Whatever 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1712)

• On the post: Reporter Makes FOIA Request For Obama's Game Of Thrones Screeners

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 22 Apr, 2016 @ 10:13am

  This is the sort of thing that delays FOIA requests... wasting time to try to create a story where none really exists.

• On the post: FBI Allegedly Paid More Than $1 Million To Get Into Encrypted iPhone… And To Avoid Setting Legal Precedent It Didn't Like

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 22 Apr, 2016 @ 09:40am

  It was all good until the money used was called a "slush fund". At that point, you know the person is pretty damned biased about the thing, and would find something scary no matter what.

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

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 22 Apr, 2016 @ 08:58am

  So wait, we should take lessons on Copyright from a Google lawyer? They have perhaps the least respect for artists and creators...

• On the post: Indian Government Agencies Demand Access To WhatsApp Messaging Groups

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 21 Apr, 2016 @ 04:25pm

  Nice story, but it's more an example of why India has problems with government, and not anything else. Taxation and vexatious regulations are par for the course.
  
  Remember that India built a track for F1 cars and hosted a couple of races. The race disappeared quickly when both the company holding the event and the F1 teams were being subject to insane regulations and very high taxes. At one point, India's customs and excise people where trying to tax the teams on the values of their cars and equipment that they were importing into India in the same manner as any other goods import, with no regard for the idea that they material would be leaves again a few days later.
  
  India's tax and legal systems are obstructionist at best. It's one of the many reasons why India remains one of the most backward places on earth.

• On the post: EU Officially Goes After Google's Android On Antitrust Grounds

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2016 @ 09:48pm

  Re: Re: Re: Google Play Services

  For Google, they face the problem that this is their very basic business model. They want eyeballs, attention span, and most importantly DATA. They want to touch as many of the data points of your life as possible, and to use that information to sell you stuff - or show you the ads that sell you stuff at the highest click rates possible.
  
  Android isn't some altruistic open source gift to the world, it's been a shrewdly calculated move to get first crack at searches, as voice search, as your mobile browsing data, your mobile location data, and so on. Android isn't free, it's just without apparent financial cost.
  
  Forcing certain apps, making them the defaults, and allowing those apps to have free reign over your notification tray and such is critical to the android business model. It is also potentially an anti-trust issue.
  
  It goes back to what I said when Alphabet came around. Google is trying very hard to be able to show that the units are broken up so that in this sort of situation, they can suggest that "android" people, "search" people, and "ad selling" people are three different businesses, not one combined force to push money to the bottom line. It's going to be a hard sell!

• On the post: Not Funny: How The OFAC Is Outlawing Even The Lamest Attempts At Humor Over Terrorist Fears

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2016 @ 10:50pm

  Dumb joke

  There are things you learn in life not to do. If you are on an airplane and you see you friend Jack, you generally don't yell "Hi Jack!" across the plane. Or in the middle of a big outdoor event, when you see your friend Bob Gundelson you don't yell "HEY! GUN!".
  
  So writing "money for ISIS" in any form is just likely not a very good idea. It's not a particularly funny joke and doesn't gain you anything.
  
  Stupid is as stupid does, the guy is lucky it cost him just a few bucks, and not much more.

• On the post: EU Officially Goes After Google's Android On Antitrust Grounds

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2016 @ 11:25am

  Re:

  The difference is that Apple doesn't sell it's OS to others. They just don't have the same issues.

• On the post: EFF Sues DOJ Over Its Refusal To Release FISA Court Documents Pertaining To Compelled Technical Assistance

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 20 Apr, 2016 @ 04:20pm

  I think part of the problem for the EFF here is that their FOIA request may be so general in nature, and so wide spread, that it would take an exhaustive search of every "enforcement" department to try to track down records that match. It's not a small request.
  
  "The documents it's seeking are of significant public interest, especially now that the FBI's All Writs-enabled technical assistance demands are at the center of a second war over encryption."
  
  They may also not exist if this is something that has not happened in the manner EFF seeks. It would seem that most companies are much more willing than Apple to help out, and aren't letting it get to the level of having a court order their help, rather they are helping a long time before the case ends up there. So there may be NO records that truly match their request, but many that are close and need to be reviewed.k
  
  EFF's lawsuit may not in the end have merit. They may have created the conditions under which their request wouldn't be answered quickly.

