DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
from the that-would-be-a-problem dept
We've talked in the past about the problematic efforts to push for new cybersecurity regulations, especially when little to nothing has been done to show the actual problem. There has been quite a turf war over who would "own" cybersecurity within the federal government, with some wanting to give it to the Defense Department, where the NSA would control it (along with all your info), and others wanting to give it to the Department of Homeland Security. While neither option is ideal, DHS is clearly the lesser of two evils should it come to pass. It makes much more sense for this issue to be in the hands of a civilian organization rather than a military one -- especially a military one with a horrible track record when it comes to privacy. That said, it's tough to be enthusiastic about DHS either, given the various problems and abuses we've seen in that Department as well. Making matters even worse, it appears that the DHS boss, Janet Napolitano, who would effectively be in charge of cybersecurity, doesn't know much (if anything) about the internet, and seems rather proud of that fact, referring to herself as a Luddite:Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who is a key player in national cybersecurity efforts, said on Friday she doesn't use e-mail.I don't think anyone should be laughing, but perhaps they should be very, very worried. Or, perhaps they should be asking why she's in that job when she doesn't seem to have the necessary experience. If it does come to pass that DHS gets control over new cybersecurity efforts, this seems like a good reason to find someone else who actually has some grasp on what it is that they're regulating.
"Don't laugh, but I just don't use e-mail at all," she said during a discussion at a Cybersecurity Summit hosted by National Journal and Government Executive. She didn't explain what communications tools she does use.
President Obama, who appointed Napolitano, broke precedent by carrying his own BlackBerry device. But in response to a question about her personal cybersecurity practices, Napolitano said she avoids many online services. "I don't have any of my own accounts. Some would call me a Luddite," she said.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cybersecurity, dhs, email, homeland security, janet napolitano, luddite, online services
Reader Comments
The First Word
“That's because they know how easy it is to intercept and monitor.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know if she uses this account or one of her staff,
---> janet.napolitano@dhs.gov
but any security plan that includes saying she doesn't email looks pretty ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Positions in DC
Wait scratch that, having a high level position is Washington DC might actually be directly proportional to ones _inability_ to do the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Positions in DC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Positions in DC
interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Positions in DC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfect sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Although I do find it hard to belief that she doesn't use email of all things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's because they know how easy it is to intercept and monitor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh... yeah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh... yeah...
It has been completely unhelpful that in the past some IT security people have compared email to a postcard and have stated that you shouldn't expect privacy with email. If such a comparison was really valid, then why do we bother with passwords on our email accounts.
Yes, it is true that unencrypted email isn't secure, but as you observe above, old fashioned letters aren't secure either. Someone can easily steam open a sealed letter, read it and reseal it.
A sealed letter has an expectation of privacy that is acknowledged in law. People do have an expectation of privacy with their password-protected email accounts as well, but the law hasn't yet caught up with reality (most probably because law enforcement likes the status quo).
Over the years too many in both the IT and legal professions have confused privacy with security. Secure encryption can bring privacy, but it should not be required for an expectation of privacy to exist under the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh... yeah...
Type your Message -> Encrypt -> QRCode -> Print -> Send via Mail.
Scan QR Code -> Decrypt -> Read -> Burn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's get Janet some email!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's get Janet some email!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
any images from that day were shopped
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure she has seen a computer and knows the basics of how e-mail works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you suggesting that generals don't need to have been soldiers? This new notion that CEO's don't need to understand the business to run the business is one of the reasons that modern American businesses are failing. Look at the fate of HP for a great example. When run by the founders, grew to mega-corp. While run by professional CEOs, reduced to rubble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And her inability to understand the magic smoke that powers the computers means she can not tell the difference between technology and magic. Which explains the billions spent on machines that run on magic and not sound technology we are still paying for delivery of while we keep them in warehouses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
�Bush Encounters the Supermarket, Amazed� by Andrew Rosenthal, New York Times, Feb 5, 1992
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you specifically writing this blog for 4chan script kiddies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm sorry, but this is just more anti-government FUD. Is there any part of this country that Mike doesn't hate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
like, if you drive a car, it's always good to know what jumper cables are for besides a fun sex toy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Her job is administrative. How hard is it to understand the concept of email? Just because she doesn't use it doesn't mean she lacks any necessary knowledge of the technology to carry out her duries. This is just simple anti-government FUD.
