Wyrm’s Techdirt Profile

wyrm

About Wyrm




Wyrm’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 17th, 2020 @ 4:11pm

    (untitled comment)

    The cops argued there's no constitutional duty to disclose this information (under the US Constitution or the Commonwealth's) unless failing to do so would alter the outcome of the trial by creating reasonable doubt where none previously existed.

    So how is that supposed to work?
    They do a trial, and if the accused is declared guilty then the liars are to be exposed?
    Or is the prosecutor supposed to guess the outcome of the trial with and without the disclosure, and only disclose if it makes a difference?

    You can't tell me this is an actual standard.

    ... (Reading the decision of the Court)

    Glad to know it actually is not.

  • Aug 20th, 2020 @ 12:08pm

    Re:

    Unfortunately, this still allows FB to track you.
    It just tracks some of your interests independently from the others. Two half-profiles, and they might have ways to link your profiles internally.

    I'm not sure about this, but given that they already had ways to track users that never even signed in, I wouldn't be surprised if they could find you across different logins.

  • Aug 20th, 2020 @ 11:59am

    Re:

    Of course there is a reason.
    You know that criminals don't have rights. Even just being accused of a crime makes them lose their rights instantly.
    Cops on the other hand are above the law. There is no reason to risk their privacy even after repeatedly killing dozens of people.

    (ps: If you don't read this as sarcasm, please fix your sarcasm detector asap.)

  • Aug 20th, 2020 @ 11:51am

    Re: It's a good thing

    You might want to reference Ray Bradbury here. (Farenheit 451)

  • Jul 31st, 2020 @ 10:02am

    The courts should know by now...

    ... that if you give any loophole or "good faith exception", they will be abused.

    Let's rewrite this as it should have been written first:

    Because the Court considers any violation of this Order, including any express direction by a supervisor or commander to disregard or violate this Order, to be a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and thus not subject to qualified immunity in any action brought against any individual employee, officer, or agent of the Federal Defendants under Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), notice of this Order must be widely disseminated as ignorance of this Order will not be a valid defense.

    There. No easy loophole anymore.
    So easy, I wonder if the loopholes were intentional.

    And you can't even object that you surprise agents with new rules. These were the rules from the beginning. The Court only was supposed to remind them that they are supposed to uphold the Constitution, which doesn't exempt them from it.

  • Jul 24th, 2020 @ 2:16pm

    Re: Re:

    It would be cheap for the copyright holders.

    They would just leave the cost of enforcing to the police, as if police was not already overburdened with tons of work that have nothing to do with police.

    Effective, it will certainly not be. But I doubt copyright holders would bat an eye at police shooting down suspected copyright violators. Imagine them breaking down your door and shooting at you because you have a computer mouse (aka "dangerous blunt weapon") in your hand.

  • Jul 15th, 2020 @ 2:27pm

    Re: Techdirt Does The Same Thing, selling your records to the CI

    Oh, juicy.
    I'm perfectly ready to believe you, as soon as you cite your sources.
    Just "I heard" doesn't quite convince me, but I promise I'll believe you when you provide some proper evidence.

    You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath though.

  • Jul 13th, 2020 @ 12:21pm

    (untitled comment)

    Also of note is how TOS can change at any time, without consent from the user. Giving them the force of law through CFAA would allow for a bigger potential for abuse than one might think at first sight.

  • Jul 8th, 2020 @ 10:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Bait and Switch much?

    Anyone: "Why did you do this?"
    Any cartoon villain ever: "Because I can."

    Yep, ICE is definitely in business for the cruelty alone.

  • Jul 7th, 2020 @ 12:05pm

    (untitled comment)

    Rep. McCarthy: "Free speech isn't just what you agree with."

    That's rich coming from him and his R-tagged colleagues.
    Unless he meant something like "Free speech is just what I agree with."

    In any case, he's right, but it sure sounds pretty hypocritical coming from his side.
    Republicans are not the only ones guilty of this, but it's definitely more prevalent in their party: they want to control and often censor the speech of others, but they are the fastest to cry about "free speech" when their own expression is being moderated, downgraded or even just criticized, totally ignoring the irony of wanting to prevent others' "speech" simply on the basis that it's a critic of theirs.

  • Jun 24th, 2020 @ 11:15am

    Re: Re: Reform

    I understand his post and there is a part that you ignored. I still disagree with him, but you seem to have missed the part where he said "That's why we want reforms."

