That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 1st, 2015 @ 6:44am


    Important question though: Are they doing so because they actually find sufficient value in it to pay the price, or are they doing so because it's part of a package deal, where it's cheaper to get internet and cable, rather than just internet alone?

  • Dec 1st, 2015 @ 6:38am

    Re: Maybe

    You might very well be on to something there. Include a bunch of agencies that people will object to, and then when the objections start coming in, 'graciously' remove the tacked on entries to the list, leaving the ones they actually wanted untouched until the law has been passed and it's much more difficult to do anything about it.

    It works for other stuff, I certainly wouldn't put it past them to try it here, though at the same time I'd say it's even odds that they truly are trying to increase the general spying and dissemination of data as much as they seem to be, given how brazen they've been in the past on the matter.

  • Dec 1st, 2015 @ 6:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Department for Work and Pensions

    If certain people are lost causes, and there are definitely those that are, you don't comment for their sake, you do so for the sake of those on the fence who can still be convinced, if approached right, of which 'insulting them' is not one of the right ways to go about it.

    I've spent more than a little time in numerous discussions on TD, even when I knew, or strongly suspected, that it wouldn't do anything to change the mind of the person I was responding to at the time. Why? Because I wasn't doing it for their sake, I was doing it for the sake of those that might read what I wrote, and who might be a bit more willing to consider things, even if they ended up disagreeing with me. If your comment can get someone to think about something, to question it and come to a more informed decision, even if it's the same one as before but with a bit more thought put into it, then that's awesome, and well worth the effort.

  • Dec 1st, 2015 @ 5:10am

    Re: Liability

    The company of course, to do otherwise would be to admit that the government was in error in forcing companies to cripple the security of their products/services, and since that's not possible the only ones to blame will be the companies.

  • Dec 1st, 2015 @ 4:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Department for Work and Pensions

    I'm curious, has no-one ever told you that one of the quickest ways to get people to ignore anything you say is to use the word 'sheeple', or do you honestly think it's a good way to convince people of the merits of your argument?

    In general, most people don't take well to insults and condescending words from others, so unless you're just ranting for the fun of it, might want to use some different words when describing others, whether in general or specifically.

  • Dec 1st, 2015 @ 3:38am

    Re: Department for Work and Pensions

    The problem with that logic is that if you care to, I'm sure you could stretch it to cover pretty much any government agency. Mass, indiscriminate spying is bad enough when the excuse is 'we need it to stop terrorists', 'We need to spy on everyone, just in case some of them are committing some minor crimes' is even worse.

    If they believe that someone's filing bogus claims, they can investigate that one person, they don't need to be able to sort through everyone's data to do their job.

  • Dec 1st, 2015 @ 1:12am

    Let the roadblock building commence

    With billions on the line, you can be sure that the major pharmaceutical companies are going to be doing everything they can think of to derail and/or destroy this. If they actually have to compete on price, they stand to lose a hefty sum, much easier to kill the competition to keep it from ever reaching that point.

  • Nov 30th, 2015 @ 11:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Balderdash, what next, claiming that the illegal nature of various drugs opens up massive opportunities for the criminal element to move in, and as a result take blatant advantage of the complete lack of laws and regulations to screw people over left and right, opportunities that would not exist were the drugs in question legal and regulated?

  • Nov 30th, 2015 @ 9:06pm

    Re: They don't need cameras for exoneration

    Hence the reason they don't consider that aspect of bodycams to be a worthwhile trade, because they stand to gain almost nothing, while standing to lose quite a lot.

    If it's the word of a cop over the word of a citizen regarding an accusation against a cop, innocent or guilty, the vast majority of the time the court/'Internal investigation' is going to side with the cop, and dismiss the charges. Bodycam footage doesn't really change this. If they were innocent, then bodycam footage isn't going to somehow make them more innocent.

    However, if they're guilty of what they're being accused of, suddenly bodycam footage becomes all sorts of problematic, as it's no longer just 'Citizen said X happened' vs 'Officer said Y happened', there's real evidence that can be examined, and it's more difficult to just brush it under the rug.

    Put simply, bodycam footage can help against bogus charges against police, but given how the deck is already stacked in their favor, it's not like they really needed the help. At the same time though, it can be used to verify legitimate charges, and that is something the corrupt cops really don't care for, hence the pushback.

  • Nov 30th, 2015 @ 7:44pm

    Re: What goes around...

    Well clearly that would be a horrendous violation of her privacy, as tracking someone's movement like that is terribly invasive, and should be treated as little better than stalking.

    Remember, 'One law for you, another for me'.

  • Nov 30th, 2015 @ 6:46am


    Nonsense, everyone knows that any communications must clearly and concisely spell out exactly what is meant, so that should police and/or government agencies want to know what is being said, they don't have to worry if what's written is what's intended to be conveyed. I mean come now, just because they murdered a bunch of people, do you really think they would have been willing to break the law by communicating in a manner that the spies couldn't understand them?

    This is the same reason it's illegal to communicate in person with someone unless a police or government official is nearby to listen in and is able to ask for clarifications to anything said, because it's absolutely forbidden for criminals to communicate in private or otherwise in a fashion that official voyeurs can't understand them, and since it's impossible to know ahead of time who might be a criminal, no-one is allowed to communicate in private.

