"Why not address the factual assertions being made instead of engaging in a personal attack at the speaker?"
Calling Clapper a liar is not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact about a person who was bound by law to tell the truth to Congress and did the opposite, and continues to do the same to the public. It does not "taste great" to call him a liar, it's a sickening truth.
And exactly what assertions are "unanswered"? If you have a point, why not make it?
Your own comment is deliciously ironic. We ALL know who you are, not by looking at your IP address but because you say exactly the same stupid things over and over and over again, proving Mike's point. Your lack of imagination, or credibility, or ability to present an argument, is a source of continuous amusement.
"Hospitals will lose thousands of accident patients every year."
This is not a negative consequence, to either hospitals or society in general. Hospitals are almost always understaffed and overworked. Removing a chunk of workload can only make things better for everyone by allowing more staff man-hours per patient.
"People are likely to own fewer cars."
How so? Just because you don't actually have to control the car doesn't necessarily mean we'll need less of them.
"Now, going public _can_ be seen as malicious (attack on reputation, for example)."
It'll be a terrible day for internet security when damaging a company's reputation by revealing their security weaknesses is seen as a bad thing. Company's entrusted with their customers' private data should be under constant and meaningful scrutiny, and should never be led to believe their reputation is more important that their customers' privacy. In fact the fallout from a malicious data breach is arguably far more damaging to a company's reputation than fixing a publicly exposed security flaw.
"Basically, that's why courts are ruled by judges (or juries) and not by machines..."
Judges are there to ensure the law is followed. Punishing historic trollish behavior, no matter how despicable, would not be following the law in question.
"It looks like Karma came back around. Weev is an unmitigated asshole and a should be in jail for what he did in the past."
All completely correct. Unfortunately Karma is a terrible way to run a justice system. Getting what you deserve shouldn't have significant negative consequences for everybody else.
"There is nothing that would make me sympathetic to weev. "
And nobody is asking you to be sympathetic to him, only to consider the bigger and far more important picture. If Weev's online actions deserves punishment (as I absolutely believe they do), then he should be punished for those actions, and not trumped up charges that could result in a terrible legal precedent that will have chilling effects on legitimate online security research and be used to unfairly or disproportionately punish others that you don't happen to dislike.
"I don't suppose the DOJ lawyers can be sanctioned for filing an over length brief?"
At the very least you'd think a fair judge would simply reject the brief outright and firmly instruct them to resubmit a complying brief with minimal delay.
Re: It's also true of spam and anti-virus detection...
"But as one of the most senior and experienced email people on the planet..."
...who posts anonymously and thus provides no way to verify these very grandiose claims. You may have perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to remain anonymous, but the more impressive your claims are, the less likely they are to be be taken at face value.
No, I'm not part of the problem. I have no problem with kids playing as you describe, but the adults involved should be giving the kids basic common-sense guidelines to avoid getting themselves in trouble by freaking someone out. Things like playing away from others and never pointing the guns at someone who isn't fully aware of the situation.
And a lack of noise means nothing. If someone mistakes a realistic looking gun for the real thing, they may decide not to wait around for confirming noises. And what if they're not even shooting? Your "less than a second" claim falls apart pretty easily.
Re: If you're going to be consistent, start calling Google a SPY AGENCY.
"Oh, different then, eh?"
Monumentally different. So different I'd have an aneurysm trying to think otherwise.
"But it SPIES like a spy agency, with tentacles all over the web like a spy agency; collects and collates every possible detail to track persons like a creepy spy agency..."
Overblown as usual but not entirely incorrect...
"...potential blackmail material besides industrial espionage or stock market insider trading, and it's secretive like a spy agency..."
...and then you steer into paranoid fantasy nonsense without a shred or evidence is history to back you up. No surprise.
The big differences of course are (1) using Google is entirely optional and (2) Google provides a ton of useful services that are immensely beneficial and enjoyable to millions of people every day. Don't you think government spy agencies fall a bit short on those two points?
Make sure you fully understanding the issue you're commenting on before you accuse others of being part of the problem. AirSoft guns don't look like toys, and would fool most people into thinking they're real until you get right up close.
Kids should be taught to play with these guns in a careful manner so as not to alarm someone who stumbles across what looks like someone brandishing a real gun, but they should not be suspended from school or punished in any other way for simply using them in a safe manner.
"Still creepy, imagine you tweet anything and somebody comes to talk to you about what you just did."
Well you hypo' has absolutely no context, so it's hard to see any creepy, but in this case the whole point was to get easyJet's attention and complain about a problem. What if instead of this PR disaster, easyJet had approached him to personally apologise and explain how they were going to put things right. Would you still be creeped out?
