tqk 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (2649) comment rss

  • On the post: FBI Deploying Large-Scale Hacking With Little To No Judicial Oversight

    tqk ( profile ), 08 Jan, 2016 @ 11:56am

    Re:

    I'm still not clear on how operating a honeypot site isn't entrapment.

    I'd like to know how they're going to prove they've preserved evidence of a crime, as opposed to planting/manufacturing evidence. Once you've got root/admin, all bets are off. I wonder if judges and lawyers understand this. Perhaps they've determined via parallel construction that someone's a perpetrator. Hand that person's details off to this bunch and they can plant unassailable damning evidence (as long as no one looks at it too closely).

    All those cop shows I watched went into excruciating detail over chain of evidence stuff and any flaws risk the case falling apart. So, how do they prove they're not just witch hunting or nailing some random victim to inflate their stats?

    I hope they've got more than "created account on malicious server" to back them up, especially when the FBI is doing far worse things than that here.

  • On the post: Federal Judge Finds NYPD Engaged In Evidence Spoliation By Destroying Documents Related To Summons Quota Lawsuit

    tqk ( profile ), 08 Jan, 2016 @ 07:25pm

    Yoohoo, NSA?

    Too bad the judge can't just subpoena the NSA. That haystack in Utah ought to clear this problem up in no time. Just redefine the NYPD as a rogue gov't and deliver what they sadly ("Boohoo, sorry!") failed to retain.

    Wouldn't it be lovely (for everyone) if all these monsters could be convinced to squeal on each other? Eventually, we might even get back to that "of the people, by the people, for the people" ideal we once treasured, and they could all go back to doing the jobs we want them to do instead of silly turf wars like this.

  • On the post: US Copyright Office Asks For Public Comments On DMCA's Notice And Takedown

    tqk ( profile ), 08 Jan, 2016 @ 11:08am

    Re: Re: Re: No automation

    A false DMCA takedown is perjury!

    The perjury clause is only if you claim to be someone you are not.

    I could be mistaken, but my understanding is the submitter is attesting that the details claimed are true to the best of their knowledge, on penalty of perjury.
    If I claim to have copy protections over a work that I don't and in fact Disney has control over said work that's not perjury.

    No, and as Rightshaven found, it's an invalid claim in the first place over which they had no right to complain. Only the rightsholder has the right to sue for infringement, not some tool that the rightsholder hired to do it for them.

  • On the post: GQ And Forbes Go After Ad Blocker Users Rather Than Their Own Shitty Advertising Inventory

    tqk ( profile ), 08 Jan, 2016 @ 10:30am

    Re: Re: Re: I guess?

    Are you assuming browser extensions are the same way?

    I know how computers work. Each running process takes up resources; RAM, CPU, network communications, and storage read/writes. Each one of these processes execute, trigger more work when they detect what they're looking for, and call on other processes and system resources. Some work may be fobbed off on the web server the browser's communicating with, and the server may be telling your browser to kick off stuff on its own. Each of those cause latency slowing down the overall process.

    I doubt browser extensions are much different from any other type of process.

  • On the post: Judge In Nutty PETA Monkey Copyright Trial Skeptical Of PETA's Argument, But Let's Them Try Again

    tqk ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2016 @ 03:29pm

    Re:

    Doesn't the monkey get to select his own lawyer?

    I very much doubt the monkey even knows any of this is happening, much less what a lawyer is or why it'd need or want one. As the article says, this's all just PETA PR grandstanding, pretty much all they ever do or have ever done. The monkey's never going to get anything out of it, much like any class action suit.

  • On the post: Judge In Nutty PETA Monkey Copyright Trial Skeptical Of PETA's Argument, But Let's Them Try Again

    tqk ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2016 @ 03:22pm

    Re: AI

    ... if we expand copyright to other mammals, what about content created by artificial intelligence?

    I believe that gets into work-for-hire land which copyright already covers. If you're a wage-slave/employee and you do something on your own time that turns out to be valuable, your employer owns it. Should'a been a contractor instead (and read that contract carefully).

