HideOnly 1 day left to get your copy of the CIA's declassified training game by backing CIA: Collect It All on Kickstarter »
HideOnly 1 day left to get your copy of the CIA's declassified training game by backing CIA: Collect It All on Kickstarter »

Tanner Andrews’s Techdirt Profile


About Tanner Andrews

Tanner Andrews’s Comments comment rss

  • Jan 15th, 2018 @ 10:37am


    I do not think I have received their spam since 2016, but that is most likely due to them falling into some spam trap. I cannot truthfully say that I miss them, since I still see other geniuses like:

    I have had solicitations from all of these since the most recent from lawyersofdistinction.com so I am confident that there are plenty of alternatives for those who are desperate for dodgy advertising or other peculative opportunities.

    At that time, by the way, their address did look like a strip shopping center with a UPS store. Nothing against UPS store operations, I have used them myself when I needed to get packages out quickly. But it makes a poor substitute for a real office, imagine trying to meet clients at such a place!

  • Jan 8th, 2018 @ 6:22am

    Re: who cares ?

    local traffic courts are mostly assembly lines designed to extract money from the public. Judges and DA's side with their cop team mates 99% of the time

    Oddly enough, that is not my experience. Florida and particularly my county have some really bad judges, but we have some decent judges as well. And even the bad judges have areas in which they are particularly bad and other areas in which they at least pretend to be fair.

    Traffic, on the other hand, seems to be an outlier. Maybe it is because so many people are there that they do not want to take chances of an enraged populace, but they do pretty well. Even the hearing officers do pretty well, and if you want a judge instead of a hearing officer then you get one for asking.

    If the other cases were handled as reasonably as traffic, at least in the counties where I have done traffic, people could have more confidence in the judicial system. Judges and hearing officers both seem to follow the law there. Admittedly, I average less than 2 cases/year in traffic, and your milage may vary.

  • Jan 8th, 2018 @ 5:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Sad thing is...

    The bigger question would be - why do you need to hear your national anthem before games where both teams are from the same country in the first place?

    Because no one knows the state anthems of Florida and New York. Neither, in Florida, do many people distinguish the state anthem, 15.0326, from the state song, 15.0327, though at least many people would recognize the state song.

    Few people consider that the more likely state anthem or song, Orange Blossom Special, might be deemed dismissive of New York, from which the performer expresses hopes to flee.

    There. More information than you had in mind, I am sure.

  • Jan 3rd, 2018 @ 5:49am

    The Case Has Already Been Decided

    In Florida Star v. BJF, 491 U.S. 524 (1989), the US Supreme Court said that, if you lawfully obtained what was meant to be non-public information, you could publish it. There, the police dept had unintentionally included a rape victim's name in the materials they made available to the press. Cub reporter did not know it was illegal to publish that information [Fla. Stat. 794.03, still on books as of 2017].

    Vic sued, and the newspaper lost all the way through the state courts. Reversed, resoundingly.

    It is possible that the Laredo PD could have a claim against the officer who provided the information, but they cannot plausibly claim that talking to a cop is an unlawful method of obtaining police information.

    Legal advice is what you get from the attorney you hire, and you would probably want to hire one licensed in your state.

  • Dec 28th, 2017 @ 12:56am

    Re: operation: anti-troll

    These kind of FBI operations might serve one useful purpose, taking down internet trolls

    More likely, it encourage people to leave the trolling to the experts at the FBI and KBG.

  • Dec 28th, 2017 @ 12:56am

    Re: operation: anti-troll

    These kind of FBI operations might serve one useful purpose, taking down internet trolls

  • Dec 25th, 2017 @ 12:32pm

    Re: Why would there be a statute of limitations on prosecuting crimes?

    Canada doesn't run out the clock [impose limitation on crimes]. Why doesn't the US follow their lead?

    Because it would be unfair to require someone to defend after their evidence has grown stale, their memories have faded, their witnesses moved out of town, and the records are lost.