    He does misunderstand the current version, but he's clear that he understands it enough to know that it doesn't do what he wants. Namely, allowing censorship against speech he doesn't like.

    Like many other conservatives, trolls and right-wing extremists, he likes the First Amendment as long as it covers him and his like-minded comrades. And he outright ignores it when it comes to speech that ranges from center to left-wing. Or even moderate right-wing. Thus he wants section 230 to match his view of the First Amendment. He wants a law that he can defend or ignore at his leisure depending on the content, not one that gets thrown in his face every time his pride or sensitivity is hurt.

    For him, it doesn't matter what the law states (even as clearly as section 230), nor what the initial intention was (despite - for some of them - pretending to be "originalists" or something of the like). He has his idea of what the law should be and what it actually is doesn't matter.

    Problem is, some politicians have the same idea, and they have the power to change the law to match this idea of an empty shell that cries of so-called "good intentions", but without any power to actually be enforced.

  • Jun 17th, 2020 @ 6:18pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I am an optimist and assume that such heartless people are actually a minority.

    I also try to be optimistic and believe in human nature.

    The problem here is that cops are actively trained to be violent, to see themselves as predators lest they be prey, to shoot first at the first sign of movement because this movement could end your life.

    Add to this the fact that good cops are actually fired when found. There was this example of a cop de-escalating a situation with a suicidal man, and he was pretty successful until his colleagues arrived and shot the man down without asking questions. The single cop was fired for endangering the colleagues who arrived late. The victim was acting crazy, waving a gun around that turned out to not even be loaded, so the "reinforcements" can be justified (they couldn't know the gun was empty), and the first cop even defended them in his report. Still got fired because he wasn't trigger-happy.
    And that's only one of many examples.

    Be optimistic by default, but don't forget to also look at reality. Cops are not bad by nature. They are trained to be bad and often retaliated when they are not bad, or at the very least willfully blind to the actions of "bad apples".

  • Jun 8th, 2020 @ 4:43pm

    Re: Trademarked for what markets?

    As long as people think "having a trademark on a word" means "I own this word", this kind of actions will happen. They are going to willfully ignore what the purpose of trademark is, and also what its limitations are. Even if it was registered for cartoons, you can't prevent people from talking about your brand in any form of communication. That is not how it works.

  • Jun 8th, 2020 @ 4:05pm

    (untitled comment)

    Cartoon gets taken off from Redbubble over trademark.
    Cartoonist: "Too bad. How can I sell my cartoons to people trying to buy MAGA hats now?"

  • Jun 8th, 2020 @ 2:37pm

    Re: Re: I was a skeptic...

    Not speaking for aerinai above, but I'm definitely in favor of these two points.

    Stripping police of military hardware is a definite plus.
    Stop making police think and behave themselves like military personnel waging a war against the public.
    And also, stop having the military off load perfectly functional equipment on the police, only to turn back to Congress for budget to replace them. This would save a lot of tax money when we stop giving the army an excuse to fund the military-industrial business.

    As for getting guns in general off the hands of most policemen, that's a good point too. Give them reason to rethink themselves as peace keepers, not troopers. Train them to deescalate situations and find peaceful outcomes to calls. Only keep special intervention teams armed for dangerous situations. Why are there even SWATs when every single cop in the US behaves like one?
    Make cop be part of the community instead of act like zookeepers for dangerous species. People are not animals. Despite how cops are currently trained, the people they interact with are neither prey or dangerous wild carnivores on the hunt.

    90% of situations can be solved without guns. Certain countries don't even arm their cops for routine operations, save for something like a baton and a pepper spray. Firearms are only seen as needed in the US because of both racism and too many guns every where. With the paradox/hypocrisy that everyone is entitled to have a gun, but a black man with a gun is directly seen as a threat, not as a man who exercises his right. (Even worse when he doesn't even have a gun.)

    Added bonus, the Karens out there wouldn't have an incentive to call the cops on every black man that shattered their vision of a white haven for bigots.

  • Jun 8th, 2020 @ 11:52am

    Re: Trolling

    When you're privileged, calls for equality feel like oppression.

  • Jun 5th, 2020 @ 6:28pm

    (untitled comment)

    You're equating despair and tyranny.
    Congratulations, you win... I can't reply to such an elaborate argument.
    Or maybe I can.

    Killing someone, destroying property and businesses, those are not excusable.
    I don't excuse them.
    But they have reasons, I understand them a little. And sympathize with them a lot.