I'm beginning to realize that Mike only cares about spreading FUD. He cares not about having a substantive discussion of the issues. As long as the 4chan kiddies like his posts, he's satisfied. How sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
admitting at being willfully ignorant of what may become part of your Job duties is always a good thing
(this is how we do SOPA/PIPA/TPP, we "fix" things cause we know they are broke,cause it is our JOB to know right?)
look at you AJ you are clueless but your "always" right, right??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have seen you hold your own in a reasonable debate without resorting to childish antics. For example, the comments on this recent article, once the initial mud-slinging calmed down, it turned into a really great discussion.
And then you come on this article and start acting like classic internet troll with a bit of petulant child thrown in because Mike doesn't espouse the same exact same viewpoints as you.
I really don't get it. You are actually much more refined than what you are displaying on this article. Almost makes me wonder if you are bipolar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is not one iota of evidence that the Secretary performs her duties less capably because she doesn't use email. This story epitomizes the essence of Mike Masnick. He runs with a story that makes someone in authority/government look bad, regardless of whether there's any actual actual evidence that there is in fact a problem.
Here's the extent of Mike's thought process: "Hey, that kind of makes someone in power look bad at first blush. New article! Fuck you, government servant!" That's how shallow he is.
I *wish* Mike would conduct himself like Karl does, having intelligent discussions with those who challenge him. But Mike will *never* do that. All he cares about is pleasing the 4chan kiddies.
No wonder Mike won't engage me (or any of the other critics) in a substantive discussion. He's just not *albe* to. It's all making sense to me now. What a waste of an ivy league MBA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the stuff that never, ever makes it to mainstream media. I don't need "actual evidence that there is in fact a problem" at this current moment in order to be aware that something like this *could* be a problem that I want to keep an eye out for in the future. Forewarned is forearmed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's a reason you never see drivel like this in the mainstream media. It's not newsworthy to anyone beyond, zealots, kooks, tinfoil hatters and conspiracy theorists. Though if meaningless garbage like this interests you, I suggest the National Enquirer or similar supermarket check-out rags. Actually, I think Masnick is trying to place a story about how Bigfoot's website got a DMCA takedown notice and another about an Elvis siting at the recent TPP negotiations. Should be his usual, compelling brand of "journalism".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In my opinion, only a fool relies on a single source for their news. Even more so in an age when 4 or 5 corporate entities control the majority of mainstream news outlets.
I've obviously given you too much credit
Probably, but I no longer buy on credit anymore, so we're cool.
Cheez Whiz
I've actually used a similar moniker in the past. I usually spelled it this way: CheezeWiz
For a while, I thought you had half a brain.
Nah, not me. Brains are for people with fancy letters after their names. I'm just common folk, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At times, it seems as if you are more angry or jealous of the large audience Mike has more so than the actual viewpoint. You tend to treat those with less influence with much more respect when engaging in debate. Just my personal observations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is not one iota of evidence that the Secretary performs her duties less capably because she doesn't use email. This story epitomizes the essence of Mike Masnick. He runs with a story that makes someone in authority/government look bad, regardless of whether there's any actual actual evidence that there is in fact a problem.
Yet you have not provided a single piece of empirical evidence to support your claim. Without such evidence, your claim is as baseless as you say Mike's is.
Here's the extent of Mike's thought process: "Hey, that kind of makes someone in power look bad at first blush. New article! Fuck you, government servant!" That's how shallow he is.
I *wish* Mike would conduct himself like Karl does, having intelligent discussions with those who challenge him. But Mike will *never* do that. All he cares about is pleasing the 4chan kiddies.
No wonder Mike won't engage me (or any of the other critics) in a substantive discussion. He's just not *albe* to. It's all making sense to me now. What a waste of an ivy league MBA.
I see you did not heed my words about changing the tone of your posts. Do not expect discourse when you hurl vitriol at anyone who speaks with you. This is why Mike and others do not engage you. Because of your arrogance and unwillingness to refrain from insults and condescension.
Who knows, but I'll bet the CEO of USAirways can't fly a 737. Same thing for the guy who runs Amtrak- I doubt he could bring the Acela from NY to Boston.
