That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 21st, 2018 @ 5:31am

    Re: A clear sign of the court abrogating its responsibilities

    Yeah, that was absolutely a WTF moment. It's not their job to worry about the financial viability of companies that might be impacted just because something might be removed from being covered under copyright.

    If a ruling means that those companies can no longer demand tolls for access to the law then too damn bad, it's not up to the state or courts to prop them up to the detriment of the public.

  • Jul 21st, 2018 @ 2:26am

    'Nuh-uh, your article was wrong because reasons!'

    Sadly if his response to the News-Gazette is any indication any such email would likely be too short to get much entertainment out of it.

    Mind, I do hope he takes a swing at it, as 'yet another putz sends TD a threat under the hilariously flawed idea that it will cow them into silence' articles are always worth a chuckle.

  • Jul 20th, 2018 @ 11:27pm

    Make up your mind

    "Don't try to report on things you do not understand and are unwilling to research," he wrote. "Your reporting on this matter has been idiotic in the extreme."

    First he goes off on them for not researching the topic enough, then he followed through with an accusation that would seem to imply that they did plenty of research.

    Which is it?

  • Jul 20th, 2018 @ 4:55pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "For your profession the day one of your employees cost their employer three thousand dollars and a PR black-eye was the day they found themselves shown the door, informed that after such an impressive showing of incompetence the odds of them being employed in the field again were extremely low.

    But for law enforcement, it was tuesday."

  • Jul 20th, 2018 @ 4:48pm

    Letting a 'bad apple' go... eventually

    Then he admitted it wasn't a department translator, but rather someone named Lilia... who just happened to be Bates' wife.

    Bates did not activate his camera, violating PD policy. He also admitted to trying to get Hawkley to deactivate his body cam.

    Body-worn camera footage reportedly showed that Bates omitted mentioning a pat-down search in his police report on the incident.

    Other video from that case also shows Bates having a conversation with another officer about how to come up with probable cause to make an enforcement stop when there is nothing readily apparent.

    That sort of behavior does not magically spring into existence. A good cop does not just wake up one day and decide, 'you know, those 'rules' and 'laws' are too much of a pain, thing I'll ignore them from now on'.

    While it's nice that they let him resign and therefore he's no longer working for them from the sounds of it he should have been given the boot long before this point, such that the appearance isn't that what he did was a problem, simply that this latest act was too public for them to continue putting up with him.

  • Jul 20th, 2018 @ 4:36pm

    Re: Re: Reading comprehension?

    It also doesn't mention phones or the internet(among other things), so are actions involving those covered by the first amendment, or are they excluded because they aren't mentioned?

  • Jul 20th, 2018 @ 3:24pm


    That they'd be done more in the open, which is a good thing for everyone involved, except the parasites of course.

    Alternatively they could shift from licensing till the end of time/new standards are created and the old ones are swapped out to one-off, 'single payment and that's it' jobs, where they are hired to develop the standards, they are paid for development, and the government now owns them and as such they are free for anyone to access and/or post because they are part of the law.

    In such a scenario if they want to get more money down the line then they'll have to do more work to get it, just like basically everyone else, with no more locking up legally binding standards and demanding a toll for access.

  • Jul 20th, 2018 @ 3:13pm


    Don't blame cops, blame the politicians that employ the cops.

    Uh, no. Unless said politicians are holding the cop's family hostage such that they have no choice but to do something then even a direct order from a politician does not absolve a cop from their actions(for one thing I"m pretty sure that politicians don't have the authority to give orders to police).

    'I/they was/were just following orders' has never been a valid excuse or 'get out of responsibility free' card.

  • Jul 20th, 2018 @ 3:07pm

    Re: Opt out of sharing?

    As I read it the problem isn't that it can make sense, but that the standards they are using aren't consistent.

    Could Facebook 'infer' consent or are they required to get a clear and unambiguous granting of permission?

    Is Google allowed to 'infer' that someone who's used their service for one thing has consented to that information being used for another thing, or are they likewise required to get explicit permission for any given use?

    If they want to say that it's fine for the government to 'infer' consent, then unless they are willing to grant that same ability to companies and individuals running impacted platforms they're being hypocritical in using two sets of interpretations of the law, one for them, and one for everyone else.