• On the post: Sevens Marry Sevens: Is Online Dating Making Mixed-Attractiveness Couples More Rare?

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2016 @ 10:51pm

  I think one of the things missing from the discussion is how shallow the relationships are. If you base your relationships on how someone looks rather than who they are, then you will be sorely disappointed at some point as they get old and ugly, like just about everyone does.
  
  Luring someone into a date with a "hot picture" goes back to my Bubbe trying to set me up with a "nice traditional jewish girl" and flashing a picture of a girl with a nice smile and rather pronounced chest. I met her in person, and well, there was nothing there. It didn't matter how hot the picture was, reality kicked in pretty quick - and this was long before dating apps were around.

• On the post: Ignorant Anti-Encryption Law Enforcement Groups Made A Logo And A Hashtag… And It All Backfired

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 19 Apr, 2016 @ 09:57am

  cough

  I can't help but wondering, though...
  
  Basic encryption (in it's simplest forms) is better than none. It's similar to having a cheap lock on a door rather than no lock at all.
  
  The question is at what point is the lock on the door overkill? Does every door have to be like a bank vault before everyone feels secure? Does everyone have to have super duper mega encryption on everything all the time in order to feel safe?
  
  There is a point perhaps where the level of encryption goes past doing the job and gets on to being legally obstructionist. Just saying...

• On the post: House Passes Bill Attempting To Gut Net Neutrality, Supporters Declare The Internet Saved

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 18 Apr, 2016 @ 09:45pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  "While the FCC might decide down the road to throw in a 'per user tax"
  
  it's not the FCC that would impose any tax - it would be congress. As a method to raise 100 million a year, a $5 per internet connection tax would be a great way to make them pay. Making it apply to "title II internet providers" is key.
  
  A few years later, raise it to $10... then $20, then $5 a month... why not? You can see it as a perfect slippery slope. Taxing the internet is a politician's wet dream!

• On the post: House Passes Bill Attempting To Gut Net Neutrality, Supporters Declare The Internet Saved

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 18 Apr, 2016 @ 04:20pm

  Re:

  "How can they frame net neutrality as taxing the internet.
  "
  
  They comes around because of a very simple premise,one that has occurred over and over again in the history of the US. A new industry comes along, the government first "regulates" it, and then over time the regulated industry becomes subject to taxes, a new source of revenue for the financially strapped government.
  
  Regulation is almost a requirement for taxation. Regulation defines an industry or group which is subject to the regulation, and in turn, the people hwo create taxes use the regulated group to define who is subject to the new tax.
  
  As an example, it would be possible for the feds to pass in the next budget cycle a law that says "all Title II internet companies must pay a $5 per user tax". It would be a simple grab, clear and simple, and would be easy to implement because the group is already defined.

• On the post: Sixth Circuit Says Cell Site Location Data Just A Business Record; No Warrants Required

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2016 @ 07:41pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: You would think...

  "As I noted above if you can't track someone's location with a tracking device without a warrant, then you shouldn't be able to do so just because they are carrying something that among it's other functions can also act as a tracking device without one either."
  
  if you willingly carry a device that provides this information on a constant basis, it doesn't fall into the same sort of argument as the feds putting a GPS device on your car or slipping one in your backpack. The feds aren't make any acts here to get you to divulge information, you are doing it willingly to get the cellular service.
  
  Like it or not, the base function of a cell phone is to know your approximate location and to provide you cellular service from the nearest / strongest tower available. The company has to know this information to operate the network, it's basic business info. It is different from your call history or your data usage, that is for sure.
  
  I am just thinking that with more and more courts lining up on the side of "no warrant required" it's time to consider the implications and work with them. It doesn't appear that this information is going to be generally suppressed by the courts, rather it's gaining traction as a standard piece of no warrant information.

• On the post: Apple Responds To DOJ's Attempt To Get Into Drug Dealer's Phone: Why You So Dishonest?

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2016 @ 07:36pm

  Re: Re:

  " it would be the end of them as a major consumer product company."
  
  I am not so sure. If they are in EXACTLY the same position as every other company (ie, Android and Windows phones / tablets) then they may not suffer as much.
  
