Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 May 2019 @ 4:20pm
Re: a few questions
How is is any of our business what the financial details are? While it would be interesting, it is still none of our business. If any fundraising efforts exceed the actual costs of the litigation, and Mike says they will be spent on reporting, I think it is reasonable to assume that they will be. It is not like this is a public entity, it is private. And while it, like any other private business, is supported by customers, you and I are customers, and don't have any reason to inquire into the finances of companies we support.
Now, if Techdirt were a publicly traded company, it might be different, and then only a little so, as even publicly traded companies don't give out all details of every transaction they make.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 May 2019 @ 4:13pm
Re: Millionaire MM now asks YOU to subsidize his lying!
"...So after given Ivy League "Doctorate" and house in Frisco, no visible means of support for 20 years, but undoubtedly given money to buy tech stocks when cheap that are now worth millions, THAT MILLIONAIRE now asks YOU to pay for his egregious and prolonged assaults."
I don't know about millionaire, but your thinking that Techdirt was his only source of income is a bit short sided. And thinking that anyone 'gave' him money to invest for himself, rather than for them, is just more wonky than the normal imagination can comprehend. Also, so what if he has done well for himself, is that something you have concerns about? Are you really relating his success to your own failures? You also forget the Floor 64 operation:
"Floor64 has been generating insights and developing insight platforms for over 21years -- and doing so in unique and innovative ways designed to help drive businesses forward, rather than keeping them tied to the past. We manage both Techdirt and the Copia Institute."
Now what is that? Who pays for what Floor 64 does? I bet it is a bunch of businesses, and that they not only find what they do helpful, but I bet they have many repeat clients. I don't know for sure, but it is reasonable to assume that a company that is more than 20 years old is doing something right. And the fact that they have been around for more than 20 years distinguishes them from the lies you tell (well 'tell' is giving you more than you deserve, imagine and spout is a better definition of what you do). Got anything from this reality?
While Floor 64 manages Techdirt, it is not the same entity. To ask readers of Techdirt to support a defense that should not have been necessary, except for the depraved attitude of the person persecuting them (no defamation found by the court) is not unreasonable. What was unreasonable was filing the lawsuit in the beginning.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 May 2019 @ 5:07pm
Re: Re: Re:
Let's for argument sake say they make it 100%, confirmably reliable. So what? The 1 in 10,000th person they are looking for does not negate the 9,999 people's who's privacy was violated (or whatever the numbers really are).
Then one question is are those 9,999 privacy violations worth the i catch? Another question is, are there other methods that don't violate multitudes of non suspect persons privacy? And the fact is that the answer to that second question is yes (but it takes more work), and the answer to the first question is no, mostly in light of the answer to the second question (but they don't care).
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 May 2019 @ 2:38pm
Re: Known, Knowns*
Yes, it's those unknown unknowns that idiots who are absolutely certain fail to account for.
Then there are those who are sort of certain, but fail to account for known unknowns. They are knowingly obtuse about those.
And then the cream of the crop, those who are also absolutely certain and cannot account for known known's because they know better, but don't actually know anything as their ideology prevents them from knowing. We have a few around here.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 May 2019 @ 2:17pm
Security: Detection vs Investigation
Looking at many security type devices, such as cameras, they are useful mostly in looking for perpetrators after the fact, rather than prevention. Locks, gates, walls, etc. might be useful in preventing crime, at least until ways can be found to breach those.
"It is ridiculous to deny the value of this technology in securing airports and border installations,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University. “It is hard to deny that there is a public safety value to this technology.”
So where is the public safety value in facial recognition? Searching for perpetrators after the fact? For the investigative value? That doesn't make me feel more safe. That they have a 2% or 3% chance of finding that face vs. the many other options for investigation that take actual work, and is still an after the fact event. If they know the face of a potential perpetrator in advance, then detain them, that is if you have the goods on them. If not, then why are you looking for them? Partial goods might be a reason, but then there are all the innocent people being 'recognized' whose privacy is then violated.
I deny any value in this technology, and will continue to do so even then the technology becomes better. Even if it was 100% accurate, it is still tends to be after the fact, and violates every person who isn't a criminal their privacy. Security, at least in the sense of terrorism, for example, would be better enacted in prevention, not investigation. There is a whole lot of surveillance going on, and when they find actual links to something nefarious, they should act, not preemptively, but as law enforcement agents should. Make a case and bring it and the supposed perpetrators to a court.