  • Jul 20th, 2018 @ 3:04pm


    Yes, but think about how amazing the service and prices would be without those pesky and anti-innovative rules? You'd all but certainly have multi-TB rather than GB connections, for a fraction of the costs, were it not for those extremely burdensome regulations holding them back.

  • Jul 19th, 2018 @ 6:16pm

    Re: NOW

    Have an insightful vote for noting what should happen, and a (not so) funny vote for for the fact that it almost certainly never will.

  • Jul 19th, 2018 @ 6:13pm

    No risk, all reward

    It's a win-don't win(which is distinct from 'lose') scenario from the perspective of the police.

    If they get to keep their stolen goods then they gain from it.

    If they don't get to keep their stolen goods and are merely forced to return what they stole then they don't gain anything, but they also don't lose anything either, they're simply back where they started.

    If they don't get to keep their stolen goods and are forced to pay for the theft then they don't gain or lose anything, but someone else has to pay for their theft, which costs them nothing.

    With a risk vs reward system like that, where they can only gain and someone else always pays any penalty it's no wonder you've got police stealing anything that isn't nailed down or on fire(then breaking out the crowbars and fire-extinguishers for whatever's left); they have no reason not to and every reason to do so.

  • Jul 19th, 2018 @ 2:50am


    IOW do prosecutors deliberately push interpretation of law and policy in extreme cases such as these knowing those involved will be very focused on justice for the victims? Or are these honest mistakes that happen in the fog of anger, passion and zeal?

    Little of column A, little of column B I suspect.

    (The attempt a few years back to undermine encryption by forcing companies, Apple at the time, to decrypt was very much the former as a semi-recent article revealed. They were pushing the case because the wanted the precedent from it, and with the 'defendant' being both murdering scum and dead they probably figured they'd have a trivial time of it.)

    As for leaving a foul taste in your mouth, yeah, that's unfortunately how it works more often than not, where you can all too easily find yourself defending the rights of truly deplorable people because the rights and legal protections that they enjoy are the same ones that could very well save you if you find yourself in the crosshairs down the line and a prosecutor is looking to add another notch on the 'plea deal/convictions' record.

  • Jul 18th, 2018 @ 11:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: yeah

    Assuming they're not just trolling I'm pretty sure second one is referencing the 'mark of the beast' gibberish, so yeah, 'nonsense' would be putting it mildly.

  • Jul 18th, 2018 @ 11:15pm

    That's a feature, not a bug

    That's arguably myopic, and it's unlikely the next Netflix is quite so confident. Because Netflix is wealthy and powerful enough to fend off anti-competitive efforts by AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, doesn't mean the death of the rules won't be problematic for thousands of small businesses, startups and entrepreneurs who'll be operating on a decidedly-tilted playing field.

    Otherwise known as 'potential competition', which Netflix is making clear they could not care less about because they are already in a position where they're pretty sure that it won't impact them much.

    Unfortunately by flipping position from pro-network neutrality to, if not anti- then at least indifferent to, Netflix is also undermining any arguments they have made in the past on the subject. It's trivial now to spin anything they said before as being entirely self-centered, said not because they truly believed in the idea of network neutrality, but simply because it benefited them at the time.

    I almost hope this comes back to bite them in the backside('So, after careful consideration and looking at network traffic, it seems we're going to have to ask for a little extra if you want your service on our network...'), and the only reason at this point that I don't is because it would result in the general public being screwed over even more.

  • Jul 18th, 2018 @ 10:49pm

    'I support your right to speak... just not on MY lawn.'

    We support your right to free speech, which is why your dumb ass has never been blocked or banned, not any comment deleted.

    Minor correction, one could block or ban someone from a privately owned platform and still support free speech in general, as despite the claims by a certain individual there is no free speech 'right' to use a privately owned platform. Flagging comments isn't a violation of anyone's 'free speech', but even a block or ban wouldn't be either so long as the platform in question wasn't government owned/public property, which TD is not.

    It's a difference of 'you're not allowed to speak' vs 'You're not allowed to use someone else's platform to speak/disrupt things for everyone else using that platform'.

  • Jul 18th, 2018 @ 7:24pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I strongly disagree, especially in light of the rest of the article- the fact that most cops do their job in a competent manner, most of the time (yes, even the bad ones- and it's not excusing their behavior otherwise to say this.) is definitely deserving of space in this article. To not give it even a few passing sentences, is misleading and harmful. The world would not function if this where not the case.

