Whatever 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1712) comment rss

  • On the post: FBI Says It Will Ignore Court Order If Told To Reveal Its Tor Browser Exploit, Because It Feels It's Above The Law…

    Whatever ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2016 @ 09:32pm

    Re:

    Wow, special.

    See guys, when you piss off Paul, this is his childish response.

    Techdirt, time to haul out the trash and ban Paul already.

  • On the post: IFPI Files DMCA Takedown… On A Creative Commons Song… Posted 12 Years Ago.

    Whatever ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2016 @ 09:29pm

    Re: Re:

    The link you provide is a page that is mostly broken, hard to tell what it is. However, there appears to have been a nice advertisement for EFF at this point.

    Interestingly, this site is apparently not indexed by the wayback machine, which means there is no way to see what the page was in the past. Odd that!

    I do note that the page has no real attribution on it. The current CC rules are:

    "Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use."

    It could perhaps be unlicensed as a result of using this to promote EFF without attribution and without clearly stating the relationship between the content and the promoted entity. It may also be that the page has a "share alike" license that does not match the license of the content.

    It could just be that he works for Google now... :)

  • On the post: IFPI Files DMCA Takedown… On A Creative Commons Song… Posted 12 Years Ago.

    Whatever ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2016 @ 06:15pm

    Re: Re:

    Fuck off troll.

  • On the post: Illinois Police Department Pulls Plug On Body Cameras Because Accountability Is 'A Bit Burdensome'

    Whatever ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2016 @ 05:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Missed it

    "Translation: it's OK for public servants to refuse to account for their actions because they think it's too hard to do so. What a pathetic excuse"

    Nah, pathetic is how desperate you are to slam me. You won't even consider a valid issue, and instead dismiss it out of hand. Then again, you avoided taxes by relocating to a tax haven country, so the costs to the taxpayer for things like this isn't relevant to you, is it?

    You can go look online (I suspect you may know how to use Google) and find plenty of police forces facing millions of dollars of costs JUST related to collection and storage of the data, and not even the extraction of it.

    "If I refused to provide logs to account for my work, I wouldn't get away with "it takes too long" or "it's too much work". Why is this OK for a police officer?"

    See, this proves you are a fucking idiot. It's not just a question of PROVIDING the log (video recording and storage is the easy part, not the problem, idiot!). The problem is in extracting the relevant footage from each officer that was at a scene, and vetting it to make sure that no personal information not relevant to this case is on the tape, that no access is granted to "private" or unsearchable locations, and so on. THINK PAST THE END OF YOUR POINTY LITTLE NOSE FOR A MINUTE and you might realize the problem.

    Then again, you are an idiot, so perhaps I expect too much of you.

  • On the post: Illinois Police Department Pulls Plug On Body Cameras Because Accountability Is 'A Bit Burdensome'

    Whatever ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2016 @ 05:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: So!

    The length of time or storage would be "life of any case". When you consider that a simple traffic ticket might take years to wander it's way through the courts, you cannot just arbitrarily toss out the video at 30 days to save storage. You must retain everything/

    " If it is being effective to reduce police abuse then it should be done, end of the story."

    There is always the question of cost. Public services have to live within budgets and within financial constraints as a result, and cannot just do what's right no matter the cost. You have to think of the staggering scale of things and how that relates to cost.

  • On the post: Illinois Police Department Pulls Plug On Body Cameras Because Accountability Is 'A Bit Burdensome'

    Whatever ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2016 @ 05:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missed it

    Temporary off buttons are a very bad idea, as it's likely that during any questionable activity someone will "bump" the button and poof, no video. Cameras only work when you record absolutely everything, the "unblinking eye" and then deal with it after the fact. If you really want to put the screws to questionable conduct, then you have to watch ALL the time, not just when the officer thinks it's good.

    I think it's bad that they are stopping to use the cameras. I do think that they came to realize however that it's both incredibly expensive and very time consuming to turn the raw video into anything usable, and that they were not ready (or able) to support all that came with it.

  • On the post: NBC Smells Cord Cutting On The Wind, Will Reduce 'SNL' Ad Load By 30% Next Season

    Whatever ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2016 @ 10:23pm

    Hard to understand where you are going...

    "And while creatively experimenting with how ads get delivered is certainly part of the solution, it's not going to be a substitute for the one thing broadcasters (and by proxy cable companies) have been totally unwilling to do: offer the same content at a lower price."

