Starke 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (127) comment rss

  • On the post: Train Simulator 2016 And How We've Reached The Crest Of The Dumb DLC Wave

    Starke ( profile ), 06 Oct, 2015 @ 01:36am

    Isn't Train Simulator the one where a lot of the DLC is actually generated by modders? So, they design a new train, and then the developers publish it, and the modder gets a cut. I'm honestly asking, because I don't remember.

  • On the post: The Drug War Is Creating Problems Too Big To Fix

    Starke ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2015 @ 04:47am

    Re: Re:

    ...and if you don't do drugs, you're still rolling the dice on the possibility that some GED reject with a badge and gun will decide you're "suspicious" and toss you in a cell to "preserve the element of surprise." Until they can figure out what they think you did, and then convict you for it on faulty forensic evidence.

    But, at least it's not like someone might just outright fake up that evidence just to get a pat on the head at work... oh, wait.

  • On the post: Post Merger-Failure, Comcast Still Dedicated To Treating Customers Like Shit

    Starke ( profile ), 18 Jun, 2015 @ 07:58am

    Re: Re:

    In my experience, the kinds of people who do this, tend to be the people with very limited technical expertise, who don't realize how bad an idea this really is.

  • On the post: CIA Refuses To Release Osama's Porn Collection Information To Bro Who Submitted FOIA For It

    Starke ( profile ), 15 Jun, 2015 @ 01:13pm

    Re: Two possibilities

    Another possibility is that CIA is concerned the porn itself is actually an image cipher. (I forget the technical term.) Which would lead to a legitimate fear that, while it doesn't mean anything to the CIA now, letting it loose into the wild could be a horrible idea.

    At that point, even copying it... might, result in that information getting out there.

    At the same time, I don't think they'd be willing to actually suggest that because it would be in that idiotic state of either confirming "we know they do this," or "we don't want to give them any ideas."

  • On the post: Second OPM Hack Revealed: Even Worse Than The First

    Starke ( profile ), 13 Jun, 2015 @ 03:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Worrisome, but not surprising

    They probably put the database online because... well, it's the Federal government.

    The database was originally created to be used, so while sticking it behind an air gap would have been the smart thing to do, but not the useful option.

    It was also probably created because the government has a pathological need to retain any information it ever obtains.

    As for exactly how it ended up online? The people actually getting paid for implementing it either picked a simple standard online database setup to allow access from anyone who should be throwing data at it. Or the people overseeing it's creation were easily wowed by the prospect of the database being available to their people nation wide, without any thought to security because they weren't techs, just administrators with no real understanding of network security.

    You know, the same kinds of people that just say, "well, our people are smart so encryption golden keys are the way to go. Because, we need to see what other people are doing, and our people can figure out a way to keep everyone else out."

  • On the post: Stanford Prison Experiment Psychologist: You're Never Going To Get Laid, You Game-Playing, Porn-Watching Fat-Asses

    Starke ( profile ), 13 May, 2015 @ 12:57am

    Re:

    I wouldn't phrase it that way, but there's an element of that in some of the excerpts. If it's intentional or not is another question.

  • On the post: Konami Gets YouTube To Take Down Video It Doesn't Like; Streisand Effect Ensures Neverending Discussion Of Video

    Starke ( profile ), 13 May, 2015 @ 12:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Since it seemed to have gone over your head. You were responding to two pun posts, loaded to the gills with Metal Gear Solid references.

  • On the post: Stanford Prison Experiment Psychologist: You're Never Going To Get Laid, You Game-Playing, Porn-Watching Fat-Asses

    Starke ( profile ), 12 May, 2015 @ 10:47am

    Re: It's Hard To Tell the Addicts From the Adolescents

    Here's the thing. In the right circumstances, anything can be addictive. It's easy to sell sensationalist dreck like, "there are fifteen things in the room with you at this moment that could lead you to a crippling life long addiction!"

    Video Games are one of the fastest, if not the fastest, growing media industries today. Call of Duty: Black Ops holds the record for largest opening week of any media property at over one billion in sales in the first five days.

    Of course there are going to be addicts. Just like there are BINGO addicts. Anything that provides a dopamine hit to the back of your lizard brain can get you hooked.

    Saying the internet is more addictive than huffing kittens? That's a lot harder to prove. You can find video game addicts. But that doesn't make video games more addictive than, say, street racing. Just safer.

  • On the post: Stanford Prison Experiment Psychologist: You're Never Going To Get Laid, You Game-Playing, Porn-Watching Fat-Asses

    Starke ( profile ), 12 May, 2015 @ 10:37am

    Is anyone honestly surprised that Zimbardo's the one making these accusations?

    I could be wrong here. It's been a few years since I covered The Stanford Prison Experiment back in college, but my recollection is, Zimbardo has horrible issues with methodology, and a nasty habit of reworking the evidence to fit whatever sensationalist theory he's got this week.