    Should article covering ISP's that are screwing their customers take time to point out that at times they also manage to deliver what they promised?

    Should articles covering when a politician said/did something incredibly stupid take time out to note that they also managed to vote on a sensible bill, or say something that doesn't lead to a face-palm caused concussion?

    'Person did their job in a competent fashion' is not noteworthy unless that's the exception, something out of the norm. 'Person said or did something stupid, and/or abused their position' is noteworthy as that's not supposed to be the norm.

    I think maybe you haven't even made an attempt at compassion, let alone empathy, for what police officers have to go through. The risk is not made up. Argue all you want that it's overstated on the whole- I'd probably agree; but that doesn't change the individual experience of the officer that steps up to take on those challenges.

    On the contrary, I'm fully aware that the job can be risky. Not nearly as risky as some would like to portray it as, but it does certainly carry some risk. However, that in no way excuses abuse of authority. It in no way excuses other cops(and certainly the unions) refusing to hold the 'few bad apples' accountable, allowing them to continue to abuse their authority, at times with lethal results.

    'Empathy and compassion' does not excuse abuse of authority, and it especially doesn't excuse indifference if not active opposition to holding those engaged in it accountable.

    Or put another way, I'd be a lot more willing to give police the benefit of the doubt and accept actual mistakes if they showed any interest in punishing those among themselves who's actions are anything but 'mistakes', or who have acted in a manner that would get anyone else fired if not thrown in a cell. I'd be more willing to accept honest mistakes if they were willing to own those mistakes rather than brush them aside and/or try to excuse them in a way that they hold no responsibility.

    That fear- that reality- is not something that should be dismissed so easily, it's a fact of life for anyone that choses this occupation.

    And that right there gets to an important part. People are not drafted into police work. You do not have government agents showing up at your house informing you that come next week your profession is going to be law enforcement, like it or not. They choose to do the job, if they can't handle what it involves or simply don't care to then they are more than welcome to quit and let someone else do it.

    I think, if you considered that seriously, you'd find that you have some 'inherent' respect for people who would chose to take on this risk- the respect HAS been earned, to some extent, even before more concrete individual inter-actions.

    No, not really. A person can earn respect by their actions, a profession does not grant it. Do I respect those that honestly try their best to serve the public, who refuse to provide cover for mistakes/'mistakes' by those working alongside them, and hold themselves to a higher standard because of this? Sure, but that has nothing to do with the badge or uniform and everything to do with what they do.

    Any number of professions carry increased risk, simply choosing to be a member is not in and of itself worthy of respect, it's what you do after that that can earn it.

    we're fucking human, cops are no exception, and if you think there wouldn't be a significant (if not catastrophic) effect from lack of immunity, you simply haven't given it enough thought....put yourself in their the work...think.

    I find it just slightly absurd to think that 'you are held to the same standards as everyone else, if not higher standards given your position and what it entails' would result in 'catastrophic' effects. Increased power and authority should have higher expectations and standards attached, not lower.

  • Jul 18th, 2018 @ 5:47pm

    Re: Re:

    He said he plans to call the owners of Longboat Brewing to see if the two companies can work out an arrangement to avoid any confusion in the future.

    From the sound of it that's exactly what Plan B is, persuade or 'persuade' them to drop the name. However, as noted in the article after what they tried to do if they think Longboat is going to be at all well disposed to them they are likely to be sorely disappointed.

  • Jul 18th, 2018 @ 5:19pm

    Re: Re: Invaluable to the rest of us

    If the source code had been released for everybody, then white hats could have searched for vulnerabilities in order to disclose and fix them.

    Followed by being sued and/or threatened with lawsuits for their actions, because as any good pointy-haired manager knows those flaws weren't there until the blasted hackers told people about them!

  • Jul 17th, 2018 @ 8:33pm

    Faulty comparison

    There's a pretty significant difference between 'I think this comment nailed it and want to make sure that people see it' and 'Here's some 'donation' money, if you want more in the future it would be 'nice' if you passed laws friendly to us.'

    One of those draws some extra attention to a comment that would have been and is visible anyway, the other does quite a bit more than that.

More comments from That One Guy >>