That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One Guy Techdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 20th, 2019 @ 7:32pm


    'There are others ways to kill people so the fact that the security on medical devices are so pathetic that it would be trivial to create a program to kill someone nearly undetectably taking advantage of that terrible security isn't a big deal' does not a valid argument make.

    It's possible to kill someone via a car, however that would not mean that if a car manufacturer installed a system where it was trivial to remotely do the equivalent of cutting the car's brakes it wouldn't be a serious issue worth attention.

  • Jul 20th, 2019 @ 7:26pm

    'You can't do that, that's OUR racket!'

    Not a problem, the drug companies would come down on that hard, as they've got that particular market/tactic locked down already.

  • Jul 20th, 2019 @ 6:28pm

    Crime: Stealing a physical CD. Penalty: $20,000.

    Which of course is why actual theft in the form of shoplifting routinely carries four or five digit fines, because if people didn't have to worry about fines thousands of times higher than the cost of items in a store people would just be carrying everything they could out.

    Seriously, the only thing funnier than your explanation is your downright laughable attempt to act condescending and 'smart' giving it.

  • Jul 19th, 2019 @ 10:52pm

    Re: This sounds like a conspiracy theorist denying the facts

    I wouldn't go so far as to say that they were engaged in conspiracy thinking so much as a complete and total refusal to admit that they were wrong, both for this case and because it would open up the possibility that people might look at other instances where they declared what someone's age was contrary to what they'd been told.

  • Jul 19th, 2019 @ 6:09pm

    Re: Re: A forest fire is downright cold... compared to the sun a

    actually artists are human beings

    You don't say, I always thought they were lizard people...

    and when their businesses are destroyed by copyright infringement

    Gonna need a hefty [Citation Needed] there...

    believe it or not it is actually damaging

    It can be damaging or beneficial, but damaging to the tune thousands or tens of thousands per instance? Not even close. A single copy of a song, movie or picture does not magically become worth the same as a car(or even house on the upper range) simply because someone didn't pay for it, so to have penalties reaching that level is simply absurd.

  • Jul 19th, 2019 @ 5:27pm

    Very patient-focused indeed...

    Researchers: It is possible for someone to bypass the downright pathetic security on these devices to kill someone.

    Company: Eh.

    Researchers: ... Fine. Here's a program we threw together to prove that it's not a hypothetical, and is absolutely possible to kill using these devices. Also we showed it to the FDA.

    Company: Oh very well, I suppose we'll tell people that they can turn the devices in if they want to...

  • Jul 19th, 2019 @ 5:09pm

    Ah to be that naive again...

    Did you bother to read the entire article? Because that very point was addressed towards the end.

    So it's easy, right? Simply opt-out.

    Yes, for many would-be defendants, especially the more legally sophisticated ones like large internet companies, opting out of each claim brought against them is not likely to be difficult, even if it is time and resource intensive. However, think about what you might do if you received an envelope claiming to be from a governmental body you have never heard of and asserting that you are potentially liable for infringing copyright. Many would simply ignore it or simply not understand the significance or the potential consequences. Others might perceive this notification as a form of phishing or a potential scam. 60 days elapse and you are now subject to the determinations of the CCB. The next letter you receive may be correspondence from a law firm (on behalf of the claimant) offering you a settlement deal that lets you buy your way out of the legal fight and the possibility of a $30,000 liability. Now what should you do: settle or try to defend yourself at the risk of a higher liability amount?

  • Jul 19th, 2019 @ 2:34pm

    Re: Re: Isn't sex trafficking involuntary?

    Well obviously, any sane and moral person knows that anything even remotely related to sex is filthy and disgusting, and no-one would ever be involved with it voluntarily. /s

  • Jul 19th, 2019 @ 2:29pm

    Required vs Allowed

    Since when is it the job of the police to beat, tase, and verbally abuse the perpetrator of a crime?

    Easy mistake to make, you see those aren't part of the job(something they are supposed to do), rather they're perks of it(something they are allowed to do).

    (I really wish I could add an /s to that...)

  • Jul 19th, 2019 @ 2:18pm

    Easy fix

    Step one: Point the cameras at the police and any politicians who support the program.

    Step two: Any and all hits will result in an arrest/stop/further investigation by a third party who will have the same incentives to secure a 'hit' as the police do.

    If either step if not followed, the program is tossed entirely. I imagine a week or so of those pushing the program being subject to it themselves would be enough for them to care about how accurate it isn't.

  • Jul 19th, 2019 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Re: A forest fire is downright cold... compared to the sun a

    While I would prefer to see it reformed(or at this point burned to the ground and recreated from scratch) if the choice is copyright law as it currently stands or no copyright... yeah, break out the gun and find a shed, we got a terminally sick law that needs putting down.

  • Jul 19th, 2019 @ 12:47pm


    Copyright trolling/extortion is bad enough when there's a possibility that the extortionist will actually have to take their would-be victim to a real court, knock even that out and replace it with a sham court where there's effectively no real way to appeal and copyright extortion will skyrocket practically overnight.