It is really so difficult, AC, to understand that one could move up from having done those things for many years to supervising them? In a company or organization with rational policies, this would be the norm, for experienced individuals to ascend to positions of leadership where their firsthand knowledge and expertise would aid them far more in their field than a generic business degree. Thus, if USAirways operated in a logical manner, its CEO would have been a pilot of its planes for many years before ascending to his current position, thereby possessing the experience necessary to guide such a company more wisely than a business graduate with no firsthand knowledge of how his or her business or organization and its components operate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My claim is simply that Mike has no evidence that her lack of use of email affects her job performance negatively. Can you point to Mike's evidence? No. That proves my claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not that it matters, but we've discussed this little lie of yours multiple times before. I can and do engage people who know how to act like they're older than a 2 year old. That's not you. But other critics, I debate all the time.
Me debating Steve Tepp from the Chamber of Commerce:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120210/02273417726/how-being-more-ope n-human-awesome-can-save-anyone-worried-about-making-money-entertainment.shtml
Me debating Jonathan Taplin:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120626/01023119476/innovation-copying-civil-disobedience .shtml
Taplin and Tepp are two knowledgeable, respected individuals who have accomplished quite a lot more than you have. They are recognizable names in their fields and I was happy to debate each of them live in front of an audience where we could discuss things. I've also offered to debate each of them and others in a text format as well if they were open to it.
We've gone over this many times before. I've engaged with you. Many times. And each time it ends in you stomping your foot like a whiny little child. You're already doing it today with your FUD FUD FUD comments. When you act like an adult, perhaps we'll treat you like one. Until then, explain once, firmly to the baby that he needs to stop throwing a temper tantrum. And move on.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-t echdirt.shtml#c1210
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are you so scared to discuss your beliefs, Mike?
Just the other day I had a wonderful and very productive discussion with Karl: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120915/13334520392/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt .shtml?threaded=false&sp=1#comments
Someone even commented: "These discussion are some of the best I've seen on TechDirt."
Obviously I'm ready and willing to have a productive and substantive discussion with you. But you keep making excuses. Weird.
Scared?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(see what I did there?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Admit that you've been mean to me, and then apologize,
or,
have one substantive discussion with me about copyright law,
and then I'll leave you alone through the end of the year.
You game?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your ilk fills every single article about how Mike is a pirate, regardless of whether the article has anything to do with copyright or piracy, and when people call you out on it you call them thin-skinned whiners - and now you want an apology because you think Masnick might have been "mean" to you?
For a guy who laughs at blind people crippled by DRM you have skin as thick as a soggy piece of tissue paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fact is, all Mike ever does is chime in with nonsense posts like there where he makes all sorts of excuses.
Ever wonder why he's too scared to have even one substantive discussion with me about copyright law?
Hint: 'Cause he knows I'll expose his nonsense in a second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because you see him weak and stupid and incapable of any kind of critical thinking, doesn't mean you have to take advantage! Where's your compassion?
Sure, he may be a carbon bag of human waste, but that doesn't mean you get to call him names!
He may be a spineless twit so insecure in his point of view that he can't even stop tossing random insults and lashing out at anyone who calls him on his lack of common sense, but that does NOT give us the right to treat him like the lowest biological sample that has ever been part of the animal kingdom, even if he IS!
Apologize to the poor boy, Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's easy. Yes, I've been mean to you. I don't suffer foolish claims gladly, and that's always been the case. Contrary to your statements, I've said that before as well. I speak harshly to people when they act foolishly, because I tend to hold people to a high level of expectations and if they make foolish statements, I will call them out on it. I believe you regularly act out childishly on this blog, and because of that I was mean to you. I don't think the statements I made to you came anywhere close to the level of abuse and ad hominems you directed my way, nor the constant clinginess and need to vandalize thread after thread after thread -- often completely off topic.
However, I will apologize to you for my mean statements. I did not realize you were so thin skinned that you can dish out the most vile insults, but can't take it when someone tries to set you straight, but since you've now admitted that is the case, I am sorry that I said such things to you. As I've noted elsewhere, I've now learned that it is impossible to engage with you in a normal debate. Clearly the proper response is not to engage you at all.
and then I'll leave you alone through the end of the year.
Let's see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't pretend for one second that I can't be engaged in a normal debate. I've been trying for YEARS to have a substantive discussion with you. All you do is change the subject, get hostile, lie, squirm, run away--anything but just have a normal conversation.
