Whatever 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1712)

• On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2015 @ 07:00am

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's More Than One Way To Play This Game

  "Why do you find that so damn hard to understand, Whatever?"
  
  it isn't hard to understand. How hard is it to understand that the choice that "techdirt" = http://www.techdirt.com and includes the snippet "News, commentary, and discussions on important or interesting high tech news and includes newsletters." is made by Google. They choose what appears on their website. They could make Techdirt equal to a wikipedia entry or only beacon reader or OOTB's personal hate blog. It's a choice made by Google.
  
  Google does much more than rote calculation. Their ranking algo is the thing of legend, they consider hundreds if not thousands of things, programmed by humans to select based on criteria they consider important, to not show sites they consider bad, banned, or some how don't meet their standards. It doesn't just perform rote calculations, in the same manner that it is not just a computer monitor or dubm display device. Google as a company chooses how information is displayed, what sites will and will not be listed, and the order in which they will appear.
  
  They have control, they have options. They could certainly choose to exclude the sites which have this material.

• On the post: Court: Your Fourth And Fifth Amendment Rights No Longer Exist If You Leave The Country

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2015 @ 08:00pm

  Re: Re:

  I think you would be correct if the acts occurred either in the US or in a US embassy or military base, as an example, all of which are sovereign spaces. However, out in the rest of the world, the FBI is in fact powerless unless given power by a local government, IE they are not the law of the land. There is a certain amount of courtesy extended there is a certain amount of turning a bling eye, but realistically, the FBI (or any of the other 3 and 4 letter organizations) is legally powerless outside of the US sovereign spaces. It only stands to reason that the citizens have the same standing, IE NONE.
  
  I think a judge would be incredibly silly and naive to try to enforce US law outside of the US.

• On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2015 @ 05:18pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There's More Than One Way To Play This Game

  Even if you replace monitor with browser, you end up with the same problem. A browser (at it's base) is just a display device. It is the blank paper. Google is NOT blank paper, it is in it's way the printing ON the sheet. Google gets to choose what is printed. It can exclude sites, include sites, it ranks them, it evaluates them, and in the end it publishes an appropriate snippet from the sites.
  
  Oh look, they PUBLISH a snippet. Hmmm.
  
  The problem here is I think mostly that tech people (myself included) can understand the painful implications of finding Google liable. However, I can also understand that publishing lies about others, even if it's a re-publishing of someone else's work, still brings some responsibility into play. We cannot give Google a pass and then have legal action against another who does the same thing in print.
  
  If I took the same text and re-published it onto my own website, I would be liable. Why should Google be any different?

• On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2015 @ 11:52am

  Re: There's More Than One Way To Play This Game

  Incorrect. Your Samsung monitor does not choose what is displayed on it. It is a dumb appliance.
  
  Google on the other hand is a website which uses a sophisticated algorithm of it's own creation to select text from third parties to display on it's web pages.
  
  The court is correct in a way that few people would want them to be correct, that Google chooses and selects what appears on their website, and as such, should be liable for it.
  
  That Google uses an algo rather than say humans to select the text that appears shouldn't give them a pass. They created the code that chooses what appears on their site.
  
  Put another way, do you think a newspaper would get away with publishing the same text snippet because their "automated news editor" found it online and decided it was news worthy and decided to publish it?
  
  It's one of those areas where technology shouldn't be an excuse for publishing material that causes harm.

• On the post: Court: Your Fourth And Fifth Amendment Rights No Longer Exist If You Leave The Country

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2015 @ 11:14am

  You may not like it, but the court is getting right - even in the face of a truly outrageous case.
  
  US sovereignty ends at it's borders. The law of the US isn't the law of the rest of the world. It would be silly if it was. Americans (any, including police and such) are subject to the laws of the places they visit, American law doesn't follow you around like a little personal storm cloud.
  
  What happened to this guy is a tragedy, but it's a weird situation where the laws of the countries (and those countries willingness to enforce their own laws) that carries the day.
  
  It sucks, but honestly, it's no different from the arguments against France trying to apply it's "right to be forgotten" rules to everyone, everywhere. If their laws have limits (and they do) then US law is not any diffferent.

• On the post: Comey Sells The 'Ferguson Effect,' Blames Spikes In Violent Crime On Citizens With Cameras

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2015 @ 12:52pm

  Re: Re: Re: Cool story, bro!

  yes, but the original comment is a lie, someone just trying to rile you up. I can't imagine anyone falling for it, but there ya go.

• On the post: Comey Sells The 'Ferguson Effect,' Blames Spikes In Violent Crime On Citizens With Cameras

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2015 @ 11:57am

  Re: Cool story, bro!

