Whatever 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (1712) comment rss

  • On the post: ISP Wants European Commission To Take Action Against Sweden For Refusing To Halt Data Retention

    Whatever ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2014 @ 07:45am

    Re:

    This is in the end one of those issues which is likely to split the EU. It goes to the very nature of the state and it's ability to decide how it deals with it's citizens and their privacy. The EU is effectively a one way ratchet up system of more and more privacy to the point of nearly making it illegal for the cops to even observe on the street and take notes.

    The right to forget is just a wonderful example of this insane move to a level of privacy that could only be obtained by actually removing part of people's memory.

  • On the post: Judge Says Raid On Twitter User Perfectly Fine Because Officers Can Enforce Non-Existent Laws Provided They Have 'Probable Cause'

    Whatever ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2014 @ 07:43am

    Re: Re:

    The police knew before obtaining the warrant and executing the search that no laws had been broken.

    re-read the fuller story. After that initial email was sent, they did find laws under which they could move forward and they did. The email quoted was early in the going, and didn't reflect everything that they had and worked with.

    You should read the linked story, even if it's a Techdirt opinion piece - it has way more detail than there is in this post.

  • On the post: Judge Says Raid On Twitter User Perfectly Fine Because Officers Can Enforce Non-Existent Laws Provided They Have 'Probable Cause'

    Whatever ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2014 @ 07:41am

    Re: Re:

    It doesn't matter how slowly you type it, you can't change reality.

    The email is from the 11th. The detective, AFTER that email, found that there did exist a potential crime (personification) in the state books, and on that basis, moved forward with the warrant.

    Was it a stretch? Huge one. Does it reach the level of probably cause? Remarkably yes. Was it a bad move? No doubt. Was it politically motivated? Beyond a doubt. Was it legal? Remarkably, yes.

    Again, do I agree with what they did? No. But my personal disagreement with them doesn't take away from the fact that the law is an ass at times, and yes you can stretch it both ways to cover or uncover as you see fit.

  • On the post: Web Inventor Tim Berners-Lee Gets To The Core Of Net Neutrality Debate: You Need An Open Internet To Have A Free Market

    Whatever ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2014 @ 12:01pm

    Nice but...

    It's all nice and everything to talk about an "open" internet, but I really do wonder at what point ISPs need to be forced to support every wank-a-doodle business model that comes along that uses 4 or 5 meg a second of bandwidth in a constant manner.

    Imagine for a second that upstart "cable" companies come along who us IP TV for distribution, and they become popular (think Aereo done legally). Now imagine that many of the ISP clients move to this service, and thus are streaming 1, 2 and sometimes 3 streams into their house(one for each TV) at 5 meg a second each (for decent quality true HD). Should the ISPs be required to support this? Should they be forced to raise customer connection speeds to support it? Should they be forced to increase they network capacity to accept it?

    In true "net neutrality" they wouldn't be able to say no, even if the product totally swamps their market and makes customers demand much higher connection speeds. Even if the product was overwhelming their networks, true net neutrality would say they cannot "pick winners and losers" and thus everyone who suffer.

    Does true and open mean supporting every bandwidth hog idea that comes along, no matter how much it harms your other customers?

  • On the post: Judge Says Raid On Twitter User Perfectly Fine Because Officers Can Enforce Non-Existent Laws Provided They Have 'Probable Cause'

    Whatever ( profile ), 22 Sep, 2014 @ 06:15am

    I think you are trying to create legal time travel here. You are seeming to imply that what they knew or decided after the warrent was served (it wasn't a raid... geez) should have somehow magically been transmitted back in time so they could not get a warrant.

    Huh?

    There is a major difference between probably cause at the level of a warrant versus actual criminal charges being laid. It's not particularly unusual for a DA to look at a case as presented by the police (even after warrants are served) and decide not to move forward.

    The real question is one of probably cause at the level that the warrant was issued, and not how the DA decided it at a later date.

  • On the post: Awesome Stuff: Podcasts To Listen To

    Whatever ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2014 @ 07:51am

    Two things: Listening to audio too quickly may put you in a state where you learn or accept things without thinking. It may be beneficial if you are trying to learn a specific skill, but it may impede your critical thinking skills while listening to these things. Great for Comedy perhaps, but not so much when it comes to other things.

    Second thing: Techdirt "lite" is broken. While the layout is somewhat lighter than the regular site, it does insist on download the full post of every post. That includes things like documents displayed in the posts. So while this post is a nice 10 liner on the regular site, it's MANY MANY page long scroll to get past on mobile, making it less than mobile friendly. A post the other day had about half a dozen videos embedded in it, and while the videos themselves don't load, the poster image and the player itself does get loaded in. Certainly not mobile friendly. Is there a way to work to make the lite version to be in fact lite?