    You of course realize that NBC is OTA, totally completely and utterly free? There is no cost related to viewing SNL unless you choose to pay someone for cable rather than receiving it OTA. Most cord cutters freely admit that they have rabbit ears or another form of antenna to receive the free OTA. So arguing about cost to view SNL is a total non-starter.

    The real take away here though is that (just like with adblockers online) they are just going to move to a model that is in the end even more annoying, turning their "content" into "advertent". So that may mean product placements, ad signs, lower third advertising, brand name usage in the programming, and the like. It's way harder to filter out, and potentially even more valuable to advertisers. It's also more annoying to viewers in the long run. It turns every programming into a sort of disguised informercial, with the content of the show perhaps skewed to fit the products rather than the other way around.

  • On the post: IFPI Files DMCA Takedown… On A Creative Commons Song… Posted 12 Years Ago.

    Whatever ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2016 @ 06:14pm

    A couple of interesting questions here:

    While I see the DMCA for the specific file, I don't see a "used on this page" URL. Without this, there is no way to determine it's use (was it commercial?).

    That leads to the second question: If Harvard is a "for profit" university, and the material was used to promote the school in any manner, would that be a violation of the CC non-commercial license?

    See, without context, it's hard to judge. This story appears to be lacking context.

  • On the post: Illinois Police Department Pulls Plug On Body Cameras Because Accountability Is 'A Bit Burdensome'

    Whatever ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2016 @ 09:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Missed it

    "Why the hell would the officer being recorded be the one given responsibility to edit it?"

    Paul, with all due respect, you are a fucking idiot.

    I didn't say the officers would edit the video. I said that when there was a freedom of information request, someone would have to get the video, extract the items in question, and then review them. The time required to do that (if you have ever done any NLE or similar) is insanely long.

    Nobody is saying the officers would edit the footage, the would be fucking insane.

    Please, stop answering my posts, you come off like a fucking douche nozzle every time you do.

  • On the post: Illinois Police Department Pulls Plug On Body Cameras Because Accountability Is 'A Bit Burdensome'

    Whatever ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2016 @ 09:05pm

    Re: So!

    The problem isn't in the collection of raw footage, except that in the long run it's a very large amount of data that has to be ALL preserved in the same manner that you would preserve any evidence.

    The biggest issue is EXTRACTION. A single crime scene could involve a number of officers. You have to find the right dataset, you have to load the full file, you have to locate where the call happened in that video file, extract only the call, and then you have to review everything seen or said on the call to make sure that the material on the video is only related to that crime scene (and no others) and doesn't have any personal information or "private time" that should not be given out (like officer taking a nature break).

    You have to think that everything would have to go past a lawyer as well, maybe the DA, and maybe a privacy officer to assure that nobody's privacy is violated.

    Overall, just recording it and sticking it on a hard drive somewhere is easy. Managing, maintaining, and using the data is the hard part, both time wise and legally.

  • On the post: FCC To Ban Charter Communications From Imposing Usage Caps If It Wants Merger Approval

    Whatever ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2016 @ 06:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Uh, so?

    So you think it's acceptable for the FCC to impose conditions on a company that would likely lead to a competitor greatly harming it, and at the same time driving consumers to the alternate capped provider?

    Seems like it's lose-lose for consumers and the company.

  • On the post: House Reps To James Clapper: No, Really, Stop Ignoring The Question And Tell Us How Many Americans Are Spied On By NSA

    Whatever ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2016 @ 06:43pm

    Re: Re:

    Troll!

  • On the post: Illinois Police Department Pulls Plug On Body Cameras Because Accountability Is 'A Bit Burdensome'

    Whatever ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2016 @ 06:42pm

    Re: Re: Missed it

    Nice troll bait!

    I don't "support" it, but I can understand it. They have gone from a paper report from each agent to hours of cam footage that has to be reviewed, edited, and put together. This isn't like they added a new minutes extra work to the deal, it's adding hours. If you don't think so, just take a camera and record your full work day, and then take the time to edit out anytime you mention someone's name, or take a bathroom break, or eat, or chat on the phone with someone, or show personally identifiable information about people who are not primary to your video (like people standing around when you talk to someone).

    Then do that every day for a week.

    Suddenly, you will discover that you have to spend MORE time than your day was long at work, but even longer to edit it down.