  Funny stuff. I don't log out of my account to post. I call PaulT a shit logged in, I don't hide from him.
  
  So sorry guys, you got trolled by one of your own. I didn't post any of that stuff.
  
  Once again, Techdirt stoops just a little lower. Perhaps it's time to ask the programmers to not allow a posting name the same as an actual user... just an idea!

• On the post: Senate Passes CISA, The Surveillance Bill Masquerading As A Cybersecurity Bill; Here's Who Sold Out Your Privacy

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 27 Oct, 2015 @ 05:31pm

  Hmm

  I can't say that I entirely agree with the conclusions reached here, or those reached by Wyden (oh wait, they are the same). I do think there is some truth in it, but not quite to the paranoid levels it seems to be reaching.
  
  This for me falls into the category of "Obama is coming for your guns!". 7 years after being elected, he hasn't come for the guns, but it doesn't stop pundits and some politicians from claiming it will happen any day now, so you better donate to the cause. The number of stories on this on Techdirt in the last 48 hours really shows that sort of twist on this one.
  
  There are days when I think Techdirt is just hauling water for Wyden, or vice-versa. I can't help but think that 74 to 21 is a pretty clear indication of democracy in action, a large majority vote across party lines. If you don't agree with them, work to replace them. But publicly trying to shame them for their votes is a pretty low way to go. It sort of comes out of the Karl Rove playbook, don't discussion the issue, instead make it personal and make it nasty.
  
  The great thing about democracy is that you can vote the bums out if you don't like them. If you want a fight to fight, then take that one up.

• On the post: Nina Paley Argues Why Copyright Is Brain Damage

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2015 @ 12:03pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  Talk about misrepresentation!
  
  There are many different types of artists is each artform... some musicians are just about the music, some are just about the fame. Some do it for money, some do it for the love of music, and many are somewhere in the middle.
  
  They all have valid opinions. Some love copyright, some hate it. Some want to make a living from recording music, some want to make a living playing musiv live, and many, many others just want to make enough playing live to pay their bar bill and perhaps add some more sound proofing to the Garage they practice in. How piracy and how copyright affects each of them changes and varies their opinions. None of those opinions are invalid.
  
  HOWEVER (and a big HOWEVER) it's incredibly silly when someone like Nina craps all over copyright, and attempts to tell others how they should just give her everything for free without concern. There is no reason for someone who has created an original work to just give it up because Nina wants to make a derivative work. She is free to make her own original stuff freely available and to not charge for it, but she doesn't get to tell others how to do things when they are operating within the law and within their rights.
  
  So her opinion may or may not be right for her. It's not right for others. She doesn't have the right to tell others to give up their rights just to make her derivative works easier to make.

• On the post: Nina Paley Argues Why Copyright Is Brain Damage

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2015 @ 08:17am

  Re: Re:

  "It's funny, i still have yet to see it shown where a creator of a highly copied work is suffering damage from the copying."
  
  The damage, well... it's never easy to measure because you don't know what the potential was before the copying, or what the result is after the fact. In some cases, the copying benefits to a certain extent getting the artist or creator more known. However, there is a point I think where the artist is well enough known that the benefit is lost. It perhaps comes back at the other end of the scale (say a mega band or huge artist) who is able to turn the exposure into a very lucrative performance tour.
  
  Yet, even that exposes the problem, which is the simple act of creation is muted in favor of the search for the fame and the dollars. The system has been tilted so far off the scale that creation is harmed. Widescale piracy has (IMHO) greatly contributed to making the act of recording (new) music as a comparative waste of time and effort. An estabished artist can make more from performances and even just appearance money to show up at a club or whatever.
  
  "Very little copying which constitutes infringement is potentially lost sales."
  
  So you are suggestion that the decline of sales of recorded music has absolutely nothing to do with the milions of perfect digital copies made online every day? citation needed for that one!

• On the post: Court Dismisses Wikimedia's Lawsuit Over NSA Surveillance

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2015 @ 02:12am

  Re:

  Yes, it's impressive that the judge took the time to understand Wikipedia's argument and understood that they were clearly talking about a "hit by lightning while buying a winning lottery ticket" chance of them having standing. It takes a pretty good understanding of what is involved here. Yes, Wikipedia and the ACLU are powerful plaintiffs, but even then, the judge told them to pound sand.
  
  What Wikipedia really needs to get standing is a case or example where confidential information from Wikipedia actually gets used. Until then, they have no standing, and the judge has made that perfectly clear. Just presenting an exercise in probability doesn't meet up to the legal standard to get standing.