Karl and I just had a very good conversation. Unlike you, Karl is not scared to stand behind his beliefs. As I mentioned above, someone made this comment: "Couldn't agree more. These discussion are some of the best I've seen on TechDirt." Source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120915/13334520392/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt .shtml#c3329
I've been hoping for years that you and I could have a productive discussion. I've tried everything I could, relentlessly, to get you to just have an honest back and forth. But you have refused, always with excuses, games, and ridicule.
Here's a case in point: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120908/13441520319/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt .shtml#c6009
You claimed: "*poof* AJ disappears into thin air."
But I hadn't gone anywhere. I waited around for days to address the ONE question you claimed that I had been dodging. Finally, days later you showed back up: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120908/13441520319/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt .shtml#c6764
You, of course, then refused to have the conversation that you claimed *I* was avoiding. I didn't avoid anything. Everyone can see that I stayed in that thread for days, waiting for you to have the conversation you were pretending I ran away from. All you had were excuses. That's all you ever have. And you, of course, wouldn't just have the conversation you claimed *I* didn't want to have.
To pretend that I'm not able to engage you is laughable. I have over a hundred bookmarks of threads where you ran away, unwilling and unable to discuss some silly claim you'd made. You're a complete coward, Mike. You won't stand behind your own words because you know they're bullshit, and you care nothing about the truth. All you care about is manipulating people and spreading FUD. All I care about is the truth.
I'm now 100% positive that you act in bad faith 100% of the time. For 2.5 years I've tried to get you open up and have meaningful discussion, but you have proved over and over and over again that you won't and you can't. I know you're trying to save face by pretending the problem is me, but the fact is that I've been ready, willing, and able to discuss issues with you for years--and all you've ever had were excuses. You're a complete fake and coward through and through. No wonder your most ardent fans are imbeciles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As already shown, none of this is true. I tried. Many, many times, to have a regular discussion with you. But your idea of a discussion is to see how many "and when did you stop beating your wife?" questions you can throw at me, and when I explain that that's a logical fallacy, you throw a temper tantrum.
Yes, you had a good discussion with Karl. Maybe it's a sign you're maturing. But I've gone through this process with you at least half a dozen times and I already know how you play the game. It's not the way an adult responds.
I've clearly proven you a liar. You claim I refuse to debate critics. That's empirically false. I do so all the time. The only person I generally don't engage with is you, and it's not because I'm scared of you.
And, like a two year old, I expect you'll now refuse to live up to your promise here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you obviously debate some people some of the time (but only when it's something silly and you know you can score a point). But you don't debate *me* and others who call you out for your purposeful misrepresentations about copyright law. You run away from the tough discussions--the ones where you know I (and others) can easily prove you wrong.
If you weren't so scared of me, you would stand behind your claims when challenged. But all we ever get are excuses and posts like this where you talk about talking about it. I can name several issues right here, right now that you REFUSE to discuss. Want me to? I'll post the issues, and you can prove to everyone that you are willing to discuss them. Instead of pretending like you're not scared, you can prove it right here, today. I know you won't, though. You can't wait for me to stop reminding everyone that you're a fake and a coward.
And, like a two year old, I expect you'll now refuse to live up to your promise here.
I am going to leave you alone. If you ever decide you want to have a substantive discussion about your beliefs (which will *never* happen), you know where to find me. I'm not too scared to discuss ANYTHING with you. Any topic, any place, any time. I will never run from you. Never. I'm not a fake, and I'm not a coward. I stand behind my claims when challenged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says the guy who comments on threads several days old and derails them with "LOLOMG PIRATE MIKE Y U NO DEBATE ME" and gathers other trolls to laugh at it like it's the joke of the year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, you didn't post them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, you didn't post them...
Right, because Mike doesn't want to talk about any of those issues with me. If he wants to discuss those things, I'm ready at a moment's notice. I'll debate any place, any time, on any issue. But he prefers that I leave him alone, because he knows he can't discuss those things with me without him coming out looking like an idiot. He doesn't want to be constantly reminded that several of his positions are indefensible and untenable. The last thing in the world Mike wants is for anyone to ever question the ridiculous things he says about copyright. I tried for years to get him to just have a normal conversation, but all he's ever had are excuses. He lies and says that he won't discuss these things with me because I'm just not worthy or able, but the FACT is that he knows his bullshit can be easily ripped apart. He'll go to any length to never have to defend some of the nonsense he posts. He just wants to lie and manipulate people without recourse or challenge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, this [points to quoted bit] is REALLY leaving Mike alone.
