Whatever 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1712) comment rss

  • On the post: Hulk Hogan's $115 Million Win Against Gawker Raises Serious First Amendment Questions

    Whatever ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2016 @ 05:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We need laws governing the 1st amendment

    " I am also a strict constitutionalist"

    Generally, 2nd amendment supporters are "comma constitutionalist", as the comma is SO important. Remind me again how many Americans are part of a "well armed militia". (slight foaming at the mouth detected).

    The SCOTUS rulings on the 2nd are perhaps some of their poorest work. The current claims by Senator McConnell that any SCOTUS appointment must be approved by the NRA pretty much sums up the problem. One lobby has swayed who is in the court and as a result, the rulings from that court. It's an overwhelming usurpation of the legal system to meet the desires of a certain group.

  • On the post: Hulk Hogan's $115 Million Win Against Gawker Raises Serious First Amendment Questions

    Whatever ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2016 @ 05:46pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Again, I don't condone Gawker's decision to publish. And I don't think it should have published. But I'm not Gawker and I still worry about juries making editorial decisions."

    I don't think it's really that difficult. Gawker could have chosen any number of less confrontational and insulting ways to present the facts. They could have used a still image or two from the tape to "prove" it, if they wanted to authenticate it. They certainly didn't have to run a big chunk of the video, and they certainly didn't have to engage in name calling, baiting, insults, and what seems to be a real campaign against him. They made it personal, which is something journalists are really not support to do. It's about facts and information, not opinion and hatred.

    Should Techdirt be worried? I think there are moments where you may come close to crossing the line from reporting and commentary to insults and degrading people. I have seen instances in the past where I have felt that you are awfully close to having someone go after you on things, likely only stopped by the fact that you have many high end lawyers on speed dial and would certainly fight everything to SCOTUS if need be. You are in some ways worse than a deep pocket defendant, you are a "convinced of my rights and I have enough high end lawyer friends to help me" defendant that would be hard for anyone to take on directly.

    If the Gawker judgement makes you rethink certain stories or to pull back away from personal insults and derision, it might be a good thing for the site. Keeping the focus on the ideas more and the people less is a very good way to avoid problems.

  • On the post: Hulk Hogan's $115 Million Win Against Gawker Raises Serious First Amendment Questions

    Whatever ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2016 @ 04:07pm

    Re: Re: thread 603

    "But not you, right Whatever? Never you. That's just not your style."

    It doesn't matter. I am not working from the bully pulpit of being a writer for the site or being a staff member. Instead, I am a section 230 protected anonymous poster. According to Techdirt lore, I can turn the snark up to whatever and never be held liable because, well, Techdirt would never reveal my IP and connection info, right?

  • On the post: CBS CEO Forced To Admit Cheaper 'Skinny' TV Bundles 'Inevitable'

    Whatever ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2016 @ 07:20pm

    Karl, Aereo tried to do it by cutting out the content producers and making money selling access to something they didn't pay for. The model was not sustainable. So pointing to them as a "great new model" is pretty dishonest.

  • On the post: Sean Parker's New Service Offers Theaters A New Revenue Stream But All They Can See Is Business Model Intereference And Piracy

    Whatever ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2016 @ 06:52pm

    Thread 605

    I am not surprised to see which side you come down on on this story, but wow, talk about missing the point.

    Let me try to frame this for you in your own terms. You have said that adding a "backdoor" to encryption is bad, because there is a small risk that hackers may be able at some point to exploit it, no matter how complex and how many keys required to make it happen.

    Do you think the same about taking a first run moving and putting it into people's home in a digital format? If they can display it on their TV, then they can copy it and they can share it. The risk of piracy here is not insignificant. At a minimum, you must admit that doing this would significantly increase the chance that a good digital version of the movie would get out. Forget camming, just get one of these boxes.

    Second of course is the question of training people NOT to go to the theater. For the moment the lovers of home theater rather than big theater movie viewing wait for releases. They may go to the big theater if they really want to see something now (and pay more for the honor). Having this system at home potentially changes their approach.

    Thirdly, it's a question of income. At a $50 per movie price point, you have to think that people would do "movie nights" at their homes. So invite over a half a dozen friends, plus your own famliy, and boom, you get 10 people to watch a movie for effective half the ticket price. The number of potential viewers for a movie is always pretty much limited by type, stars, and whatnot. Having a portion of this audience converted into cheaper "watched as a group" viewers isn't financially beneficial. Turning group night out to the movies into group night at home for a movie would be potentially costly.

    The only upside would be a single person, couple or small family (2 and 2) that might be about a break even at $50.

    It's also important to remember that theaters generally don't make their money on movie tickets, they make it on the upsells, snacks, and 3D glasses. A family of four isn't spending $50, they are spending maybe $80 or even $100 by the time it's all done. Giving them a cheaper stay at home option isn't going to magically INCREASE income.

    Any increase in income would have to come from converting those who either wait for the DVD / pay per view /netflix or those who pirate into higher paying customers. They are the ones who would increase revenues. Pirates aren't going to pay $50 for a movie (they will download the rips), and the rest are the only potential source of increase in revenue. Each person you talk out of the cinema and into their home theater is a loss.