• On the post: Nina Paley Argues Why Copyright Is Brain Damage

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2015 @ 02:33am

  I think that Nina Paley sort of is on par with Larry Leesig, two people who have convinced themselves of a truly extreme viewpoint on copyright. In Lessig's case, his first amendment hyperbole proved to be just that, the judges have long since thrown out his idea as legal nonsense. In Nina's case, she's never been in a situation where her "copyright is brain damage" claim can be truly challenged.
  
  It's hard to debate much of it as well because it's vague. Does copyright stop the flow of information? Generally no, because we still discuss what is copyright anyway (did you see the blahblach movie or did you real the new so-and-so book?). A discussion of ideas and concepts doesn't require a perfect digital copy to happen. A perfect example would be this article, without listening to Nina's video, one would still have a very good idea of the content and her point of view, and could discuss them. Is any significant information lost if that video isn't available to me, or is unable to play on my mobile device at the time? The answer is not really as much as she thinks.
  
  Moreover, one has to consider the plus sides of copyright , such as the ability for artists and creators to either get paid for their work in selling it piecemeal, or in selling the rights to it wholesale to others. Except in exceptional cases, nobody wants to use copyright to stop distribution, they want to use it as a legal basis under which distribution can occur. It would be incredibly difficult (if not impossible) for artists to be able to get compensation for their works if they had no legal standing.
  
  The result is what you see in the modern piracy economy, the only artists thriving are those who are willing to forego the creation process and instead work on the cult of celebrity, which pays far more. It's a stupid system where people pay more for a "personal appearance" of celebutards like a Kardashian than they do for a musician or writer.
  
  Copyright is no more or no less brain dead than a whole host of other things in this world. Nina's problem I think is that she has never been on the other side with a product people widely pirate, rather she has spent her career working against the system and building her celebrity level such that she can charge to give speeches about how bad copyright is. If all that effort went instead into artistic creation... opportunity costs, right?

• On the post: New 'Car Safety Bill' Would Make Us Less Safe, Block Security Research And Hinder FTC And Others

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2015 @ 05:09pm

  Re: Re: A bit of misdirection

  Actually, it's not hard to spot when you look at emissions running just slightly out of the normal testing range versus the test itself. The emission test cycle is a very strict set of circumstances, and the code was very specific to those circumstances. Move even a little bit off, and you get the more polluting code.
  
  You don't have to rip apart a black box to observe it's results. The difference in the case of VW is significant enough that you it's entirely visible to someone just looking at the results.
  
  The biggest point of course is with the mandadted OBD port and pretty much standard coding, It means that a significant part of the arm waving in the OP is just that, arm waving. It's nowhere as real as they would like to make it out to be.

• On the post: Tim Berners-Lee: 'Just Say No' To Facebook's Plan To Bastardize The Internet

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2015 @ 10:49pm

  I think there are some interesting contrasts at play here.
  
  On one side, we have claims of a walled garden, of a restricted and small internet. As Mike says "there's a bigger conversation to be had about the best model for getting broadband to the developing world ".
  
  Yet, I am struck by this very simple problem: There is effectively NO internet at all in many of these places, and a bigger conversation is just that, a conversation. Facebook and Zuckerberg may be controlling and self-fulfilling in their actions, but they are in fact taking actions.
  
  Talk is cheap - action leads to results. You may not like the results, but dismissing the "no internet, Facebook internet" as a "false dichotomy" is to miss the point entirely.
  
  Zuckerberg is trying to do what nobody else has actually moved to do in the 30 plus years that internet connectivity has been around, bringing it to places where it's not easily available. We can talk in circles and create PACs and think tanks and high brow discuss all the possible ways we can do it - he's going to do it.
  
  Once you get done discussing, you can set up something better and prove him wrong. But for the forseeable future, the question is "Facebook soon, or whatever we chat about some time in the indefinite future". It's the choice of a shitty meal now, or starving until someone figures out how to build a high end buffet as a profitable business model. I don't know about you, given the choices, I'll eat the shitty meal while you figure the rest out, no need to starve.

• On the post: Body Cameras Are Everywhere, But Recordings Remain Locked Up Tight

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2015 @ 08:55am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  That is quite a different story. An arrest is news, the information generally public, the news cameras may have been their and filmed the arrest. If the arrest happened in a private location (say a home or business) generally the news won't have the arrest, but perhaps the good old fashioned perp walk. They cannot legally enter a private residence to shoot the news.
  
  The cops body camera is clearly in the private residence, and releasing that footage would absolutely be a violation of privacy, no debate.
  
  What happens if police enter a private home, meet with a woman who has been beaten by her husband / lover / boyfriend and who is hiding out at her friends house or halfway house. Should the boyfriend be able to request the footage to know exactly where she is? Would her privacy be violated by giving that footage out? Most certainly and without a doubt.
  