    Can't have those slaves earning enough to buy their freedom now, can we, especially when we're being dinged mercilessly for their benefit package?

  • On the post: Former NSA Whistleblower Bill Binney Warns UK Lawmakers Mass Surveillance Will 'Cost Lives In Britain'

    tqk ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2016 @ 02:36pm

    Re: Re: have you ever?

    Cick History and type in a keyword. Job done.

    IFF that keyword is embedded in the URL or page title, yes. If that keyword is instead embedded within the page itself, you're better off $googling (I prefer Ixquick), and then good luck finding that page you vaguely remember reading at one time long ago.

  • On the post: GQ And Forbes Go After Ad Blocker Users Rather Than Their Own Shitty Advertising Inventory

    tqk ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2016 @ 01:33pm

    Re: I guess?

    ... I use uBlock Origin, Ghostery, and Flashblock. Maybe the author needs to use better ad blocking software?

    About a decade ago, I started hearing about people using multiple anti-virus suites at once. Half their CPU was being taken up by anti-virus programs! That brand new, state of the art quad core box was performing no better than the single core CPU box they had five years ago.

    Don't you think it's a bit odd that you need to saddle your system with three already? How long will it be before you're using six, or twelve, or twenty-four, ...?

  • On the post: GQ And Forbes Go After Ad Blocker Users Rather Than Their Own Shitty Advertising Inventory

    tqk ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2016 @ 01:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: We can block if we want to...

    I realize that to those of you who are mere ignorant newbies and weren't around back in the day that it's difficult to imagine the Internet without advertising.

    But we built it. It ran. It worked. It was just fine.

    True, and because it worked, every commercial concern out there jumped onto the web to have "an on-line presence." Why? To help them sell their stuff; Forbes and GQ magazine for instance.

    Then some shithead MBA decided the "on-line presence" had to pay for itself, or even show a profit if possible. Hence, advertising. Lots and lots of advertising, and some of the worst advertising ever imagined; pop-up ads, ads which completely took over the browser, or even the desktop. Worse advertising than TV, and that's saying something (no mute button, autoplay videos, ...). Continue that with websites with cookies to follow you wherever you went, and store your web activity in databases, then sell that data to their "corporate partners."

    Now, they're insistent that we're stealing their content if we're not letting them treat our web activity like TV on steroids.

    Fuck 'em, indeed.

  • On the post: UK Government Spends Three Years And Large Sums Of Money To Avoid Revealing The Number '13'

    tqk ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2016 @ 06:17pm

    Re:

    In any sane organization, wasting that sort of money and resources on something so trivial would result in the immediate firings of senior management.

    Any sane organization would wonder what's wrong with telling the truth. "Thirteen." End of story. "Why didn't you have more?" "That'd be more expensive, for one thing, and each meeting was already sufficiently productive." Again, end of story.

    This being the British gov't (I suppose it could have been any gov't, however; they're all pretty thin skinned these days), they immediately went into "offended by the effrontery" mode for those peasants questioning their actions, how dare they?!? Bloody riff-raff! Up with this, we will not put!

  • On the post: GQ And Forbes Go After Ad Blocker Users Rather Than Their Own Shitty Advertising Inventory

    tqk ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2016 @ 05:13pm

    Re:

    Honestly, just consider the minority of users who use ad blockers as loss leaders.

    Alternatively, moan and complain about ad blockers, driving blog writers to produce articles like this which inform all and sundry that GQ and Forbes are too much pain and aggravation to bother with to get what they offer in return.

    Hmm. Six of one, or half a dozen of the other? I was told the dinosaurs died out. What's with all these dinosaurs wandering about?

  • On the post: Pioneer In Internet Anonymity Hands FBI A Huge Gift In Building Dangerous Backdoored Encryption System

    tqk ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2016 @ 04:38pm

    Re: Re:

    Or is obeying the law under pain of imprisonment.

    A simpler and safer way of obeying that law is simply to assume encryption has been made illegal. Encryption is not the only way to pass secrets so I'll use the other, less convenient, ways instead. What have they gained? Animosity. What have I lost? Convenience, and that's all.