  Well, then again, because they have staked their claim so hard on this issue, it may come back to bite them in the ass. Worst of all, they have no Steve Jobs to save them from hell this time.

• On the post: Apple Responds To DOJ's Attempt To Get Into Drug Dealer's Phone: Why You So Dishonest?

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2016 @ 06:26pm

  I am starting to wonder if the DOJ's process right now it to hand Apple a whole bunch of rope and hope they make a noose for themselves. Apple seems to be coming closer and closer to making outlandish statements and (as jim mentions above) chasing legal theories that might be the wrong fight altogether.
  
  The DOJ has a lot of patience, and Apple's lawyers seem pretty trigger happy, and seem to be providing way too much material to work from. Sooner or later, they will say something stupid and the DOJ will jump on them for it.
  
  My guess is that by the end of 2017, Apple will have been spanked on this issue, and their encryption will be back doored or will be made in some way hackable by large scale brute force.

• On the post: Sixth Circuit Says Cell Site Location Data Just A Business Record; No Warrants Required

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 17 Apr, 2016 @ 10:22am

  Re: Re: You would think...

  If you don't want to get tracked, you may want to consider not carrying a device that reports your location information on a constant basis. It is the nature of a cell phone, it's the nature of the business model, so that information will exist if you like it or not - unless you turn off your phone (and remove the battery to be safe).
  
  The comparison with a landline phone is mostly in the sense that a warrant is needed for call information, but generally not for LOCATION information. In fact, you can go online and check many numbers and get an address back which would allow you know exactly where a phone is. It's a business record.
  
  My suggestion for you is really this: turn off your cell phone and stop worrying, nobody is watching you (yet).

• On the post: Sixth Circuit Says Cell Site Location Data Just A Business Record; No Warrants Required

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2016 @ 09:28pm

  You would think...

  You would think after all of these judgements that you guys would start to catch on:
  
  1 - Cell phones work with towers, and the cell company has to keep track of where you are connected in order to make the system work and to bill out roaming or other charges as needed,
  
  2 - business records such as these are not covered by some sort of "carrier client confidentiality" agreement. They are normal business records.
  
  3 - You cannot operate a cellular system without this information
  
  4 - Even if you get away from the third party doctrine, these would still be normal business records that could be subject of a warrant. There would be no privacy on this level, just one extra hurdle for law enforcemnt to jump (and a pretty low one too, similar to getting call records on a landline).
  
  So given all of this, perhaps it's just time to accept that legally and technically, this is an unavoidable situation, and bitching about it won't change anything unless you change the very nature of cellular phones.

• On the post: Bernie Sanders' Campaign Joins Too Many Other Presidential Campaigns In Abusing Trademark Law

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2016 @ 09:22pm

  " I'll just make this explicit: I don't currently support any of the current Presidential candidates, "
  
  Wyden 2020 man! Everyone knows where your support is at, I doubt you would let Bernie, Hilary, Donald, or Ted make a guest post here... Wyden? Been there, done that!

• On the post: How Bad Are Geolocation Tools? Really, Really Bad

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2016 @ 02:51am

  Re: Re: accuracy... ph yeah

  "IP as an identification tool (including everything besides Geo) sucks."
  
  Not at all. For the most part, an IP generally does a very good job (because of network design) is being able to track down to a single end connection point. In fact, it would be almost unreasonable to think that an ISP doesn't know where a connection is.
  
  However, with the proliferation of wi fi networks, open wifi connections, TOR exit nodes, VPNs, and the like, it makes it harder to be truly accurate. However, if those services were required to maintain logs, the accuracy rate would be very high!

• On the post: How Bad Are Geolocation Tools? Really, Really Bad

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2016 @ 02:48am

  Re: Re: accuracy... ph yeah

  Yes, but the problem here is that you are trying to get mile accurate for a tool that never will be - because the ISPs don't give out that kind of information.
  
  Now, if you were using a more commercial based system (say in part seeded with IP / city pairs from a credit card processor) you would see a lot more accuracy. Generally ISPs use IP blocks in one area (easier routing), and thus your IP block might turn up within a few miles, close enough for a Russian nuke.
  
  Use the right tools, you get better answers. Use the wrong tools, and you are just a tool :)

Next >>