    The guy has spent the last 40+ years trying to insist that humans are fifteen seconds off turning into a reenactment of Lord of the Flies, when even his own research doesn't support it.

    So, honestly, is anyone surprised? Or am I just remembering this guy's career incorrectly?

  • On the post: What Do You Do When Preserving Evidence Is Labeled 'Possession' And Destroying It Is A Felony?

    Starke ( profile ), 04 Apr, 2015 @ 10:04am

    Re:

    That's kind of the point in the article. Federal Law creates a wonderful catch 22, because you know the child porn will provoke an investigation, therefore you know it's evidence, even if you don't know of an active investigation.

  • On the post: What Do You Do When Preserving Evidence Is Labeled 'Possession' And Destroying It Is A Felony?

    Starke ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2015 @ 09:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal ethics problems

    I was talking about: filing the subpoena, calling the lawyer to the stand, swearing them in, then asking them the question only to be told, "nope, not gonna' talk 'bout that. Attorney/client privilege."

    The exceptions I can think of are cases where the attorney was actually an accomplice, or there was a third party present. But, those are some fairly rare circumstances.

    I'm not seeing where the Lindbergh case comes in at all. Maybe I'm just tired. Sorry.

  • On the post: What Do You Do When Preserving Evidence Is Labeled 'Possession' And Destroying It Is A Felony?

    Starke ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2015 @ 06:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal ethics problems

    If I'm remembering correctly, the final line would be to simply refuse to answer questions when asked. No one in their right mind would push it that far, and would be wasting everyone's time to get there. But... shrugs

  • On the post: What Do You Do When Preserving Evidence Is Labeled 'Possession' And Destroying It Is A Felony?

    Starke ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2015 @ 06:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wasn't one burned for this today? As they were outed as having a stash of child porn, and ended up forfeiting their pension. Not getting arrested and prosecuted, because "lol congress," but still.

  • On the post: What Do You Do When Preserving Evidence Is Labeled 'Possession' And Destroying It Is A Felony?

    Starke ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2015 @ 03:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It applies in the US as well. You might be able to report a crime at the request of your client. But you can't report that your client committed a crime. That's kind of the point of attorney client privilege.

  • On the post: What Do You Do When Preserving Evidence Is Labeled 'Possession' And Destroying It Is A Felony?

    Starke ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2015 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I used to have a friend who was overly fond of the phrase, "you can do anything you want until someone stops you."

    Unfortunately, the Law Enforcement community in the US has spent most of the last few decades saying, "no, honest, you can trust us, we won't abuse our power. We need it to do our jobs."

    They can do whatever they want. We wouldn't be seeing issues like the cop screaming at a cabbie in New York if he didn't honestly believe he could do it without repercussions.

    In a case like this, or the drug possession example above, you're just hoping that deep down, the cop you're dealing with is a nice guy and having a good day. Because if either of those aren't the case, they're empowered to wreck your life in a fit of pique.

    It's not about "can't" being a fluid term. It's not.

  • On the post: What Do You Do When Preserving Evidence Is Labeled 'Possession' And Destroying It Is A Felony?

    Starke ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2015 @ 08:55am

    I wouldn't doubt the cops willingness to slam you for whatever they want. After all, they get to "take a dangerous sexual predator off the streets," the DA gets an easy win. What's not to love?

    And, while I don't know about finding a bag of crack in a rental car, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if a few cops have gone after easy "drug busts" that way.

  • On the post: What Do You Do When Preserving Evidence Is Labeled 'Possession' And Destroying It Is A Felony?

    Starke ( profile ), 03 Apr, 2015 @ 08:57am

    Once again the advice: "don't talk to the police." Comes back as more and more useful. There is almost no situation where it can help you in any way.

  • On the post: The Guardian Details The Horrors Of Chicago Police's 'CIA-Style Black Site'

    Starke ( profile ), 24 Feb, 2015 @ 11:31pm

    Re:

    Yeah, I ran an article yesterday on the subject... didn't want to see this today. Ugh.

  • On the post: Officer Put On Leave For Tweeting To Bait Public Into Violence

    Starke ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2014 @ 07:42pm

    Re: Re: Balance on a slippery slope....

    Without looking closer at the original tweets, it's entirely possible the they could be considered: a threat, fighting words, or incitement.

    Again, without looking, I'm not sure which one applies, and I don't really care enough to. But, you're right, there ARE limits to free speech. Some people would like to expand those limits to "anything I don't like," but that doesn't change that they exist.

  • On the post: Officer Put On Leave For Tweeting To Bait Public Into Violence

    Starke ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2014 @ 05:26pm

    Re: Balance on a slippery slope....

    "Fighting Words" don't enjoy First Amendment protections.

Next >>