    Stupid game. Their move.

  • On the post: Pioneer In Internet Anonymity Hands FBI A Huge Gift In Building Dangerous Backdoored Encryption System

    tqk ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2016 @ 03:16pm

    Re: Re:

    Other Nominees: Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange

    North Korea's Kim Jong Un, the Zeta drug cartel.

  • On the post: UK Legislators Want To Toss Tech Company Officials In Jail If They Inform Users About Government Surveillance Efforts

    tqk ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2016 @ 02:33pm

    Re:

    ... he is systematically destroying the very things the UK was so famous for and so adamant about keeping, PRIVACY AND FREEDOM!

    Oh, poo. That was only for the upper classes, not the peasants like you. Do enjoy your addition to the GCHQ's priority watch list. The NSA is currently grepping every haystack they have for your on-line activity which will be forwarded post haste.

  • On the post: UK Legislators Want To Toss Tech Company Officials In Jail If They Inform Users About Government Surveillance Efforts

    tqk ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2016 @ 02:17pm

    Re: Re:

    It's "National Security" when the government tries to overthrow the people.

    Lets just replace "National Security" with "Nazi." It's simpler and more honest.

  • On the post: UK Government Spends Three Years And Large Sums Of Money To Avoid Revealing The Number '13'

    tqk ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2016 @ 01:53pm

    Re: It's telling

    It's very telling of the government if it refers to the public, which it should be serving, as pollution, waste, garbage, disgusting filthy toxic beings.

    No, no, no. This is Britain. They couldn't care less about the public. The "disgusting filthy toxic beings" he was referring to were British news outlets, deservedly so.

  • On the post: Judge Helps Ensure That The More Ignorant Law Enforcement Officers Are, The More They'll Be Able To Get Away With

    tqk ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2016 @ 01:19pm

    Re: And educated cops get fired.

    I don't recall seeing techdirt cover this case of a UGA cop being fired for obeying the law ...

    Stupid cop? "... he was fired after following a new law barring criminal charges ..." He wasn't charged. He was fired.

    Note: TD is an opinion blog, not news and current events journalism.

  • On the post: Judge Helps Ensure That The More Ignorant Law Enforcement Officers Are, The More They'll Be Able To Get Away With

    tqk ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2016 @ 01:09pm

    Re: Judge dumber than the Cops

    Sane way to handle is to simply legalize!

    That's what Canada's new emperor Trudeau thought. Now we learn it's going to take a lot of negotiations with provinces and negating international treaties before it can happen. I wonder if I'll live to see it. What a bone-headed idea this was!

  • On the post: Judge Helps Ensure That The More Ignorant Law Enforcement Officers Are, The More They'll Be Able To Get Away With

    tqk ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2016 @ 12:54pm

    Re: Re: Who's responsible for the tests?

    It has to get really out of hand before anyone speaks out ...

    Apparently so!
    ... as many as 40,000 people could have been falsely convicted as a result of Dookhan's actions. ... defendants whose convictions on drug charges were based on evidence potentially tainted by disgraced former state chemist Annie Dookhan can pursue retrials ...

    I've got to wonder how any one bad apple can cause that much collateral damage without a lot of silent partners in crime. If I were a prosecutor, I'd be looking with glee at all the dirty cops I'm going to be spending the rest of my career putting in jail. "For all you officers and prosecutors who wanna get your arrest or conviction stats up, give it to Annie."

    Fearless drug warriors, that's a Pyhrric Victory! What in the world are we doing worrying about illicit drugs when we've got hordes of crooked and/or incompetent cops and prosecutors roaming the halls of justice?!?

  • On the post: New Zealand's Raid On Investigatory Journalist Was Illegal

    tqk ( profile ), 06 Jan, 2016 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I really hope no one today is seriously looking to those times as inspiration.

    I propose a pilot project. Once we've seen a few from Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., and the Fed go through the process, we can evaluate the result. Until then, I'll just sit here waiting, wishing I had some cake.

    I am not going to soon forget what those bastards pulled. I do want to see heads roll.

Next >>