](http://phenoelit.org/stuff/Huawei_DEFCON_XX.pdf)instead?

    >One Oregon cable operator told the Wall Street Journal this
    >week that using Huawei gear saved them around $150,000 when >they were trying to expand broadband into rural markets

    As Click and Clack used to say, "It's the stingy man who spends the most."