The Original Anonymous Coward 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (98) comment rss

  • On the post: UK Law Enforcement Also Looking To Be Able To Seize Domains

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2011 @ 11:23am

    This will mean that we just have to back to memorizing IP addresses...

    ... but we'll have to make sure that there are enough IPv6 addresses to go around so that as they are confiscated, we can still get a new one.

    Let's see, did that old Techdirt domain name point to 208.53.48.128 or .129?

  • On the post: Wikileaks Wasn't The Only Operation HBGary Federal, Palantir And Berico Planned To Defraud

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2011 @ 06:47pm

    Re: Re: Two items - Poor headline and question about dirty tricks

    I can't answer your first question, as I haven't had a chance to read up on that one yet.

    On your second comment, I'm not transferring blame to anyone. I just observed that sometimes when people/organizations become involved with folks who do illegal or unauthorized things, even if they do so with the best of intentions, they end up getting dragged into the same sleazy world in which the original two parties operate.

    This shouldn't surprise anyone, maybe except those whose naivety and idealism blind them to the realities of the world in which they unfortunately have to live.

  • On the post: Wikileaks Wasn't The Only Operation HBGary Federal, Palantir And Berico Planned To Defraud

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2011 @ 01:51pm

    Re: Two items - Poor headline and question about dirty tricks

    Oops - "... used words having to do with lying, forgery, etc...", not "... used works".

    :(

  • On the post: Wikileaks Wasn't The Only Operation HBGary Federal, Palantir And Berico Planned To Defraud

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 11 Feb, 2011 @ 01:50pm

    Two items - Poor headline and question about dirty tricks

    The headline makes it seem like these three outfits were going to defraud Wikileaks of something.

    From dictionary.com:

    defraud (dɪˈfrɔːd)
    ?vb (tr)
    to take away or withhold money, rights, property, etc, from (a person) by fraud; cheat; swindle

    I don't think that was what they were trying to do, although that might have happened.

    Maybe a better headline would have used works having to do with lying, forgery, etc...

    Second item - Not to justify bad behaviour by pointing out other bad behaviour, but when an organization engages in dirty tricks, like distributing information that was provided by a person who was unauthorized to do so, shouldn't that organization expect the same treatment? Not to say it's right or justified, but when you get down in the mud with the pigs, you have to expect to get dirty.

  • On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2011 @ 08:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The article to which I linked notes that during WWI, several newspapers and journalists were among the over 2000 people prosecuted under the Espionage Act.

    You must have missed that paragraph.

  • On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2011 @ 06:02pm

    Re: Re:

    But it has been a crime, at least back during the First World War. Whether it's treated as a crime now in the US seems to depend on who's in charge at the US Justice Department. The timeline at the above link seems to show that outrage at secrets being published by the media seems to have died down as time went on, at least among the citizenry. The government's opinion of this activity was a different matter. Since Mr. Assange was not in the US when the alleged crime was committed and is not an US citizen, does that make him a foreign agent subject to US laws concerning espionage?

  • On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2011 @ 04:40pm

    Just for the sake of argument, let's take the internet out of this discussion for a moment.

    If Mr. Assange had received classified information from a person who was not authorized to release it, and had then published it or caused it to be published in print form, be it a book, newspaper, magazine, or whatever, would people in the US government still be clamoring for his prosecution?

    Probably, yes.

    If the documents had been dropped on his doorstep by unknown parties, is he part of a conspiracy to steal and distribute state secrets?

    Probably, no.

    Is he irresponsible for distributing the stolen material?

    That depends on whether a person supports the current and previous governments of the country that classified the information in the first place.

    If the person who illegally released the information talked to Mr. Assange and said "Here's some really cool stuff that will totally embarrass [country/corporation/vip/media outlet/hollywood starlet], would you like it?" and Mr. Assange said "Well, certainly I would!", would he be a member of a conspiracy to do just that?

    Probably, yes.