So basically, despite saying you'd leave Mike alone if he apologized OR debated you YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SHUT STFU EVER.
I guess since you didn't specify and say, "Mike, I will leave you alone, but I will continue to haunt your site, going from article to article and leaving asinine comments taking shots at you over and over."
And the only one who comes out looking like an idiot here is you. You don't realize how silly you look? You seriously are at a point where you come off as beyond obsessive. Stalker much? And the fact that you go on at length about trying to debate him and wanting to debate him then turn around and just start going off with your usual ad hom laden comments (which is basically all that is in that quoted bit, although ad homs without having to use "fuck off and die" or "asshole") says a lot about why you are really here. And it isn't to debate or act even remotely like an adult.
So how about since Mike apologized (because you're obviously quite the thin skinned creature) you stfu already? As in completely. No more mentioning Mike or his lack of ability to apparently debate you. No more talking about his ability to lie and spread FUD and manipulate and blah blah fucking blah.
And if you do have to comment, just comment on the articles at hand without bringing up Mike or any of your usual nonsense.
I know it's asking too much from a 2 year old, but I figured I'd give you a chance to prove to everyone that you aren't a disruptive little shit with an obsession for Mike that borders on the unhealthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The reason is obvious: he's a manipulative zealot who knows that what he's saying is bullshit. My attempting to engage him in a substantive discussion of issues that he writes about profusely is not the action of a two-year-old.
Anyone is free to read the details of how you have acted here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week -techdirt.shtml#c1210
And then decide for themselves if your actions reflect that of a two year old.
I regularly debate many people who disagree with me. But you have shown that it is impossible for you to debate like an adult. Your debate style:
AJ: And when did you stop beating your wife?
Me: That's a ridiculous question, because I never beat my wife.
AJ: So you admit you beat your wife?
Me: Point me to where I said I beat my wife.
AJ: Ok, I will point you to that if you will answer me: When did you stop beating your wife.
Me: Ok. I never beat my wife. Now I've answered your question, please answer mine.
AJ: You haven't. I did not ask you IF you were beating your wife. I asked you when you stopped. You have not answered my question. The only obvious reason why is because you're a dishonest slimeball who can't stand being called out.
Me: This is why I don't debate with you.
AJ: See? You're running away.
Me: ?
AJ: You are the most dishonest person in the world. Fuck off and die, you slimeball.
20 minutes go by.
AJ: Crickets! See? WifeBeaterMike is such a slimeball who won't debate me. Don't you all see how slimey he is.
Me: Oh, hey, I was off debating someone who actually was willing to discuss things, not go off on insane rants.
AJ: WHY YOU NO DEBATE ME WIFEBEATING SLIMEBUCKET?
Every other post that day:
AJ: HAS EVERYONE SEEN THAT WIFEBEATING SLIMEBUCK MIKE WON'T DEBATE ME. I AM GOD. ONLY I AM SO SMART THAT MIKE WON'T DEBATE ME. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE TONS OF OTHER PEOPLE HE DEBATES. THE FACT THAT HE FAILS TO ENGAGE WITH ME THIS VERY SECOND (DESPITE HAVING ENGAGED WITH ME MANY TIMES IN THE PAST) PROVES THAT HE'S A TOTAL DISHONEST SLIMEBUCKET WHO IS AFRAID TO GO UP AGAINST I, THE GREAT GOD OF LEGAL KNOWLEDGE WHO COULDN'T EVEN GET INTO A FIRST OR SECOND TIER LAW SCHOOL. ALL BOW DOWN TO I, AJ, LORD AND MASTER, DESTROYER OF COMMENTS. ME ME ME ME ME ME.
Now, be a good little 2 year old, and live up to your fucking promise to leave us alone.
AJ: ME ME ME ME ME. LAST WORD! I MUST GET IN THE LAST AD HOM WORD! SLIMEY DISHONEST PIRATE WIFEBEATING MIKE! ME ME ME ME ME ME.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, AJ, you aren't leaving Mike alone and your response to Pixelation in no way answered what Pixelation was asking about. They asked you to specifically post the issues that you claim Mike refuses to debate. Not why Mike won't debate you or what kind of person he is and whatnot.