"Some level of surveillance they do get going there."
Clunky English aside, it takes a wildly paranoid mind to see 'surveillance' in a company looking out for public tweets about them. You seemed to have missed the whole point of the use of social media in customer relations.
Take your tin foil hat off. All the info they needed to find him (the flight and his name) was in the tweet. Not exactly NSA-level surveillance required here.
You've just accused Techdirt of having both a lack of confidence and hubris in one short comment. Perhaps you should learn the meaning of these words before making completely contradictory claims.
Re: Huh. Call yourselves pirates, decent people shun you.
"Umm, you can't debate with people who don't agree that there IS any valid intellectual property."
They didn't ask to come along and debate, they asked to observe. If you're a such a strong supporter of copyright, why would you be afraid of having people who disagree with your position simply listen to you?
"Or do you think there might be an escape clause that gives them unlimited discretion to refuse a customer?"
I'm quite sure there is. As the EasyJet statement said, "On the rare occasion that we consider denying boarding it is on the basis of disruptive behaviour." It will almost certainly be in the fineprint when buying a ticket that 'disruptive behaviour' will keep you off the plane. That accusation was completely unjustified in this case, but that'll be the escape clause you ask about.
"I do not judge people on what clothes they choose to wear or who they can and can not have sex with."
Yeah, you do. You won't admit it to us, and maybe you even have difficulty admitting it to yourself, but you do. Your little rant makes that pretty clear.
Re: Re: Geez. Can't believe you don't see the "among friends in a bar" principle here:
"What you are arguing here is nothing less than saying that there should be no such thing as fair use, period. If that's your opinion, you should just say so."
That's exactly what he believes and has stated before.
Re: Re: Re: Criminals are pretending to be legitimate US of A gov't.
I bet you can't even see the massive irony and hypocrisy in that statement.
You may think Paul's a "gigantic douche" (what are you, 10?), but pretty much everyone here thinks the same of you. So we're probably a lot more right than you are.
On the post: James Clapper Says They're Just Trying To 'Understand' Tor To Keep Terrorists From Killing You
Re:
Calling Clapper a liar is not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact about a person who was bound by law to tell the truth to Congress and did the opposite, and continues to do the same to the public. It does not "taste great" to call him a liar, it's a sickening truth.
And exactly what assertions are "unanswered"? If you have a point, why not make it?
On the post: James Clapper Says They're Just Trying To 'Understand' Tor To Keep Terrorists From Killing You
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Luddites Are Almost Always Wrong: Technology Rarely Destroys Jobs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is not a negative consequence, to either hospitals or society in general. Hospitals are almost always understaffed and overworked. Removing a chunk of workload can only make things better for everyone by allowing more staff man-hours per patient.
"People are likely to own fewer cars."
How so? Just because you don't actually have to control the car doesn't necessarily mean we'll need less of them.
On the post: The DOJ's Insane Argument Against Weev: He's A Felon Because He Broke The Rules We Made Up
Re: Re: Re: Ugh
It'll be a terrible day for internet security when damaging a company's reputation by revealing their security weaknesses is seen as a bad thing. Company's entrusted with their customers' private data should be under constant and meaningful scrutiny, and should never be led to believe their reputation is more important that their customers' privacy. In fact the fallout from a malicious data breach is arguably far more damaging to a company's reputation than fixing a publicly exposed security flaw.
"Basically, that's why courts are ruled by judges (or juries) and not by machines..."
Judges are there to ensure the law is followed. Punishing historic trollish behavior, no matter how despicable, would not be following the law in question.
On the post: Comcast's CEO: As Long As I Keep Saying Aereo Is Illegal, Sooner Or Later Someone Will Believe Me, Right?
Re: The basic FACT is that grifter Aereo is stealing content.
The fact that you could type that out and not even realise you've just described the THE ENTIRE RETAIL INDUSTRY shows what a complete fool you are.
On the post: The DOJ's Insane Argument Against Weev: He's A Felon Because He Broke The Rules We Made Up
Re: Oh poor weev
All completely correct. Unfortunately Karma is a terrible way to run a justice system. Getting what you deserve shouldn't have significant negative consequences for everybody else.
On the post: The DOJ's Insane Argument Against Weev: He's A Felon Because He Broke The Rules We Made Up
Re: No sale
And nobody is asking you to be sympathetic to him, only to consider the bigger and far more important picture. If Weev's online actions deserves punishment (as I absolutely believe they do), then he should be punished for those actions, and not trumped up charges that could result in a terrible legal precedent that will have chilling effects on legitimate online security research and be used to unfairly or disproportionately punish others that you don't happen to dislike.