    Would the country/company/person/media outlet/etc... be able to take legal action against Mr. Assange?

    That depends on a lot of things like where he was located, local laws, and so on. IANAFL so I don't consider myself qualified to answer this question.

    Until some of these questions are answered, the rest is just speculation.

    Whether or not the US government is losing the moral high ground on the internet, if it ever had it, depends on a person's opinion of that government. I don't know if anyone has a handle on what the "rest of the world" thinks.

  • On the post: US Customs & Border Patrol Protecting America From Chocolate Toy Eggs (And Charging You For The Privilege)

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2011 @ 08:51pm

    Found the FDA regulation that bans these yummy eggs

    Here's the FDA reg. I've ...snipped... out the parts that don't apply. I think that (d)(1) and (d)(3) actually leave "the Secretary" some wiggle room. Maybe we should write a letter/eMail writing campaign to free the Kinder Eggs!
    --
    Sec. 402. [21 USC ?342] Adulterated Food

    Note: revisions were posted to this section in December 2007.

    A food shall be deemed to be adulterated

    (a) Poisonous, insanitary, or deleterious ingredients.

    ...snip...

    (b) Absence, substitution, or addition of constituents.

    ...snip...

    (c) Color additives. If it is, or it bears or contains, a color additive which is unsafe within the meaning of section 721(a).

    ...snip...

    (d) Confectionery containing alcohol or nonnutritive substance. If it is confectionery, and

    (1) has partially or completely imbedded therein any nonnutritive object, except that this subparagraph shall not apply in the case of any nonnutritive object if, in the judgment of the Secretary as provided by regulations, such object is of practical functional value to the confectionery product and would not render the product injurious or hazardous to health;

    (2) bears or contains any alcohol ...snip...;

    or

    (3) bears or contains any nonnutritive substance, except that this subparagraph shall not apply to a safe nonnutritive substance which is in or on confectionery by reason of its use for some practical functional purpose in the manufacture, packaging, or storage of such confectionery if the use of the substance does not promote deception of the consumer or otherwise result in adulteration or misbranding in violation of any provision of this Act, except that the Secretary may, for the purpose of avoiding or resolving uncertainty as to the application of this subparagraph, issue regulations allowing or prohibiting the use of particular nonnutritive substances.

  • On the post: US Customs & Border Patrol Protecting America From Chocolate Toy Eggs (And Charging You For The Privilege)

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 19 Jan, 2011 @ 12:42pm

    These have unfortunately been banned since 1938

    I've enjoyed these Kinder eggs ever since coming across them in Germany in the 70's. Unfortunately, they've been banned in the US since 1938 because of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

    They can be found in various small shops across the US, however, mostly because the owners bring them in themselves and don't know or don't care about the ban.

    Here's the Kinder Surprise Egg story.

  • On the post: New Congressional Leadership Prioritizes Wikileaks Investigation

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 04 Jan, 2011 @ 09:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Where in my comments did I say that I "defend pimping out children and killing civilians"? If you can show where I stated that, I shall certainly correct my post. If you cannot, I would appreciate an apology.

  • On the post: Why One Newspaper Agreed To Publish Leaked Cables: The Incompetence Of Governments

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 04 Jan, 2011 @ 09:42pm

    Re: Re: Linking secrecy and security

    Could you explain your assertion? How do you know what is implied by a clerk stamping a document as "secret"?

  • On the post: Why One Newspaper Agreed To Publish Leaked Cables: The Incompetence Of Governments

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 04 Jan, 2011 @ 06:52pm

    Linking secrecy and security

    Interesting analysis, but by the criteria mentioned in the quote, just about every government that has ever existed on the planet would be considered "incompetent" so I'm not sure that it tells us very much.

    I also don't recall this promise (we'll give you security if you let us keep stuff secret) being made by any US politician in recent memory, nor have I read of such a promise in any historical accounts. Maybe it's a commonly made promise in Spain.