  • On the post: Texas Tosses Out Law Against Peeping Tom Photographs As A First Amendment Violation

    Whatever ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2014 @ 01:19am

    The problem here is that you are mixing two very different things into the same story. Revenge porn and upskirt shooters are as different as can be, both only linked by the fact that they are types of images.

    Revenge porn is basically the use of images taken with knowledge, usually the home made sex tape, or the pics at the topless beach sort of thing. The person having their picture taken generally knew what was going on, although to be fair sometimes it's just hidden camera home movies.

    Upskirt shooters are a completely different deal. It's generally random, done without knowledge or permission, and there is generally no relationship between the shooter and the "victim".

    There are interesting issues at play here. The legality of upskirt images have always been marginal, as the methods used to obtain them are often beyond the scope of what the public would normally see. From time to time you see guys arrested with cameras in their shoes so they can shoot images literally up a skirt. It's such a common concept that it even featured in an episode of CSI a couple of years back.

    Massachusetts deal with it recently:

    http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/542217/20140307/massachusetts-law-upskirt-photos-legal-private-parts.htm#.VB6JJvl4Ob0

    The issues of revenge porn are very different. Generally shot in private, they are released purposely to cause harm or extract revenge. They do so without model releases and without proof of model age (a general requirement for porn, USC18 section 2257).

    Little known fact: Celebrity leaked sex tapes, without exception, have the celeb signing off and providing full 2257 compliant documentation before it's marketed. Many of the lawsuits and stuff are a mix of marketing and negotiation.

  • On the post: Canada Appears To Be Split On Whether To Extend Culture Tax To Internet Services

    Whatever ( profile ), 20 Sep, 2014 @ 03:22am

    There is actually a pretty good blog by Steve Faguy (called Fagstein online) that has some really good insight into all of this, as an example:

    http://blog.fagstein.com/2014/09/08/crtc-irrelevance/

    There are a couple of stories on there about these hearings and the role the CRTC (the canadian radio telecommunications commission) might play in the future.

    His hosting will probably croak if everyone goes and visits, but it's seriously worth checking out.

  • On the post: Jimmy Kimmel Joins John Oliver In Explaining Net Neutrality

    Whatever ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2014 @ 07:32am

    Re: Re:

    -ISPs incentive to slow websites down would be that they could then go charge you an extra premium to speed them back up. "ok, thanks for choosing comcast. would you also like to buy the social media bundle? for only $15/month you can load facebook, linkedin, myspace, and tumblr at the same lightning fast speed we advertised when we sold you the account."

    Right there it would fail, because it would prove they could fix it themselves. They aren't going to do that, they would get their asses sued into non-existence - and the customers would be out the door in a flash.

    ISPs are going to keep what we have now

    No, ISP are going to keep AT LEAST what they have now, with fewer huge bandwidth hogs on it.

    As for connection speed, that is a different problem. All the interconnect and peering won't change the basic fact that too many people live way too far from the central office and still expect big speeds.

    Seriously, what fantasy world do you live in?

    No fantasy, I just don't live in the boonies and expect miracle connections. All the "billions" isn't going to change the simple fact that too many Americans live in denial on so many levels when it comes to living rural, low rise, low density housing. They bitch about their ISP, they bitch about traffic, they bitch about how much it costs to mow the law, how far it is for the kids to go to school... and never once consider (unsurprisingly) that perhaps they are their own worst enemies.

  • On the post: Good News: Mobile Devices Now Competing To Be Much More Secure Against Prying Eyes

    Whatever ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2014 @ 07:23am

    Re: Re: Re: It's security theater

    Yup and as soon as you say "put in the user space" you have identified a backdoor that could be used for a VERY widescale hack if anyone got near it.

  • On the post: Good News: Mobile Devices Now Competing To Be Much More Secure Against Prying Eyes

    Whatever ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2014 @ 05:04am

    Re: It's security theater

    I agree. Apple proved that they have a clear backdoor to put anything they want on your device without your permission (thanks for the U2, idiots!), and if they have that sort of access it's only a matter of time before hackers have the same access. Then your device isn't safe at all.

    Reads way more like Apple wisely choose the current arm waving about security to look good - while proving they have backdoors in every device.

  • On the post: Rupert Murdoch's News Corp: Still Failing To Understand The Internet After 20 Years Of Flops

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2014 @ 09:43pm

    Re: Re: Not quite

    Simple rule: If it's free, it probably isn't.

    Google is all about "free". If you think not seeing ads means you are getting off free, I have bad news for you. Your information, your preferences, your site visits, your searches, and your demand are used as part of the big data that Google uses in order to charge people for ads.

    Also, if you use google search, then you see ads, like it or not. Search results have paid listings. You may click them. Boom, Google gets paid.