    Quick, tell me where you were on 14-Aug-1987. Oh, maybe now we know who killed []. Turn yourself in at the Sheriff's department, they'll get you booked in at Camp Swampy, and you can have a fair trial.

    And, generally, please do not give our legislature ideas.

  • Dec 25th, 2017 @ 12:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [technology company]

    The argument (or at least part of it) is that you do not buy transportation from Uber; you buy it from an individual

    That is where the argument falls down. Rider is not buying a ride from an individual.

    Rider buys transportation from Uber. Her pays Uber, using payment methods established with his Uber account. The price is subject to Uber raising the price during times of high demand and probably informing you of the increase.

    The transportation is the product. It may be provided under any of several Uber brands, e.g. uberX, uberXL, uberBlack. And it is all subject to an Uber arbitration agreement and Uber's choice-of-law provisions, both of which are generally detrimental to the rider, and both of which are not intended to be negotiated with the driver or subjugated to your state's law.

    The application is not the product. The application has no value other than obtaining the product. In this, it is like unto the Krispy Kreme application: you are not really interested in the app, you want the donuts. Or the Papa's Pizza application: you use the app only to obtain pizza.

    Uber, Krispy Kreme, and Papa's Pizza are not technology companies, even if they have people smarter than the geniuses at Google writing their respective apps. They are transportation, donut, and pizza companies.

  • Dec 25th, 2017 @ 1:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [technology company]

    Why [is] the fact that Uber are a technology company so difficult to comprehend since that's the only thing they directly supply?

    It's difficult because it is not actually true. The person seeking transportation may indeed use their app, but what they are buying is a ride. They are giving Uber money for that ride.

    If you were buying apps from Uber, they would be a tech vendor. If you were buying cars from them, they'd be a car cvendor. If you were buying widgets from them, they'd be a widget vendor. Since you are buying transportation from them, they are a transportation vendor.

    There may be regulatory consequences to this. For instance, they (or their subcontractors) may need taxi medallions. I can barely spell ``EU'' and have essentially no idea of their myriad laws. If you wish to operate there, consult someone familiar with their legal requirements.

  • Dec 23rd, 2017 @ 6:21pm

    Re: Missing some basic facts. Might help the analysis

    he may have created the first prior restraint against the media should be upheld by the US Supreme Court

    I'm busy doubting it. The case I mentioned above, Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (21-Jun-1989), has pretty much the same fact pattern. If you would assuage my doubts, and those of other readers, you ought to at least try to distinguish your case.

  • Dec 23rd, 2017 @ 6:14pm

    Re: Missing some basic facts. Might help the analysis

    You may be missing some basic law, which might help the analysis. For instance, Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (21-Jun-1989).

  • Dec 15th, 2017 @ 11:19pm

    Re: Re: microscopic win

    I would assume that if a court finds them personally guilty they could be banned from holding office.

    I would not assume that. Upon conviction, it is a misdemeanor. Jail time is unusual in these cases.

  • Dec 15th, 2017 @ 5:20am

    Re: People Still Using Suburban Express Despite "Colorful" History

    Are there alternatives, or do they have a monopoly on that route?

    It appears that it is fast and cheap to take the train. That would have the advantage of being more comfortable than the bus ride, even if you did not make a bee-line for the bar car.

    Fortunately for Suburban Express, most students are not aware of the alternatives. It is also fortunate for Amtrak, who may lack the sort of careful thinkers that would add coaches and extra sections right around the times of school holidays.

  • Nov 27th, 2017 @ 4:58am

    One Possible Class-Action Glitch

    In many cases, the class is not a ``mandatory'' class. That means that there is a method for potential class members to ``opt out'' of class settlements or class verdicts.

    Such excluded persons may either bring their own actions, or not do so. But in either case, if they have properly opted out of the class, they are not bound by its resolution.