  • Jul 19th, 2019 @ 12:47pm

    Malicious or ignorant

    I'm at a near total loss as to how the judge made this decision, because it is so far outside what the statute and case law (especially in the 9th circuit) say, that I can only conclude he decided to go with Eric Goldman's concept that when there's some infringement somewhere, all precedent and the letter of the law go out the window.

    I can think of two possible reasons, neither of which leave the judge looking good. Either they decided ahead of time what they were going to rule and worked backwards from there, and to hell with anything else, or they honestly have no freakin' clue what the law says and are merely ruling on what they think is says.

    They're wrong either way, the only question at this point is whether or not they know they're wrong.

  • Jul 19th, 2019 @ 7:54am

    A forest fire is downright cold... compared to the sun anyway

    The "small claims" part of the bill is also troubling, in that the CCB can award damages up to $30,000 per proceeding. This amount is only considered small in the context of copyright statutory damages, which range between $750-30,000 per work infringed, unless the infringement was willful, in which case, damages can be $150,000 per work.

    Just... let that sink in. Copyright fines are so utterly insane that a cap of thirty thousand dollars is considered to still meet the definition of 'small claims', simply because the 'regular' fines have the potential to be even worse.

    That it how utterly insane copyright law can be and is, in that a proposal for absolutely ruinous fines for an act that in almost any instance causes no demonstrable damage, handed out by 'court' almost entirely separate from the already established legal system is not only not being laughed out of the political arena but is actually getting support within it.

    As insane as copyright law already is it seems there is always someone who will try to make it worse.

  • Jul 18th, 2019 @ 1:39pm

    Should have just kept your mouth shut...

    ... the city that is.

    When a local newspaper published a story about the settlement, the City Solicitor chose to disparage Overbey by saying she was "hostile" when the police arrived at her home. As the comments filled up with invective against Overbey, she showed up in person to fire back at her detractors, claiming the police had been in the wrong and detailing some of the injuries she suffered.

    Nice of them to expose their gross hypocrisy there. She wasn't allowed to say anything about the case, to the point that she was punished for defending herself, but the city retained for itself the right to say whatever they wanted, and had no problem slamming the very person they had gagged from talking about the case.

  • Jul 17th, 2019 @ 2:16pm

    '... why else do you think I proposed it?'

    In the meantime, content moderators would hold back on their take down procedures because no one could really tell them how “politically biased” is interpreted. In other words, disinformation, Nazi propaganda and white supremacist videos would fester on the Internet.

    Depending on who you are, 'that's a feature, not a bug.'

    At my former job, I tried to keep in mind that while I had to look at horrific content, thanks to my efforts, many others would not have to. Yet in a world where this bill passes, I would sit down at my same desk, take a deep breath and prepare myself to look at terrorist executions, aftermaths of mass shootings and hatred-motivated violence — but this time, with full knowledge that I had absolutely no control over its distribution.

    At which point I imagine many a moderator will simply quit the job entirely, because why even bother if you're not able to do anything?

    If the idiots in politics think the problem is bad now just wait, should they 'win' this fight it will be much, much worse both for those demanding less moderation and those demanding more.

  • Jul 17th, 2019 @ 2:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I imagine they'd prefer that the damage be avoided altogether via killing off the problematic laws, but if that's not an option and damage will be done better to reduce it as much as possible, in this case by isolating it.

  • Jul 16th, 2019 @ 5:05pm

    Re: Re: Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat i

    Even if 230 doesn't apply the outcome strikes me as basically the same, in that if Amazon is penalized because they tried to warn someone and didn't do a 'good enough' job then the message sent to Amazon and other platforms is 'keep your mouth shut', similar to pre-230's message being 'don't moderate at all', which 230 was meant to address.

  • Jul 16th, 2019 @ 2:01pm

    Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it

    Be nice if the judges involved did at least some research on the subject, because this is practically what 230 was created to address. Thanks to a stupid ruling just before 230 was put into place sites were heavily encouraged not to moderate anything, because doing so would make them liable for it, hence 230.

    Fast forward to this ruling and if trying to warn your customers of a potential problem creates liability if any of them ignore it or you don't do a 'good enough' job, sites are heavily encouraged not to send out those warnings.

    There are some moderation practices you want sites to engage in, but if the act of moderating opens them up to liability then it's much safer for them to look the other way and ignore any problems, which is apparently a lesson that will have to be learned again with foolish rulings like this.

  • Jul 15th, 2019 @ 3:11pm


    What would the state have to gain from collaboration with a telecom?

    The state? Very little. The politicians? Extensive kickbacks in the form of 'campaign contributions'.

    Shouldn't legislators collaborate with the people?

    That's crazy talk that is, everyone knows you go into politics for personal gain, why would you go through all the hassle of lying through your teeth an entire election just to have to deal with the public even more?

More comments from That One Guy >>