  See, there is no magic or simple formula here, except that the one person who should be able to view the footage - the only person privy to it's content - is the copy himself (or herself). They were there, their viewing the footage again violates no privacy that wasn't already set aside by circumstances before.

• On the post: New 'Car Safety Bill' Would Make Us Less Safe, Block Security Research And Hinder FTC And Others

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 21 Oct, 2015 @ 11:22am

  A bit of misdirection

  Something that needs to get corrected here: Vehicle diagnostics would not be an issue, because they are not a hack or do they require software modifcations. Cars (and trucks) are obligated to follow OBD II (and beyond) standards, including on board diagnostics, a standardized diagnostic port, etc. Since 2008, CANBUS or variations under an ISO standard are required on new cars.
  
  So it's incredibly misleading to suggest that an anti-tampering law would forbid this activity.
  
  It should also be noted that the on board computers control important compliance systems such as emissions. Allowing the public to change this would be similar in nature to permitting them to remove the catalytic converter - a real no-no.
  
  As for things like the VW emissions fiasco, remember that this "code" was basically detected not by hacking and viewing the code on the car, but by first observing the cars in operation and detecting a shift in behavior during the very specific circumstances of an emissions test. No "hacking" was required to show a problem.

• On the post: Body Cameras Are Everywhere, But Recordings Remain Locked Up Tight

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2015 @ 10:40pm

  Re: Re:

  "If the public isn't allowed to see the footage, then neither should the cops. If the cops can see the footage, then so should the public."
  
  I think there is at least one significant difference at play here: The cop was there, the public wasn't. It's a record of what they saw and did, and since whoever and whatever they saw has already been "seen" by them, there is no additional violation of privacy, as the cop was already there. Showing the same footage to someone who was not there would almost certainly incur a violation of privacy.
  
  "The only reason they suddenly developed a 'concern' for the privacy of the public is because body-cams stand to upset the status quo"
  
  Double edged sword. I think there are plenty of "innocent citizens" who would hate to see how badly they behave, and wouldn't want that footage to get out either. Honestly, Americans in general are rude, loud, obnoxious, and hold the law and the rest of society in contempt at almost all times - their own worst enemies. I suspect that if the police started dumping / doxing members of the public with the obnoxious behavior on cams, there would be no end of lawsuits - doubly so if the police just handed the footage to anyone asking.
  
  How long do you think it would be before there would be a "citizens behaving badly" video channel on youtube?
  
  The expectations of privacy of the citizens is still pretty darn high. What happens inside a house, even when the police are there, is still relatively private. Handing out the footage of every arrest and every situation would most certainly violate a citzen's right to privacy.

• On the post: Body Cameras Are Everywhere, But Recordings Remain Locked Up Tight

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2015 @ 07:47pm

  It is entirely normal and natural that body cam footage be restricted and available only at appropriate times. The invasion of privacy to citizens would be too high otherwise.
  
  Remember, Techdirt is applauding defeats of plate reader cameras because they take so many images that *might* infringe someone's privacy. It is 100% certain that a police body camera would, at some point, violate someone's privacy and as such, the videos should be locked up pending court order or criminal investigation.
  
  It's really simple, you can't have it both ways. Body camera footage is way more likely to invade privacy then a camera mounted on a car driving down the street.

• On the post: Larry Lessig Dumps His Promise To Resign The Presidency In An Attempt To Get People To Take His Campaign Seriously

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2015 @ 09:36pm

  Re: Re: Shocker - NOT!

  But that also points out where Lessig fails: Thinking that it's a top down process when it really isn't. Leaving the PAC and heading on run for President shows that he really just didn't follow the money train. He instead took on something where (a) he really can't win, and (b) where he really can't even get enough attention to make the effort worth it.
  
  He joined the dog and pony show, which to me shows that no matter how intellgent and learned he is, that he has entirely lost the plot on this one.

• On the post: Larry Lessig Dumps His Promise To Resign The Presidency In An Attempt To Get People To Take His Campaign Seriously

  

  Whatever ( profile ), 19 Oct, 2015 @ 05:47pm

  Shocker - NOT!

  I can't say there is any surprise here. Professor Lessig may be learned and may be an intellectual, but he seems to be way better on the theoretical than the practical. Politics isn't just for nice ideas, it's as much about selling them. Lessig doesn't seem to have the personality to sell his ideas outside of his base following.
  
  A presidential campaign is pretty much a farcical idea to start with. Even the best financed / self financed runs by people like Ross Perot couldn't gain enough traction to overcome the very left / extreme right polarization of US politics, and it's only gotten worse.
  
  It makes me think Lessig would do better back with his PAC, however his public relation skills may still hold him back here. Perhaps he is better as the idea guy, and not the public face guy.

Next >>