  • Nov 30th, 2015 @ 5:45am

    Trick #1 of stage magic

    Distract the audience with something flashy in one hand, while you do the actual trick with the other.

    In this case, they threw a fit over one program, which is apparently completely redundant, so that when it was 'beaten', people would think that something had actually been done, when in fact the indiscriminate spying wouldn't even suffer so much as a pause, as other programs continued on, same as before.

    So long as they can keep any potential lawsuits focused on specific programs, rather than the spying as a whole(and good luck getting a judge to grant standing on that, given how hard it is with known programs), even if they 'lose' it doesn't really matter, as they just close one program and start up another.

    While it's important to fight the individual spying programs, it's equally important to realize that the problem will persist until the idea of general, indiscriminate spying itself is dealt with, along with the secret 'courts' making secret 'laws' that allows such to continue.

  • Nov 30th, 2015 @ 5:34am

    Re: Who wants to lose his job?

    Lucky them, they don't have to. They just need to dangle the threat of 'If you cut our budget, and/or get rid of our spying programs, and something gets through, you will get the blame for it' in front of the politicians, very few of which are going to be willing to 'risk' their careers to protect the rights of the public.

  • Nov 30th, 2015 @ 5:21am

    Re: Re: "Report? What report?"

    You seem to be having fun beating on the 'they let it happen' drum, so let me point something out for you: It doesn't matter if they did or not.

    Let me repeat that in case you missed it: It does not matter if they knew about the attack and let it happen, or if they honestly missed it, with regards to the topics of encryption/mass spying

    Whether they deliberately let the attack through, or just flat out missed it in the piles of junk data is a moot point, what matters is that the indiscriminate spying failed, utterly, to do anything against a group that did everything short of mailing their plans to the police ahead of time(print yes, mail no), meaning it's clearly a complete and utter failure, and all the justifications for it of 'We need to spy on everyone to stop attacks like this!' are rubbish. And if the justifications are nothing but empty words, then the programs, and the calls for increasing them, now have no ground beneath them other than 'We really like spying on everyone's personal communications'.

    That is the important part, pointing out that the justifications for the mass-spying is crap, and the calls for undermining security even more so, because neither is apparently helping them even against those that are practically trying to be caught. And if you take away the justifications, then the programs they are supporting should be removed as well.

  • Nov 30th, 2015 @ 5:01am

    Re: Re: "It's not our fault we had too much hay to sift through to find them in time! Completely unrelated, we need more hay."

    They failed in their stated goals, that of preventing such attacks, exposing the justification of 'We need to spy on everyone in order to protect you' as complete crap. They had the needed information, those responsible weren't even trying to hide, and all the indiscriminate mass-spying did absolutely nothing to stop them, and if it can't stop people that incompetent, then clearly the programs are useless and need to be shut down.

    If they can't even catch people who take no real security precautions, the idea that they would do any better against those that do is a joke without a punchline.

  • Nov 30th, 2015 @ 4:48am

    "Report? What report?"

    Maybe, but given how those throwing hysterical fits over how the (non-existent) encryption of the attackers was such a problem have acted so far, I'd expect them to flat out ignore this report, just like they've flat out ignored all the other evidence showing how encryption had nothing to do with the failure to stop the attack.

    They haven't let such trifles as 'evidence' and 'facts' get in the way of their grab for more power so far after all, why would they start now?

  • Nov 30th, 2015 @ 1:48am

    "It's not our fault we had too much hay to sift through to find them in time! Completely unrelated, we need more hay."

    Given how out in the open the attackers operated, the law enforcement and intelligence community failed massively in not stopping this. No wonder they're grasping at straws to find something to blame, even if it had nothing to do with the attacks.

    Which makes those using the attacks for their own gains reprehensible for two reasons. They're using tragedy for their own gain in trying to get even more power than they already have, as well as trying to shift the blame for their own incompetence onto something they would really like to see crippled, despite the fact that it had nothing to do with their failure.

    They failed, and it's entirely possible that a big reason for that is that their voyeuristic obsession meant that they had too much junk info to sort through to spot the important bits in time. Rather than admit that though, or even admit that they failed at all, they double down, and insist that their failure means that people should be made even less safe, as though that would make things better for anyone but them and other criminals that don't have badges.

  • Nov 27th, 2015 @ 11:39pm

    Re: Re:

    The best government money can buy.

  • Nov 26th, 2015 @ 3:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Not a chance.

    Those that insist that the patent system is all sunshine and roses, without any downsides, will either just ignore the issue, pretending it's not happening, or find some way to claim that while this is an abuse of the patent system, when applied 'properly'(that is used against small companies/inventors rather than large companies) the patent system is infallible, and nothing but good.

  • Nov 25th, 2015 @ 10:16pm

    That's one way to kill the comments section I suppose...

    And with one retroactive decision, they both drastically cut down on reader comments, and ensure that only complete idiots will ever be willing to provide 'anonymous' statements to them in the future.

More comments from That One Guy >>