    Then multiply it by the number of officers on a given scene, and you start to understand how much of a burden this could be.

    Reality: Cameras are a nice idea, but FOI requests against them appear to be a whole lot more work than anyone wants to admit.

  • On the post: FCC To Ban Charter Communications From Imposing Usage Caps If It Wants Merger Approval

    Whatever ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2016 @ 04:22pm

    Re: Uh, so?

    I agree. It would seem unenforceable.

    Moreover, I think it would create an unfair advantage for any competitor that they have, which would offer a lower capped price and take business away.

    I suspect a condition of sale like this could easily be shot down in court.

  • On the post: Illinois Police Department Pulls Plug On Body Cameras Because Accountability Is 'A Bit Burdensome'

    Whatever ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2016 @ 04:32pm

    Missed it

    I think you missed it all Tim, you are adding the wrong things up and trying not to understand.

    "Meyer could possibly be referring to redaction efforts, which could be time-consuming. He couldn't possibly be referring to the "burden" of uploading film because that's, well, non-existent."

    You missed entirely. What they would be talking about is (a) locating the raw uploaded video, (b) extracting only the time each officer was on the scene, and (c) uploading that footage to the area from where whoever requested the information could ask. Depending on their rules and such, it may require that the entire video is viewed and editing (to remove thing like bathroom breaks or non-related discussion such as answering phone or radio calls about other cases or events). It would be burdensome indeed!

    "When the going gets tough, the tough say, "Fuck it," apparently. "

    It's more a case of coming to realize that this great new source of information doesn't sort, edit, collate, or organize itself, and when you have multiple officers on the scene, it can end up being a really big amount of work to proving the information just like that.

  • On the post: House Reps To James Clapper: No, Really, Stop Ignoring The Question And Tell Us How Many Americans Are Spied On By NSA

    Whatever ( profile ), 25 Apr, 2016 @ 09:48am

    All I really got from this was "blah blah Wyden blah blah blah wyden".

    As someone else, said, I am sure another letter has got Clapper totally shitting himself. *right*.

  • On the post: Techdirt Reading List: Moral Panics And The Copyright Wars

    Whatever ( profile ), 23 Apr, 2016 @ 07:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ahh, stinky troll bait.

    The record labels not only generally pay (based on their contracts) but also provide huge sums of money UP FRONT, pre-paying artists to record for them.

    Perhaps you need to learn more about the music industry and the millions plowed into artists who many never actually make that money back because they are commercial flops.

  • On the post: Court: Border Search Warrant Exception Beats Riley In The 'Constitution-Free Zone'

    Whatever ( profile ), 23 Apr, 2016 @ 07:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Would you like a border sham? Would you like it Sam-I-am?

    "Citation that it applies to no one else, please."

    here, let me get that for you...


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

    "Citation that it is void in other cases, please."


    here, let me get that for you...


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

    Happy reading.

  • On the post: Court: Border Search Warrant Exception Beats Riley In The 'Constitution-Free Zone'

    Whatever ( profile ), 23 Apr, 2016 @ 05:36am

    Re: Re: Would you like a border sham? Would you like it Sam-I-am?

    "According to the ACLU, the "border" exemption applies to approx 2/3 of the US population! (~200 million people!)"

    Yes, but it applies for border patrol agents, and applies in situations related to import, export, human trafficking, and the like. The rule exists in no small part to avoid the issue of people crossing the border and running a few hundred meters to be "out of the jurisdiction" of the border patrol. It's not generally used as some sort of overwhelming, no warrant required system to harass the citizens.

    What it does allow is things like check points on major highways after the border, say 20 or 30 miles inland. This is a pretty important part of trying to stop human smuggling and such, as these are points with few options for people to get around. This has been a pretty effective deal overall.

    The constitution still applies. Trying to use this sort of exemption in non-border related issues would be a fail (but the ACLU doesn't want to talk about that, can't drive memberships when you have nothing scary for people to blindly repeat!).

  • On the post: Techdirt Reading List: Moral Panics And The Copyright Wars

    Whatever ( profile ), 22 Apr, 2016 @ 10:15am

    Re: Re:

    Ahh, so we ignore Google's constant attacks on artists rights, the constant nibbling at rhe edges, just because someone else is a jerk?

    That's a weak argument, and certainly doesn't address Google - just tries to deflect!

Next >>