    The only way it makes sense (economically) is if the theaters all closed. Even then, it's very likely that movie income would drop as the number of viewers per ticket goes up, or a number of people stop paying for first run because it's too expensive for just two people (or one person) to pay $50 to see a movie.

  • On the post: Hulk Hogan's $115 Million Win Against Gawker Raises Serious First Amendment Questions

    Whatever ( profile ), 21 Mar, 2016 @ 11:30am

    thread 603

    I can't say that I am surprised to see your stand on this Mike, but I can honestly say that many of your readers will disagree with you on this one.

    Part of the problem you run into here is the question of privacy. Even as a public figure, this guy does have a right to a private life. Moreover, the privacy of his bedroom (of that of another) is pretty high on the list of things generally not shared with others.

    The material isn't really newsworthy in any real sense, it's not "break news, Hulk is f---king Bubba's wife" interrupting prime time on the major networks. It's not even material you would be likely to see on a major news organization, except perhaps to mention that a sex tape has leaked. You cannot imagine CNN or Fox actually running the video in it's entirety.

    More importantly, the comments and insults in relation to his performance and endowment are certainly NOT newsworthy. They are cheap personal insults hiding behind the guise of journalism.

    Gawker ran the tape not for it's newsworthiness, but rather for it's commercial aspects - that of driving viewers to their website. The continued down the road of insulting and degrading Hogan as part of that process. No news was imparted by any of it, the public is not better informed by reading that someone thinks he has a small dick.

    Gawker lost basically because there was no way to show this was anything other than a nasty combination of profiteering and personal attacks. If they wanted to cover it as news, a couple of second clip that shows Hogan's face would have been more than enough. Running an ongoing series of comments and updates in relation to his endowment (or lack of) doesn't show any interest in informing the people, rather it's about making fun of the subject.

    I do think there is a key element here too: If you are alright with Gawker's actions, why are you so gung ho about due process, warrants, probable cause, and the like? Why are you so upset about location data for a cell phone? After all, private information is just information that hasn't been stolen and made public yet. At the moment it's made public, it's all fine, right? It's Wikileak mentality, we don't care HOW you got there, as long as the end product is right? Do you not see an insane situation where individuals and private companies can do things which are harmful to others, and get away with it under the guise of "journlism", while the same actions by authorities would be considered an insane over reach that someone must lose their job and get sued into the ground for?

    Perhaps the best answer is that in some ways, you face your own issues here. Some of your "team" tend to play close to the edge of personal insult and attack in some of their posts. They (and you as well from time to time) live in the space between snarky, mockery, and the downright personally insulting. Perhaps a judgement like this might make you pull a punch or have one of your team step back from making attacks too personal.

    Maybe that would be a good thing. As many say, there should be a line. My guess is that Gawker, TMZ, and even Techdirt may sometimes are over that imaginary line. Does the line need to be made clearly in law? Perhaps yes.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2016 @ 09:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's called an opinion, deal with it.

    I think they are not telling all the truth. They have mentioned things like "features not on consumer models" (suggests they already have it, just not on production phones). When you start to pay attention, you start to understand a couple of weeks work for a few engineers is pretty much what would be needed to apply ANY patch. So it's not like its such a major undertaking that Apple claims it would takes a year.

    So keep flailing around, but accept that others can have an opinion you don't agree with. I respect your right to be a troll, even if I don't agree with you.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2016 @ 04:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    " it never occurred to me that means I know everything about iOS source code and am much more knowledgeable than Apple engineers and all of the world's encryption experts."

    I never claim to be more knowledgeable, just that I know enough to know when they appear to be fibbing or stretching the truth to match their desired results.

    You don't have to be able to build an OS for a phone from scratch to be able to understand how it works in general, and even to understand the different modules in play.

    By your standards, you should never talk about politics, because you haven't been elected, moreover you haven't been the President or run the FBI - so I look forward to your silence on all of these areas and more in the future.

    "Gee you're clever"

    No, just not as dumb as you. From where you stand, that must look impressive.

  • On the post: US Government Has Apparently Demanded, And Obtained, Tech Companies' Source Code In The Past

    Whatever ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2016 @ 04:58pm

    Cisco's denial

    I find Cisco's denial here to be a little TOO specific for it's own good:

    "We have not and we will not hand over source code to any customers, especially governments"

    I didn't know that a court order was a "customer". It rather looks like they are trying to be a little too clever about the wording. They don't give the source code to customers - but for a court order, well...

    You gotta wonder why they worded it that way!

  • On the post: UK Government Pushes Forward With Insane Snooper's Charter, Despite Widespread Concerns

    Whatever ( profile ), 19 Mar, 2016 @ 04:16am

    Re: Re:

    Actually, it's part of the reason why the UK has so many CCTV cameras. It's not the only reason, but it is a part of it.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 08:40pm

    Re: Sarcasm warning

    You don't think that would lead to criminal prosecution? Tampering with evidence, even with an intentional remote bug would be a big deal. If the bug was "signed off" by a number of people who ignored it, there could be a hell of a lot of Apple people enjoying 3 hots and a cot.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 08:39pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Been working with computers for a very long time (longer than many here have been around. I know enough to know better.