    Google is the ultimate middle man, and everyone is too busy praising them to realize what they did.

  • On the post: Jimmy Kimmel Joins John Oliver In Explaining Net Neutrality

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2014 @ 11:47pm

    Unfortunately, it's a bit of a misrepresentation. ISPs would have little incentive to intentionally slow websites down, that would lead to consumer complaints and certainly ripen the market for competition.

    It's much more like "current lane" and "faster lane", and the current lane would have less traffic in it. Imagine how much better Comcast will be when Netflix is no long hogging 50% of their peering during prime time.

  • On the post: New Company Transparency Reports Help Quantify DMCA Abuse

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2014 @ 01:56pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    First off, your citation is a bit off the rails. Let's go ask google itself:

    We removed 97% of search results specified in requests that we received between July and December 2011.

    https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/faq/#index_size_estimates

    They then point the study you really wanted:

    http://lquilter.net/pubs/UrbanQuilter-2006-DMCA512.pdf

    If you read the whole study (it's quite long) is that the "not a valid claim" includes things that would fall potentially fall under fair use. However, they seem to suggesting anything hobbyist, or anything that is a blog would almost automatically fall into that category, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

    The competitive issue is pretty normal - those who seek to profit from piracy are often in competition with the original sources. Their definition of competition seems to be anyone in a somewhat related field.

    Coming to a 6% conclusion is laughable on it's face. I don't even thing TorrentFreak would run with a number like that!

  • On the post: Horrifying 'Rape Scam' Case Leads To Questionable Ruling About Blaming A Website For Failing To Warn Of Rapists

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2014 @ 01:41pm

    Re: Re:

    Actually if you read the ruling, they state exactly the opposite is true, so, nope:

    In order to contact models on that site, you need to be a member. You cannot just cruise the site and contact people. The business model is based on paid memberships for those who seek to hire people.

    So what you are saying is that they were able to create fake paid member accounts on MM and use those to take their bad actions? Did MM not verify "producer / agent" accounts?

  • On the post: EU's Highest Court Allows Libraries To Digitize Books Without Rightholder's Permission

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2014 @ 10:35am

    Re: Re:

    I do also want to point out Paul that part of the issue is that it does not look like libraries will be able to share their digitized works with each other - that is to say that each much digitize their own. That is where the expense comes in, having someone paid to digitize the books for only your own use, not for lending, not to be moved outside of the facility, not to be copied... the "win" doesn't give them very much room to work.

  • On the post: Why Hasn't The Obama Administration Weighed In On The FCC's Net Neutrality Comment Period?

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2014 @ 10:32am

    Re: Tell Obama about the fund-raising opportunity.

    I think because just like Bush junior at the end of his presidential term, Obama has become generally unliked, mostly powerless, and stuck fighting a war in part to prove that he still has some potency.

    Using his image, name, and opinion would be a negative at this point.

  • On the post: New Company Transparency Reports Help Quantify DMCA Abuse

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2014 @ 10:25am

    Re:

    The issue is that while there are some abuses, there aren't very many all considered. Even Google admitted that the vast majority of the DMCA notices they get are valid, the success number lower only because the same page is often reported by many different sources or may have been included more than one in reports from the same rights holder.

    Yes, there are abuses, and they need to be dealt with. However, the other option is trash DMCA, and shut down most of the internet the next day because Youtube and everyone else will be locked up in copyright lawsuits for the next decade.

    You may not like DMCA - but the internet today exists because of it.

  • On the post: Only Surviving Recording Of The Very First Superbowl Is Because A Fan Recorded It, But You Can't See It, Because Copyright

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2014 @ 10:10am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Oh, and RD, I have to thank you for explaining why the report button on Techdirt is abused and used as a censorship tool. You make DMCA look sane and entirely fair.

  • On the post: Only Surviving Recording Of The Very First Superbowl Is Because A Fan Recorded It, But You Can't See It, Because Copyright

    Whatever ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2014 @ 10:09am

    Re: Re:

    He may own the tapes, but he really doesn't own the right to the content on them. Put in simple terms, if you happened to have recorded on your VCR something that didn't happen to get archived, you don't suddenly own it. He can keep it for himself (betamax ruling) but he really can't sell it on or grant rights to others.

    So he "owns" the tapes only in the sense that he owns that copy, and doesn't have any other rights. So 30K (instead of "have a nice day and enjoy re-watching your superbowl video") isn't such a bad thing. Heck, he probably could negotiate super bowl tickets for life if he wanted.

    The problem here is that he can't do anything with it. So it's value is to only one group who can actually do anything with it, the NFL. He can't sell it to anyone else, he can't even really give it away. So what does he do? He holds out for a bigger payday. That's the guy holding the process up.

Next >>