TechDescartes’s Techdirt Profile


About TechDescartesTechdirt Insider

I link, therefore I am.

TechDescartes’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 21st, 2017 @ 8:37pm

    Re: Re: Talking Points

    "Don't think too hard about the children."

  • Mar 21st, 2017 @ 4:46pm

    Talking Points

    But if you hear there's a daycare three towns over where something's going on and you're sneaking in there with a video camera, that's not right.

    "Think of the children"? Check.

  • Mar 21st, 2017 @ 1:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: judges

    Are you not aware that people can see what you previously wrote? Or perhaps that was a different TechDescartes?

    Said as only one can say when they have no answer to the question put to them in the first place. Let's go back to the statement that prompted the question:

    This was a little more significant and premeditated than an innocent little "whoopsie".

    For the record, I never wrote "innocent", "little", or even "whoopsie". "Premeditated" has a negative connotation, suggesting that the judge issued the first order knowing that the defendant's First Amendment rights were being trampled. That's a serious charge.

    Instead of providing support for that charge, the AC responds with questions:

    "This judge issues orders with no prior thought involved?" "So let me ask you, do you have any support for the idea that this judge typically issues rulings without giving them any forethought?"

    Neither of those questions follow from the demand for evidence.

  • Mar 21st, 2017 @ 1:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: judges

    People who say things like this must have lived a life totally free from responsibility.

    I take it you never have realized that the entire justice system is built around fallible human beings making mistakes. That's why we have Magistrates who can be reviewed by District Court judges who can be reviewed by the Courts of Appeals who can be reviewed by the Supreme Court. As was said of the Supreme Court by Justice Robert Jackson: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443.

    "Whoops" isn't an acceptable excuse for forgetting about things like free speech and prior restraint when people's lives, livelihoods, and Constitutional rights are at stake.

    "Whoops" isn't an excuse. It's an admission of a mistake. If you read the second order, the Court doesn't offer any excuse for its first order. It just fixes it by issuing the right order the second time around.

    As for "people's lives, livelihoods, and Constitutional rights" being at stake, I'll give you that the First Amendment is front and center here. But I don't exactly recall anyone's life being at stake in this case, or even anyone's livelihood.

  • Mar 21st, 2017 @ 12:41pm

    Word Placement wit: a Tweet...

  • Mar 21st, 2017 @ 9:38am

    Acronyms for Reputation Managers


  • Mar 21st, 2017 @ 6:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: judges

    Giving the judge credit for having given the ruling a measure of thought before actually issuing it is admittedly an assumption which cannot be proven. So let me ask you, do you have any support for the idea that this judge typically issues rulings without giving them any forethought?

    We agree that the judge made a mistake in the original order. The question is why. Tegman suggested the judge didn't give a "flying flip" about constitutional rights. I responded and suggested that caseload might have something to do with it. Mistakes happen. It's been fixed.

    Where you came up with the notion that anyone was arguing that the judge didn't think about the orders before they were issued, I have no idea. When you find the rabbit, let me know.

  • Mar 20th, 2017 @ 7:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: judges

    Of course it's significant. But you said the judge's first order was "premeditated." Do you have any support for that?

    If you read both this post and the previous one on this case, it's clear that the plaintiff was trying to hide the true nature of its claims behind trademark law. It seems likely that the judge just missed it the first time around, not for lack of concern for the law but because the lawyer slipped one past.

    Once the judge realized the mistake—when a lawyer finally argued the defendant's case—the judge fixed it.

  • Mar 20th, 2017 @ 5:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: judges

    This was a little more significant and premeditated than an innocent little "whoopsie".

    Care to provide any support for that?

    Except, as I understand it, the judge had the opportunity but decided not to "fix it". It took another judge over him to do that.

    No, District Judge Dee Benson signed this order and the previous one.

  • Mar 20th, 2017 @ 4:07pm

    Re: Re: judges

    Is this included in your review?

    No, federal district court judges have lifetime appointments (which is why confirmation hearings are so much fun).

    Do you get a copy that you've been slapped down by a higher court?

    Yes, because you obviously have to fix something, like hold a new trial, change your order to conform to the appellate decision, or whatever.

    Do some judges get upset ... ?

    See comment about confirmation hearings above. After going through that, this is cake.

    Do some judges ... try and talk to the higher court?


    How does that work?

    Sometimes, judges drop commentary in opinions, but it doesn't happen often. Look for orders that cite how a bunch of other courts do something, followed by "However, this Court is bound to follow the Court of Appeals here ..."

    somewhat influenced by whoever elected or appointed you.

    They're not elected. Once appointed, they do not care who appointed them. (Of course, state court mileage will vary, but the case here is federal.)