On the post: The DOJ's Insane Argument Against Weev: He's A Felon Because He Broke The Rules We Made Up
Re: Word limit and "rules"
At the very least you'd think a fair judge would simply reject the brief outright and firmly instruct them to resubmit a complying brief with minimal delay.
Too much to hope for?
On the post: Court Says That Google's Scanning Email Content To Place Ads Could Violate Wiretap Laws
Re: It's also true of spam and anti-virus detection...
...who posts anonymously and thus provides no way to verify these very grandiose claims. You may have perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to remain anonymous, but the more impressive your claims are, the less likely they are to be be taken at face value.
On the post: School Suspends Students For Playing With Airsoft Guns In Their Own Yard
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And a lack of noise means nothing. If someone mistakes a realistic looking gun for the real thing, they may decide not to wait around for confirming noises. And what if they're not even shooting? Your "less than a second" claim falls apart pretty easily.
On the post: Redefining English: Senator Feinstein Says The Press Needs To Stop Calling Patriot Act Surveillance Program A 'Surveillance Program'
Re: If you're going to be consistent, start calling Google a SPY AGENCY.
Monumentally different. So different I'd have an aneurysm trying to think otherwise.
"But it SPIES like a spy agency, with tentacles all over the web like a spy agency; collects and collates every possible detail to track persons like a creepy spy agency..."
Overblown as usual but not entirely incorrect...
"...potential blackmail material besides industrial espionage or stock market insider trading, and it's secretive like a spy agency..."
...and then you steer into paranoid fantasy nonsense without a shred or evidence is history to back you up. No surprise.
The big differences of course are (1) using Google is entirely optional and (2) Google provides a ton of useful services that are immensely beneficial and enjoyable to millions of people every day. Don't you think government spy agencies fall a bit short on those two points?
On the post: School Suspends Students For Playing With Airsoft Guns In Their Own Yard
Re: Re:
Kids should be taught to play with these guns in a careful manner so as not to alarm someone who stumbles across what looks like someone brandishing a real gun, but they should not be suspended from school or punished in any other way for simply using them in a safe manner.
On the post: EasyJet Tries To Stop Guy From Boarding Because He Tweeted Something Critical
Re: Re: Re: Ummm, WHO understands what happened?
Well you hypo' has absolutely no context, so it's hard to see any creepy, but in this case the whole point was to get easyJet's attention and complain about a problem. What if instead of this PR disaster, easyJet had approached him to personally apologise and explain how they were going to put things right. Would you still be creeped out?
"Some level of surveillance they do get going there."
Clunky English aside, it takes a wildly paranoid mind to see 'surveillance' in a company looking out for public tweets about them. You seemed to have missed the whole point of the use of social media in customer relations.
On the post: EasyJet Tries To Stop Guy From Boarding Because He Tweeted Something Critical
Re: Ummm, WHO understands what happened?
On the post: When A Senator Reads 'Green Eggs & Ham' On The Floor, What About The Copyright?
Re:
On the post: Pirate Parties Blocked From WIPO After US & Other Countries Complained That They Don't Support WIPO's Mission
Re: Huh. Call yourselves pirates, decent people shun you.
They didn't ask to come along and debate, they asked to observe. If you're a such a strong supporter of copyright, why would you be afraid of having people who disagree with your position simply listen to you?
On the post: EasyJet Tries To Stop Guy From Boarding Because He Tweeted Something Critical
Re:
I'm quite sure there is. As the EasyJet statement said, "On the rare occasion that we consider denying boarding it is on the basis of disruptive behaviour." It will almost certainly be in the fineprint when buying a ticket that 'disruptive behaviour' will keep you off the plane. That accusation was completely unjustified in this case, but that'll be the escape clause you ask about.
On the post: The Press Lumps Ed Snowden And Chelsea Manning In With Mass Murderers, Actual Spies
Re: Wrong Name
Yeah, you do. You won't admit it to us, and maybe you even have difficulty admitting it to yourself, but you do. Your little rant makes that pretty clear.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Using The DMCA To Take Down Websites For Accurately Calling Out Racist Comments
Re: Re: Geez. Can't believe you don't see the "among friends in a bar" principle here:
That's exactly what he believes and has stated before.
On the post: Bolivian President Plans To Sue The US For Diverting Presidential Planes
Re: Re: Re: Criminals are pretending to be legitimate US of A gov't.
You may think Paul's a "gigantic douche" (what are you, 10?), but pretty much everyone here thinks the same of you. So we're probably a lot more right than you are.
Next >>