    The 10 count code is a couple of modules, one to track the actual counting and increase the "hidden" counter, and another one which checks the counter before displaying the sign in screen again. Either of those two points would be good for disabling the feature, it's much better to disable the code which increases the counter, rather than the other end, in case other code checks that same counter. So you find the code that increases the counter, and change it from ++ to == 0 or similar, or have it trigger the code that would run to reset it after a successful login (the code is already there).

    The job itself isn't very big.

    The more difficult one would be the communication part, but only if Apple hasn't already created it for their own testing purposes. It's likely they already have the code, so it's just a question of applying it.

    "So it's not as trivial as you think, otherwise why wouldn't the FBI do it themselves? Or ask the NSA?"

    It's trivial for those who are very familiar with the code and have full access to the documentation. Having someone "cold start" on a project would mean likely months of prep work as they work to undesrtand the OS and deal with the complexities of the system itself.

    It wouldn't be the expedient way to do it, and would likely have a lower success chance.

    It's also (as many have stated) about getting the precedent judgement to work from.

    "Hmmmm?
    Maybe?"

    Maybe Santa Claus didn't bring them a "iOS erector set" to work with... Hmmm? Maybe?

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 08:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Doesn't work out

    I don't think you are considering things very well. If Apple is compelled to do the work, their contacted employees either have to do the work or Apple fails to meet the courts order. At that point, the court has a pretty big hammer they can hit Apple with.

    If compelled, it's not at all in Apple's interest not to produce the mods required.

    If the engineers decide to not work, Apple is left in the unhappy position of having to face the wrath of the courts. At some point, they either have to force the engineers to work, or remove them and get ones who will do the job.

    It's not something Apple would want to do, but to comply with the court order, they may have to be dicks with their employees to save their own butts.

  • On the post: UK Government Pushes Forward With Insane Snooper's Charter, Despite Widespread Concerns

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 10:19pm

    Unlike the US, the UK has plenty of experience with terrorist bombings, terrorist acts, and is sitting on a melting pot of cultural communities which threaten to boil over at any moment. The situation is what the US may face in the future, but not for now.

    So the UK as a whole (the people and the governments) have perhaps a different view of things because of their experiences. They have perhaps a better understanding of the values of things on both sides which are being traded off. Uk and Europe have lived through World Wars not as some distance event but as bomb being dropped on their heads.

    Not everyone feels this way, but it's a situation that makes the UK much different from the US.

  • On the post: Wikileaks Exaggerates Story About State Department Working With Google To Block Video

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 07:43pm

    I like this post, it's really too bad that not all the lights have come on however.

    Wikileaks has chosen a topic, a subject, and a person to not just report on, but to go after. It's a critical time in the election cycle, and perhaps in their excitement to try to nail someone they have massively overdone it.

    It begs the question: How many other times have they done the same and not been caught at it?

    WIkileaks is showing themselves for what they really are, not an organization dedicated to the truth, but an organization with a political and economic agenda and a willingness to stretch the truth to get to it. They are no more of a media organization that a SuperPAC at this point.

    Wikileaks, great concept ruined by a cult of personality and personal hatred.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 11:32am

    Re:

    I think that if this patch (all it really is) was going to be a applied to millions of iphones around the world and used daily, it might be something of more concern. This is a way more gonzo bit of work, deleting or disabling a limited number of things and activating some code they likely already have to activate faster communications to brute force the device.

    Technically, I don't think it's really a big deal. Timewise, Apple seems not to think so either. So it comes down to moral objections, which are harder to deal with but could land some people in hot water. Not sure what the right answer is here, but being an objector and losing your job for it seems a little, well, harsh.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 10:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doesn't work out

    Apple has waited longer than 4 weeks to release things because Steve Jobs didn't like the texture of a button or knob in a final design item. Thinking that 10 engineers for a few weeks in a company the size of Apple is meaningful is, umm, amusing.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 09:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doesn't work out

    I don't see "highly trained" anywhere in that quote.

    I also see that 4 weeks is pretty much nothing, "deploy" being the key as they would like have to do testing. It's probably why the engineer count is high, because they do different jobs as part of the process.

    So 6 to 10 engineers, 4 weeks... at 200k a year each, it's maybe $100,000 or so of work. For a company that literally sells billions a year, it would seem to be a trivial job.

    Thanks for helping me confirm that concept.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 09:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doesn't work out

    You are confusing acts of god with acts of engineers who may feel like gods.

    So sorry, you little poke doesn't work, but you may want to reconsider your understanding of the law.

  • On the post: Apple Engineers Contemplate Refusing To Write Code Demanded By Justice Department

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2016 @ 09:24am

    Re:

    "oh, this is your day job?"

    How shockingly unoriginal of you.

Next >>