And it doesn't take facial recognition software to ID a person entering the country at a border, it takes well trained and currently informed agents checking passports.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 May 2019 @ 10:27am
Re: Re: Re:
There is often little difference between the machine and the real person one gets. They read to you what the machine tells them to and use no cognitive determination until you demand a supervisor (when they answer the question to themselves 'should I or shouldn't I), who are few and far between and too busy to talk to you.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 May 2019 @ 10:17am
Re: Private organizations
When their work product is to become a part of the legal system, then like those who write standards that are required by law, don't have the same protections that others might.
Then there is the question of whether the restatement is actually reflective of the actual law and the intent of the legislative body that created that law. If ideology creeps in, it is less effective, especially if that ideology is then used by a court to color its decisions.
Also, there is a difference between government censorship and private censorship. The former is illegal, the latter is not. Because of the relationship between the ALI and the courts, I believe they are more along the lines of the former, rather than the latter, even if they are not elected or appointed to any governmental post.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 May 2019 @ 10:09am
Re:
How about they get the take down after adjudication in a court of law? If there is a question of monetization, then any funds earned after the request could be held in escrow, until the judge finds one way or another. Oh, and lets add the requester pays the legal fees of the 'accused' when and if they lose.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 May 2019 @ 5:25pm
Re:
The IP address doesn't prove who wrote the post, but it might be a part of an investigation into who did. The difference is, the copyright trolls are accusing the person who pays for the Internet connection and hitting them up for payment and/or suing them. This is different than if they used the IP address to then go and try to find out who might have been using it for some illegal or civilly wrong activity. The IP trolls don't want to spend that kind of money.
Asking a court for permission to find out who and/or where that IP address is and who controls it in order to try and find out the actual who did whatever bad thing is the right way to go about it. Not just accuse the IP address owner of whatever.
Suing someone for defamation isn't free, or cheap.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 May 2019 @ 11:15am
Re:
The charge was likely obstruction of justice. The problem is that he should have been protected by the shield law. The further problems will include the perjury committed by the officers who swore out an affidavit in obtaining the search warrant, which could only have happened by lying to the judge. They won't be punished.
Further, autopsy reports are probably public records, which should only be withheld from the public if they are part of an ongoing investigation. The only investigations mentioned were the who leaked the report, internal and external investigations.
Was there also an investigation of the PD's death? Even if there was, that autopsy report would have to be disclosed to the defense and then used in court. That is of course, what was the source of those illegal substances? Is that what an investigation into the PD's death about? Is there a cover-up occurring here? Would the DA try to hold a secret trial to protect some law enforcement personnel?
Now that I have mentioned all these bad possibilities, there may be something innocent, except the lying to the judge and the violation of the shield law by the PD looking for something where they should not be looking.
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 May 2019 @ 8:20am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, defend not uphold.
I didn't say that SCOTUS needed to approve laws, I said that the constitutionality of laws related to treason, passed by Congress don't appear to have been tested, and SCOTUS would be the place that that testing would take place.
That doesn't say anything about disclosure of anything, classified or not, unless it actually gave aid and comfort the the enemy. Telling the public about murder in the name of an undeclared war where no court found the target guilty of anything. Especially when there are associated killings of people who may or may not have participated in the supposed crime the 'guilty' party, who was not found guilty of in any court.
Again, if the release was to the 'enemy' however that gets defined under current circumstances, and not the public, it might be different.
On the post: Our Legal Dispute With Shiva Ayyadurai Is Now Over
Re: a few questions
How is is any of our business what the financial details are? While it would be interesting, it is still none of our business. If any fundraising efforts exceed the actual costs of the litigation, and Mike says they will be spent on reporting, I think it is reasonable to assume that they will be. It is not like this is a public entity, it is private. And while it, like any other private business, is supported by customers, you and I are customers, and don't have any reason to inquire into the finances of companies we support.
Now, if Techdirt were a publicly traded company, it might be different, and then only a little so, as even publicly traded companies don't give out all details of every transaction they make.
On the post: Our Legal Dispute With Shiva Ayyadurai Is Now Over
Re: Millionaire MM now asks YOU to subsidize his lying!