Again, you were presented an opportunity to act like an adult and leave Mike alone and you didn't take it.
So now, again, we can all see that Mike has been right about you this entire time. You are not here to debate. You are here to insult and derail. You are indeed a two year old.
I don't think people should be banned from commenting until they reach a certain point of off topicness and abuse. I think you reached that point a long time ago and I wish Mike would just ban you. But apparently he's a much better person than you or I because he's yet to do so and still takes time to try and be decent to someone as dick and immature as you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can post several topics that Mike won't discuss.
(1) Mike has claimed that he wants to revise the bad parts of copyright law. I've asked him whether he thinks that any parts are good, and if so, what those parts are and what should be done to enforce them. He won't discuss this.
(2) Mike has claimed that copyright is not fulfilling its purpose to promote learning because copyright is used to prevent textbooks from being created that would include certain copyrighted material. I've asked him to explain how he squares this argument with the fact that copyright says to promote the progress by giving authors the right to have their works excluded from anything they want, including textbooks. He won't discuss this.
(3) Mike has claimed that Secretary Napolitano is not fit to hold office because she doesn't use email. I've asked him to provide actual evidence beyond his baseless innuendo. He will not discuss this.
(4) Mike has claimed that television reporting on elections has no effect the results. I asked him if he could back up this claim. He will not discuss this.
(5) Mike has claimed that Perfect 10's cert, petition that was denied was a shame because the Court wouldn't address squarely the important fair use issues therein. I asked him how he squares that claim with the fact that fair use was not the issue on appeal. He will not discuss this.
I can honestly go on and on with hundreds of times that Mike has been called out for his nonsense. And pretty much every time that he decides to say anything, it's only to pretend like I'm some sort of child for even asking him to explain himself in the first place. It's just a silly deflection that he uses to avoid discussing the issue directly. On another computer, I have well over 100 bookmarks of threads where Mike ran away, unwilling and unable to actually address a criticism on the merits. I'd love to post them all and have Mike go through them one-by-one addressing the criticisms, but you and I both know that Mike will never do this because he's a liar and a coward. I am here to discuss Mike's errors. Mike would obviously prefer if no one challenged him on any of his nonsense.
I wish Mike would just ban you.
Yeah, obviously you don't like it when the King of Bullshit gets challenged either. Shocker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why didn't you quote the whole thing AJ? Talk about slimy and dishonest, as well as manipulative. I quite clearly stated that I don't feel people should be banned til they have gotten well out of hand. You sir have done exactly that, gotten well out of hand.
Heck, I pointed out that you didn't respond to Pixelation at all, then you did and you STILL took shots at Mike in it.
As I said, you aren't here to debate. We can all see why you're here, it's to insult Mike.
Now, he apologized, live up to what you said you'd do. Leave Mike alone. Stop bringing him into conversations. You could've easily listed what he won't debate you on. No major explanations need. I'd even re-write them and put how they should've been listed, but it's pointless. You won't live up to your end and you feel a need to take a jab at Mike every time you comment. Oh well. Two year old you are, two year old you shall always be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My answer to Pixelation is that I'm happy to post many, many issues that Mike has avoided. I'd love to post them and go through them one by one. But you and I both know that Mike doesn't want to do that.
As I said, you aren't here to debate. We can all see why you're here, it's to insult Mike.
I insult Mike because after YEARS of trying to get him to defend his claims, and him refusing, I've come to the inescapable conclusion that Mike is intentionally misrepresenting things/jumping to conclusions/working backwards/acting like a zealot.
I would LOVE to debate Mike. He could decide to engage me right here in this thread, and I could prove to you all that I want to challenge him on the merits of his claims. But you and I both know that he won't engage me. He won't even give me the opportunity to debate him. Instead, he only has excuses for why he won't debate.
So what you're claiming makes no sense. I'm right here in this thread ready to debate Mike on hundreds of claims he's made. Yet he's the one who won't engage me. You should ask yourself why he's always got an excuse, but he never just engages me to prove that I can't engage him in a meaningful and substantive manner. The only one preventing this debate is him. You're buying his excuses, but I think it's beyond obvious that he's running away, again, for the thousandth time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is there a special name for this kind of troll that does exactly what he's blaming others for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Masnick jumped the shark a long time ago and now everyone is catching on.