  • On the post: New Congressional Leadership Prioritizes Wikileaks Investigation

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 03 Jan, 2011 @ 06:49pm

    Re: Re:

    Despite my previous comments, I do agree with your last point 100%!

  • On the post: New Congressional Leadership Prioritizes Wikileaks Investigation

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 03 Jan, 2011 @ 06:46pm

    Re: Re:

    "Some privacy, yes, but when that privacy is abused, then that's an issue. What Wikileaks has shown is that the privacy has been abused. Widely."

    My problem with Wikileaks is that it seems to be a one-man show, with Mr. Assange deciding what is abuse. I don't want that decision in the hands of a single person in the government, much less in his.

    "Again, no one said "no secrets." But the government is hiding questionable actions in the name of that privacy. That's a problem."

    Who determines what's questionable? Mr. Assange apparently thinks he does.

    "Actually, I disagree with that premise. If you can't do deals with public scrutiny, you shouldn't be in that job."

    Let's think about this. Should all corporate business negotiation details be discussed in the open, say for example in the Wall Street Journal, while they are on-going? Should the next round of Israeli & Palestinian or North & South Korean peace negotiations be televised live, straight from the negotiating table? While such events might be very interesting, how much do you think would be accomplished?

    Or as John Saxe (not Bismarck) said in 1869: "Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made."

  • On the post: New Congressional Leadership Prioritizes Wikileaks Investigation

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 03 Jan, 2011 @ 06:33pm

    Re: Re: A couple of points...

    We don't actually vote against over-classification or other abuses of various government systems. We vote for people to represent us in the government. For our government to work the way it was designed, we need to elect ethical representatives who have the best interest of their constituents at heart.

    If we elect them because we like what they say they will do while in the government, and they are honorable and ethical enough to keep their promises and do a good job, they would, in the course of legislative hearings, uncover stuff that needs to be uncovered. At the very least, they could refuse to fund programs suspected of being abusive.

    A democratic/republic/federal form of government relies on having good and honorable people represent the folks. If we don't have those types of people in the government, not much else matters anymore...

  • On the post: New Congressional Leadership Prioritizes Wikileaks Investigation

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 03 Jan, 2011 @ 03:42pm

    A couple of points...

    First, I try to read several German and UK news websites daily and from they've been carrying about the Wikigate stuff, I haven't seen that "nearly all of the international response we've seen about Wikileaks has been focused on just how incredibly hypocritical the US has been in its response" but they have written quite a bit about how futile it will be for the US to do anything to Lord Julius.

    Secondly, concerning levels of secrecy, the US has a representative form of government. We elect people with whom we agree after they tell us what they plan to do. Up to now, how much stuff gets classified and what classification levels are used hasn't been a bit topic of discussion among the American electorate.

    If bureaucrats are left to their own devices, the inertia that they create is incredible. If the American voters think that over-classification of government-produced information by these unelected political appointees is bad, they should elect people to fix the problem. Who among us is intelligent enough that they should be appointed Secret Documents Czar in order to solve this problem by royal fiat?

  • On the post: Predictions Of Today From 80 Years Ago

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 30 Dec, 2010 @ 08:58pm

    Flying cars

    Where are the flying cars? They promised me flying cars!

  • On the post: Why Does The Myth Persist That Wikileaks Is Indiscriminately Leaking Thousands Of Documents?

    The Original Anonymous Coward ( profile ), 30 Dec, 2010 @ 03:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Define "released"

    Unfortunately, all together too many people never read the initial WSJ article and they based their comments on an second and third had opinions which are sometimes taken as fact, and in this case on Mike's editorial about an article about an article. (Abrams -> Shafer -> Masner)

    This is even more so now that many of the original sources are putting up paywalls or requiring registration.

    Mike just published an excellent item by Daniel Ellsberg that apparently was triggered by a previous blog entry. Maybe Mr. Abrams will contact him as well.