I don't know about millionaire, but your thinking that Techdirt was his only source of income is a bit short sided. And thinking that anyone 'gave' him money to invest for himself, rather than for them, is just more wonky than the normal imagination can comprehend. Also, so what if he has done well for himself, is that something you have concerns about? Are you really relating his success to your own failures? You also forget the Floor 64 operation:
Now what is that? Who pays for what Floor 64 does? I bet it is a bunch of businesses, and that they not only find what they do helpful, but I bet they have many repeat clients. I don't know for sure, but it is reasonable to assume that a company that is more than 20 years old is doing something right. And the fact that they have been around for more than 20 years distinguishes them from the lies you tell (well 'tell' is giving you more than you deserve, imagine and spout is a better definition of what you do). Got anything from this reality?
While Floor 64 manages Techdirt, it is not the same entity. To ask readers of Techdirt to support a defense that should not have been necessary, except for the depraved attitude of the person persecuting them (no defamation found by the court) is not unreasonable. What was unreasonable was filing the lawsuit in the beginning.
On the post: And Now The Prime Minister Of Canada Is Threatening To Fine Social Media Companies Over 'Fake News'
Re:
Nah, just the opposing side, or those on the correct side who wander off the reservation.
On the post: City Of San Francisco Bans Use Of Facial Recognition Tech By Government Agencies
Re: Re: Re:
Let's for argument sake say they make it 100%, confirmably reliable. So what? The 1 in 10,000th person they are looking for does not negate the 9,999 people's who's privacy was violated (or whatever the numbers really are).
Then one question is are those 9,999 privacy violations worth the i catch? Another question is, are there other methods that don't violate multitudes of non suspect persons privacy? And the fact is that the answer to that second question is yes (but it takes more work), and the answer to the first question is no, mostly in light of the answer to the second question (but they don't care).
On the post: City Of San Francisco Bans Use Of Facial Recognition Tech By Government Agencies
Re:
Can you point to any evidence of their accuracy rate? No? Well then, how is it excellent?
Credible citations necessary.
On the post: City Of San Francisco Bans Use Of Facial Recognition Tech By Government Agencies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Known, Knowns*
Knowingly knowing that unknown unknowns are unknowable makes knowing that unknowable unknowns knowable.
On the post: City Of San Francisco Bans Use Of Facial Recognition Tech By Government Agencies
Re: Known, Knowns*
Yes, it's those unknown unknowns that idiots who are absolutely certain fail to account for.
Then there are those who are sort of certain, but fail to account for known unknowns. They are knowingly obtuse about those.
And then the cream of the crop, those who are also absolutely certain and cannot account for known known's because they know better, but don't actually know anything as their ideology prevents them from knowing. We have a few around here.
On the post: City Of San Francisco Bans Use Of Facial Recognition Tech By Government Agencies
Security: Detection vs Investigation
Looking at many security type devices, such as cameras, they are useful mostly in looking for perpetrators after the fact, rather than prevention. Locks, gates, walls, etc. might be useful in preventing crime, at least until ways can be found to breach those.
So where is the public safety value in facial recognition? Searching for perpetrators after the fact? For the investigative value? That doesn't make me feel more safe. That they have a 2% or 3% chance of finding that face vs. the many other options for investigation that take actual work, and is still an after the fact event. If they know the face of a potential perpetrator in advance, then detain them, that is if you have the goods on them. If not, then why are you looking for them? Partial goods might be a reason, but then there are all the innocent people being 'recognized' whose privacy is then violated.
I deny any value in this technology, and will continue to do so even then the technology becomes better. Even if it was 100% accurate, it is still tends to be after the fact, and violates every person who isn't a criminal their privacy. Security, at least in the sense of terrorism, for example, would be better enacted in prevention, not investigation. There is a whole lot of surveillance going on, and when they find actual links to something nefarious, they should act, not preemptively, but as law enforcement agents should. Make a case and bring it and the supposed perpetrators to a court.
And it doesn't take facial recognition software to ID a person entering the country at a border, it takes well trained and currently informed agents checking passports.
On the post: Pai FCC 'Solution' To Nation's Great Robocall Apocalypse? More Meetings
Re: Re: Re:
There is often little difference between the machine and the real person one gets. They read to you what the machine tells them to and use no cognitive determination until you demand a supervisor (when they answer the question to themselves 'should I or shouldn't I), who are few and far between and too busy to talk to you.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: American Law Institute Uses Copyright To Stop Discussion Of Controversial Publication Prior To Vote
Re:
Fund raise and politic.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: American Law Institute Uses Copyright To Stop Discussion Of Controversial Publication Prior To Vote
Re: Private organizations
When their work product is to become a part of the legal system, then like those who write standards that are required by law, don't have the same protections that others might.