  • Mar 20th, 2017 @ 3:56pm

    Re: Re: judges

    They have lifetime appointments, just like Supreme Court justices, so no, they don't get fired.

    Before you start deciding whether judges give a "flying flip," bear in mind that each judge in the District of Utah had 459 pending cases (as of 9/30/16). What appears to you to be a lack of concern almost certainly is a whoops-got-that-one-wrong-fix-it-now-move-on-to-the-other-458.

  • Mar 20th, 2017 @ 3:35pm

    Re: Re: “food grade” and “non toxic”

    I've got a can of "food-grade" silicone lubricant spray for my Rubik's cubes. The can also says "HARMFUL OR FATAL IF SWALLOWED" on the front.

    Especially when applied to a Rubik's cube.

  • Mar 17th, 2017 @ 12:00pm

    Which way to Mountain View?

    Supposedly, the warrant [PDF] limits Google's search for searches to the Edina area, but that puts Google in the position of determining who was located where when these searches were made.

    The phrase "located in city or township of Edina, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota" comes immediately after Google's Mountain View address. That phrase is boilerplate indicated that the target of the warrant is supposed to be located in Edina, as a judge in Hennepin County District Court can't issue search warrants to be executed outside of that jurisdiction.

    However, at the end of the application, it states, "Google Inc. accepts and recognizes search warrants from Hennepin County District Court." In other words, Google apparently doesn't intend to object to what otherwise would be a lack of jurisdiction.

    Of course, the alternative reading is that the officer believes Mountain View, California is located in Edina.

  • Mar 17th, 2017 @ 10:08am

    Seems Plausible

    I'll admit that I'm a bit torn about this whole thing.

    Maybe Facebook's security systems detected something "unsafe" on their website. Maybe not. Mizbala thinks the latter. The only way to know is to obtain Facebook's internal documents and logs through discovery in litigation and, even then, you don't always learn the truth. If this case were in the U.S., Mizbala would have the legal right to find out because their theory certainly is plausible.

    As for the classification of "unsafe" constituting defamation or "false description," consider it in light of the text of Section 230(c)(2)(A):

    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of ... any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

    In other words, if Facebook is blocking the links because it believes that they are harassing, Facebook could have and should have just said as much. But if that is the reason and Facebook is calling it "unsafe" to hide the real reason, they may have a problem on their hands.

  • Mar 17th, 2017 @ 8:17am

    Redacted 2.0

    "an automated search tool called [REDACTED]"

    Isn't that the same tool used by the FOIA-request-processing group?

  • Mar 16th, 2017 @ 8:58pm

    Re: Pot, Meet Kettle

    Trolling a troll is … still trolling.

  • Mar 16th, 2017 @ 1:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We've Been Here Before

    While we debate the Congressional version, apparently this is the version provided to the NSA, CIA, and FBI:

    Executive Order 12333


    It'd be funny if it wasn't so scary.

  • Mar 16th, 2017 @ 1:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: We've Been Here Before

    First, we had Senator Dianne Feinstein upset when the CIA spied on her office. Then we had former Rep. Pete Hoekstra upset when the NSA may have spied on Congress. Now, we have Rep. Nunes.

    At the same time, we have Ars Technica reporting that the CIA developed board games to train their officers. When one group of agents was found to be cheating at the game, the article states:

    "That's real human behavior," CIA Chief Strategy Officer Rachel Grunspan says. "If you design a game right, you’ll see a lot of complexity organically emerge. That’s what you want."

    It's not cheating. It's "organic complexity." Probably gluten-free, too.

  • Mar 16th, 2017 @ 7:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The best weapon comes from your opponent's arsenal

    With a settlement in his pocket mr email appears to have at least enough in hand to drive thus case to discovery and court.

    What the AC likely means is that the $750k Gawker settlement provided Ayyadurai with a war chest to pay for discovery and trial. Without that monetary settlement, this case presumably doesn't get filed in the first place.

    Maybe you meant to quote the AC's subsequent sentence:

    With a settlement in his pocket the courts are probably not going to dismiss especially considering the somewhat nasty tone of the postings here.

    Clearly, the dismissibility of this case does not hinge on the fact that Ayyadurai obtained a settlement from Gawker. As for the "somewhat nasty tone" argument (i.e., motion for hurt feelz) that's not a defense to an Anti-SLAPP motion or a motion to dismiss.

  • Mar 15th, 2017 @ 10:47pm


    He wouldn't use it. He claims to be entitled to $15M plus making the posts go away. This law does nothing to help him make a claim for the $15M.

More comments from TechDescartes >>