Tanner Andrews 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1400) comment rss

  • On the post: Texas Cops Arrest Journalist For Publishing Confidential Info Given To Her By A Police Officer

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 03 Jan, 2018 @ 05:49am

    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.

  • On the post: FBI Celebrates Taking Down A 'Terrorist' Who Told Undercover Agents He Couldn't Go Through With An Attack

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 28 Dec, 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.

  • On the post: FBI Celebrates Taking Down A 'Terrorist' Who Told Undercover Agents He Couldn't Go Through With An Attack

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 28 Dec, 2017 @ 12:56am

    Re: operation: anti-troll

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

  • On the post: New Documents And Testimony Shows Officers Lied About Their Role In An Arrested Teen's Death

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 25 Dec, 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.

  • On the post: Top EU Court Says Uber Is A Transport Service That Can Be Regulated Like Traditional Taxis

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 25 Dec, 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.

  • On the post: Top EU Court Says Uber Is A Transport Service That Can Be Regulated Like Traditional Taxis

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 25 Dec, 2017 @ 01:56am

    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.

  • On the post: Iowa Supreme Court Apparently Unfamiliar With First Amendment And Prior Restraint: Bars Newspaper From Publishing Info

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2017 @ 06:21pm

    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.

  • On the post: Iowa Supreme Court Apparently Unfamiliar With First Amendment And Prior Restraint: Bars Newspaper From Publishing Info

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2017 @ 06:14pm

    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).

  • On the post: Florida Public Officials Face Criminal Charges For Dodging Public Records Laws

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 15 Dec, 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.

  • On the post: Suburban Express, Which Sued Over Online Reviews Claiming It Had Racist Drivers, Cheerfully Sends Out Racist Advertisement

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 15 Dec, 2017 @ 05:20am

    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.

  • On the post: Alabama Media Group Isn't Messing Around With Roy Moore's Silly Threat

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 27 Nov, 2017 @ 04:28am

    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.

  • On the post: Sheriff's Office To Pay $3 Million For Invasive Searches Of 850 High School Students

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 27 Nov, 2017 @ 04:58am

    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.

  • On the post: Georgia Election Server Mysteriously Wiped Clean After Lawsuit Highlights Major Vulnerabilities

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 30 Oct, 2017 @ 04:52am

    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.

  • On the post: Back Down The Rabbit Hole About Encryption On Smartphones

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2017 @ 11:51am

    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.

    Wherefore:

    V sneg va gur trareny qverpgvba bs Ebfrafgrva.

  • On the post: Judge Bars News Station From Showing Pictures In News Story, Admits It's Prior Restraint, Shrugs

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2017 @ 08:30am

    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.

  • On the post: Utah Senator Wants To Revive The State's 'Porn Czar' Office To Combat The Threat Of Women's Magazines

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 23 Oct, 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.

  • On the post: Case Dismissed: Judge Throws Out Shiva Ayyadurai's Defamation Lawsuit Against Techdirt

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2017 @ 06:33am

    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.

  • On the post: Case Dismissed: Judge Throws Out Shiva Ayyadurai's Defamation Lawsuit Against Techdirt

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2017 @ 06:28am

    Re: Re: Shiva Files Notice of Appeal

    That sounds to me like a suggestion for a cross appeal, on the issue of whether the California anti-SLAPP law should be applied to award fees, where speaker is located in California and speech is uttered in that state.

  • On the post: Al Jazeera Gives A 'Voice To The Voiceless' By Killing News Comments

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2017 @ 03:14am

    Re: theme birthday party planners

    The amazing thing is that this birthday party spammer just contributed about as much to the discussion as did Podyelka. Maybe more, since Mr Birthday Party Spammer probably will go away, and we cannot count on Podyelka to do the same.

  • On the post: Officers With Personal Body Cams Taking The 'Public' Out Of 'Public Accountability'

    Tanner Andrews ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2017 @ 03:05am

    Spoliation Instruction

    If the officer has a personal video camera, and that footage is not available to the defendant, he is likely going to request a spoliation instruction.

    The judge instructs the jury, in effect, that because the evidence was in the sole custody and control of Officer McSnarfley, and has disappeared without good explanation in light of the officer's knowledge of impending litigation [prosecution], the jury should presume that the missing video would have refuted the cop's story.

Next >>