Then there is the question of whether the restatement is actually reflective of the actual law and the intent of the legislative body that created that law. If ideology creeps in, it is less effective, especially if that ideology is then used by a court to color its decisions.
Also, there is a difference between government censorship and private censorship. The former is illegal, the latter is not. Because of the relationship between the ALI and the courts, I believe they are more along the lines of the former, rather than the latter, even if they are not elected or appointed to any governmental post.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: American Law Institute Uses Copyright To Stop Discussion Of Controversial Publication Prior To Vote
Re:
How about they get the take down after adjudication in a court of law? If there is a question of monetization, then any funds earned after the request could be held in escrow, until the judge finds one way or another. Oh, and lets add the requester pays the legal fees of the 'accused' when and if they lose.
On the post: Vox Admits It Got Section 230 Wrong, Fixes Its Mistake
Re:
The IP address doesn't prove who wrote the post, but it might be a part of an investigation into who did. The difference is, the copyright trolls are accusing the person who pays for the Internet connection and hitting them up for payment and/or suing them. This is different than if they used the IP address to then go and try to find out who might have been using it for some illegal or civilly wrong activity. The IP trolls don't want to spend that kind of money.
Asking a court for permission to find out who and/or where that IP address is and who controls it in order to try and find out the actual who did whatever bad thing is the right way to go about it. Not just accuse the IP address owner of whatever.
Suing someone for defamation isn't free, or cheap.
On the post: The Ultimate Bad Take: Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky Thinks A WhatsApp Vulnerability Proves End To End Encryption Is Useless
Re:
Nothing, this kind of reporting is part and parcel of the stenography service offered by big media to the government...for access.
On the post: AT&T, Verizon Employees Caught Up In DOJ SIM Hijacking Bust
Re:
How many businesses don't go looking for issues when they are pointed out? Some do, some don't.
I wonder what the percentages are when private companies vs publicly traded companies are compared with regard to this issue?
On the post: San Francisco PD Raids Journalist's Home To Find Out Which One Of Its Cops Leaked An Autopsy Report
Re: Re: Re:
I didn't say he was, but there has to be a reason for the search warrant request, other than we feel like it.
Oh, and read more carefully before you charge someone with making stuff up. Words have meaning, not just what you imagine.
On the post: Miami Plastic Surgeon Sues Two Patients For Negative Reviews After He Had Them Sign Illegal Non Disparagement Agreements
Re:
It would certainly be a red flag to me, but how many people actually read the fine print, or understand it if they do?
On the post: San Francisco PD Raids Journalist's Home To Find Out Which One Of Its Cops Leaked An Autopsy Report
Re:
The charge was likely obstruction of justice. The problem is that he should have been protected by the shield law. The further problems will include the perjury committed by the officers who swore out an affidavit in obtaining the search warrant, which could only have happened by lying to the judge. They won't be punished.
Further, autopsy reports are probably public records, which should only be withheld from the public if they are part of an ongoing investigation. The only investigations mentioned were the who leaked the report, internal and external investigations.
Was there also an investigation of the PD's death? Even if there was, that autopsy report would have to be disclosed to the defense and then used in court. That is of course, what was the source of those illegal substances? Is that what an investigation into the PD's death about? Is there a cover-up occurring here? Would the DA try to hold a secret trial to protect some law enforcement personnel?
Now that I have mentioned all these bad possibilities, there may be something innocent, except the lying to the judge and the violation of the shield law by the PD looking for something where they should not be looking.
On the post: Miami Plastic Surgeon Sues Two Patients For Negative Reviews After He Had Them Sign Illegal Non Disparagement Agreements
Look, he broke the mirror jut by looking in it.
Physician, heal thyself!
Dr. Leonard Hochstein: "What would you have me do? I am already the Boob God.
On the post: US Government Rings Up Another Whistleblower On Espionage Charges
Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, defend not uphold.
I didn't say that SCOTUS needed to approve laws, I said that the constitutionality of laws related to treason, passed by Congress don't appear to have been tested, and SCOTUS would be the place that that testing would take place.
From the Constitution, Article III, Section 3:
That doesn't say anything about disclosure of anything, classified or not, unless it actually gave aid and comfort the the enemy. Telling the public about murder in the name of an undeclared war where no court found the target guilty of anything. Especially when there are associated killings of people who may or may not have participated in the supposed crime the 'guilty' party, who was not found guilty of in any court.
Again, if the release was to the 'enemy' however that gets defined under current circumstances, and not the public, it might be different.
Next >>