    You have people who are outraged at what is done to them, over and over and over again. And they see no outlet in the judicial system who constantly abuses them at worst or ignores them at best, just as the cops do.

    Which leaves one request: change. When they asked peacefully, it was made clear they would be offered nothing. Or "thoughts and prayers" at best. Definitely not change. This was repeated over and over and over again.

    And when asking peacefully constantly fails, only violence is left. When you are oppressed for years, when you can only fear for your life, when you must teach your children that fear and how to fake respect to thugs in uniform, despair grows. Until it bursts. This is not tyranny. Tyranny is what was done to them. This is revolt.

    It failed before. It might fail again (in no small part thanks to a large number of insensitive people like you). But this would only perpetuate the cycle. Not solve anything, and even less so because you wagged your finger at them, condescendingly telling them that they should not revolt against their better.

    It has to change because every man deserves treatment according to his actions, not whatever skin color he was born with.
    Floyd might have used a $20 counterfeit bill. (We're not even sure of that.) If so, he deserves a fine. Maybe a short prison time, if that.
    Chauvin killed someone in cold blood. He did not premeditate it, he might not have intended it, but he knew exactly what was happening under his knee. He was killing someone. And that didn't faze him. He definitely deserves a long prison sentence.
    (Unless we want another change, where prison is not the answer to everything. That is another discussion though.)

    Here's a riddle:

    One is dead, the one who killed him is about to walk free without even an investigation (but doesn't only because of public outcry).
    Guess who is black and who is white?

    We all know the answer. This needs to change.
    The day we can answer "The one with the badge walks", there will have been some change.
    The day we can answer "No idea, what kind of riddle is that?", even better change.

  • Jun 5th, 2020 @ 5:53pm

    (untitled comment)

    that Chauvin was “perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.”

    The problem is that he did.
    That much is obvious for everyone to see.
    Choking someone who begs for his life, and continuing on after it's been made obvious his victim is dead or dying. This is obviously dangerous, depraved, and very certainly disregards human life.

    but it’s also not an uncommon restraint, and is a permissible use of force in Minneapolis.

    And there you have it: he just has the excuse that someone officially declared that asphyxiating someone is "not dangerous". Violent cops are not the only ones at fault. Those providing them with ready-made excuses are as much at fault.

    They will likely all ignore the fact that there were restrictions on the use of this move, conditions that were not met as it obvious on the camera feeds. (note :Please find a jury to prove me wrong on this one.) This proves Chauvin was recklessly using a "hardly undangerous technique" - as they put it mildly - on an unresisting individual. (I'm nearly surprised the camera didn't show the cop shouting "stop resisting" all the way to Floyd's death.)

    I can agree with the cops having a proper defense attorney and fair trial as everyone should (though they also have a lot more help to prepare for the trial than normal citizens do), but those who preemptively gave them "get out of jail" cards should also be made responsible in some way. Not as directly as charging them for murder or manslaughter, but aiding and abetting would be a good one, I think. They are as much responsible as those other three cops who did nothing to stop Chauvin... or actively helped him. Since that is not going to happen, I hope they do have a conscience at the very least. A conscience that will burn their soul forever.

  • May 13th, 2020 @ 9:33am

    Re: Charge newspapers

    P.S. How come NONE, NONE of these complainers ever mention Bing, Yahoo, or DuckDuckGo?

    Because they don't need to. They just need to showcase Google for their little project, and a law will be drafted that targets them all anyway. Google is well-known, so they are the perfect example.

    Also note that they don't need to tell too much. Just criticize Google and lots of people will pile reasons to target it. Tax evasion, tracking, ad placements, more tracking... People like using Google as much as they dislike some of Google's behavior, justified or not. With this, some people will defend anyone trying to get money from Google as a form of revenge by proxy.

    Later on, things will be worse for everyone involved, because this kind of law doesn't do any good, is not even intended for it. But it will still be Google's fault, somehow.

    With this in mind, naming more companies would only make the issue more confusing for the public, some of which might not have any resentment towards DuckDuckGo, if they even know of it. That would in turn make things more difficult for them to push for a link tax.

  • May 11th, 2020 @ 10:08am

    (untitled comment)

    “I know more about television than anybody."

    That reminds me of somebody else... Who could that ever be?

    Oh wait! That guy!

More comments from Wyrm >>


This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it