He can't back up anything he says with any honesty. He can't debate with any honesty.
I said a long time ago that he was a sociopath and a complete slimeball.
I was 100% correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I encourage anyone to watch the video. The fact that Taplin had to resort to blatantly false ad hominems so early speaks quite well to how well he did in the debate. I'm comfortable with my performance against him and encourage everyone to watch the full thing and make their own decision of how well he did.
Cheering on a blatantly false ad hominem says quite a lot about you, but not about your ability to judge a debate.
Either way, the point was the false claim that I will not debate those who are critics. That is clearly false, whether or not you think I had the upper hand in the debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait. Blatantly false? Taplin called you a Google shill over your "Sky Is Rising" report for CCIA. Then you are outted as a shill by your own Google paymasters during their patent litigation. How is that false? And I didn't see much of a denial by you either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Links or it didn't happen. (being paid by google, that is. And no - adsense does not count)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Masnick: PAID Google apologist and anti-IP zealot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The August 7 order was not limited to authors "paid . . . to report or comment" or to "quid pro quo" situations. Rather, the order was designed to bring to light authors whose statements about the issues in the case might have been influenced by the receipt of money from Google or Oracle. For example, Oracle has disclosed that it retained a blogger as a consultant. Even though the payment was for consulting work, the payment might have influenced the blogger�s reports on issues in the civil action.
Judge Alsup added: "Google suggests that it has paid so many commenters that it will be impossible to list them all. Please simply do your best but the impossible is not required. Oracle managed to do it."
So if Masnick is a paid "google apologist" (really, these words have a meaning?) and a anti-IP zealot (hrhr, yeah, like atheist are zealots) - so is EVERYONE from this set of people:
(a) all commenters known by Google to have received payments as consultants, contractors, vendors, or employees; and
(b) employees/commenters at organizations who receive money from Google.
Not a small set. Troll harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Marked this as funny for the sheer hilarity of you braniac actually thinking this could be true. LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is elitist bullshit. Outside of this revelation there isn't anything else she's proven to be competent at with her job either. She doesn't just know nothing about e-mail, she knows nothing about airport security, border security, or cyber security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
She's obviously an incompetent idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you prove it every single time you post here.
Nice work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's be realistic. She calls herself a Luddite, and she might have cybersecurity added to her office's workload. How can she reasonably monitor her own people when she flat-out states that technology isn't within her realm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One thing I'm curious about - why do call someone you publicly disrespect by his first name? Why not call him 'Masnick' or 'PirateBoy'? Are you two shirt buddies or something? Are you angling for an editorial position?
On second thought, I'm not that curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you specifically trolling because you've got a hard on for Mike and he spurned your advances?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It would also be wise of you to begin examining the government with a clear eye, as opposed to the clouded lenses you use now. Logic clearly dictates that the best individuals to supervise technology or any other field are those with many hours and years of experience with it. For example, Mr. Scott is the chief of Engineering because of his high degree of expertise and many years of experience in the operation and maintenance of the warp engines and their related technologies. It would neither be logical nor prudent to have an individual in charge who did not have such qualifications. Yet you appear to have no issues with an official supervising a field with which she herself admits she has no practical experience. To make and enforce policy in such an environment based on the decisions of one unfamiliar with what they are supervising would be both unwise and possibly dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can't a man not drink his beer in silence?
Can't a man not crudely lie and scream?
Can't a man not control his bitch with violence?
Y'all are brutalizing him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on the bright side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But how in the name of hell does this woman work in a modern, 21st century white-collar job and not use fucking email?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
She's off-shored her messaging solution to China.
This innovative out-sourcing saves her division a ton of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or she's a Stallmanite!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or she's a Stallmanite!
im prety sure there is no monopoly on email
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's because he knows cyber security does not exist.
The only secure computer is one locked in a guarded vault not connected to any network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't worry.
Don't worry. Nobody is laughing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not true
MPAA and RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From The So What Dept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From The So What Dept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clueless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mizz Reno's qualifications aren't the problem
The real question is why the Anointed One who appointed her has an even greater lack of qualifications...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
man she uses pigeons
sorry im drunk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
she is likely aware of this...
http://bcfreedom.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/smart-meters-energy-harvesting-data-sales-goldm ine-spy-machines/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]