    Each separate action would likely be barred by whatever the sovereign immunity limit is in Georgia. Surely the (now suspended) sheriff and his catamites would be pleased to defend separate actions. It is possible that they might even be personally liable, depending on the facts and law in Georgia.

  • Nov 27th, 2017 @ 4:28am

    Re: Re: Re: No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway

    wrongful termination of an employee is most certainly a legal action, if for no other reason than one may wind up either in front of an administrative law judge arguing rights

    Nope. Wrongful termination is an act, not a legal action. A legal action has certain requirements, generally including court filings.

    On the other hand, an act has no such requirements. When I run over an old lady, that act is not a ``legal action'', even though I may wind up in court explaining why I should not be held liable for damages.

  • Oct 30th, 2017 @ 4:52am

    Re: Misuse of term 'hacker'

    use the term "crackers" for people that break security

    That's the thing with ignorance. It is of no use if you cannot show it off. So, congratulations on getting full value.

    The term cracker'' typically refers to people from a certain part of the south-eastern US. The term comes from the sounds of the whips used in driving the cattle across the state. Many counties still havecracker day'' festivals celebrating this part of their heritage.

  • Oct 28th, 2017 @ 11:51am

    (untitled comment)

    Rosenstein is certainly correct to have said "there is no constitutional right to sell warrant-proof encryption"

    He is certainly wrong.

    Initially, there is a right to write such a thing, as the US First Amendment provides for free expression. If I am smart enough to figure out how to do this, I may certainly express and demonstrate my view through the writing. That would include my view that I have really developed ``warrant-proof'' encryption.

    There may be other views, where other people working in the field of encryption, may have doubts that my ROT-13 encryption is truly unbreakable. Those folks are also free to express their views. But, given the general competence of Federal warrant-seeking agencies, I feel pretty confident that ROT-13 would be qualify.

    The second prong, selling, does not negate the first. Courts routinely hold that publishers who charge for copies of their publication retain the First Amendment rights despite the commercial motive in publishing. Valentine v. Chrestensen was a bit of an outlier, if not flatly wrong even on its rather specialized facts.

    Were these things to be otherwise, you could never have had the NY Times publishing ``Pentagon Papers'' information, because the newspaper publishes with the intent of collecting money and the motive of making a profit.


    V sneg va gur trareny qverpgvba bs Ebfrafgrva.

  • Oct 24th, 2017 @ 8:30am

    Re: [what would happen if]

    wonder what would have happened if they just ignored the judge and aired the photos

    Well, the Supreme Court suggested in Gompers v. Buck's Stove, 221 U.S. 418 (1911) that the outcome would not be good. There, they affirmed contempt for violating a patently unconstitutional prior restraint against saying ``we do not patronize this business''.

    Yes, it is a shameful case. Yes, it is still the law of the land. So is Korematsu v. US. For that matter, so is Wickard v. Filburn, an incredible overreaching of the commerce clause leading to incredible mischief.

  • Oct 23rd, 2017 @ 12:26am

    Re: [prosecuting porn judged by community standards]

    No sane prosecutor would be willing to work on the basis of community standards.

    Of course he will, that is the only basis on which he can bring a case. In some areas, he will bring it, because a large portion of the population there are blue-noses. Sure, that can turn out to be a mis-calculation; does anyone remember [Fla. 7th Cir. SA] John Tanner?

    And an enthusiastic state's atty can get convictions, too. Remember that the jury pool is drawn from the same crop of blue-noses that elected him.

  • Sep 9th, 2017 @ 6:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Shiva Will Appeal

    Is there any chance an appeals court could uphold the dismissal yet also reverse the trial court judges denial of the California SLAPP issue

    Sure. The normal vehicle would be that Techdirt files a cross-appeal, raising the issue of whether the Cali anti-SLAPP statute should apply. While it might not, initially, have been worth an appeal to decide the issue, you are already in for an appeal since Mr Email has filed his notice. Someone will have to write a brief anyway.

More comments from Tanner Andrews >>