"Hey, Mike. Do you even know what "irreparable" means in this context? If so, you don't demonstrate it in your post. Care to elaborate on how you determined the harm here wasn't irreparable?"
Hey, AJ. Since you clearly know what "irreparable" means in this context, and we don't, why don't you explain to us this special meaning of a relatively common word?
Then, care to elaborate on why you think the harm here was irreparable? You clearly think it was or you wouldn't feel the need to ask the question.
Also note that the Court decided there was no irreparable harm, so it'd be interesting to hear why you think they're wrong too.
"FIRST tell me EXACTLY what Google does with "my data", and how you know that."
First, why don't you tell us what you think Google does with your data (which you've just admitted to voluntarily providing them). Inquiring minds want to know! It'll be good for a laugh id nothing else...
"You start the story with Homeland Security then change to CBP.. I can only assume this stands for Canadian Border Patrol? I don't see the reference in the article."
Re: First, Mike, learn about capitalization: it's "or State".
"Mike NEVER wants "Internet companies, including potentially their executives" to EVER have ANY responsibility or face any consequences for what's on the site."
Let me fix that for you: Most people with half a brain don't want Internet companies to have responsibility or face any consequences for user-generated content on their site. The reasons for this are so obvious and such simple common sense that I struggle to believe you're not just an obnoxious troll instead of genuinely clueless.
But if you truly do stand behind your ravings, perhaps you can directly address the analogous examples Mike provided. Why don't you also blame AT&T when a phone is used in a crime or Ford when one of its cars was used in a drive-by shooting?
"On the bright side, I perhaps see fewer references to Mike's long-ago "Streisand Effect" quip, his one claim to fame. My hope is that I've mocked it enough to make even the writers he pays take pause..."
Yeah, coz mocking something that is demonstrably true doesn't make you look foolish at all...
Unfortunately not. The demonisation of BitTorent and file lockers by copyright maximalists is proof of that. These are both perfectly legal methods of sharing files, whether or not the actual files are authorised to be shared or not.
"Just go with that, while claiming that you support copyright and don't encourage piracy."
Can you please point to the words used by Techdirt to actually encourage piracy? No, you can't, because you're a liar.
Explaining why something happens is not encouragement, as anybody with a mental age of ten or over can understand. Particularly when the proven way to reduce piracy is described in the same damn sentence!
"Your technique is simply to repeat fraud over and over."
There's a truly stunning level of hypocrisy in those ten words...
Re: Re: Why does every hack want to taint his source with crappy imitation?
This cannot be understated. OotB is monumentally ignorant about the creative process. His repeated comments along this same line provide ample evidence of this.
Except she was specifically referring to legal consequences, so she was completely wrong. I'm pretty sure she's smart enough to know that Yahoo would not be charged with treason, but used a deliberately inflammatory term in order to make their position look worse than it actually is.
Re: Like Google, Mike thinks everything is open to the public.
"It's certain that when most people set up a wireless router, they don't wish anyone within range to make use of it, no more than putting a gazebo on your lawn makes it available for every drunk to stumble into, puke, and pass out."
Total analogy fail. Your lawn is on your property; your WiFi signals can reach well outside your property.
"No one is intentionally broadcasting to the public."
Except for those people deliberately running open WiFi for the specific purpose of providing public access.
"Passers-by including Google Streetview have no right to access your network."
Receiving open WiFi signals is not accessing a network! Now you sound just as technologically ignorant as this judge.
"As for Mike's all-inclusive "radio communications" -- PFFFT! Distinctions are easily made, and should be."
But we note you haven't made any distinctions, most likely because you know you can't.
On the post: Another Day, Another Loss For Broadcasters In Quixotic Campaign To Kill Innovation
Re:
Hey, AJ. Since you clearly know what "irreparable" means in this context, and we don't, why don't you explain to us this special meaning of a relatively common word?
Then, care to elaborate on why you think the harm here was irreparable? You clearly think it was or you wouldn't feel the need to ask the question.
Also note that the Court decided there was no irreparable harm, so it'd be interesting to hear why you think they're wrong too.
On the post: NSA Apologist Says The NSA's Actions Are Fine Because 'Privacy Is Dead'
Re: Re: Re: Hey, sounds EXACTLY like Google!
First, why don't you tell us what you think Google does with your data (which you've just admitted to voluntarily providing them). Inquiring minds want to know! It'll be good for a laugh id nothing else...
On the post: NSA Apologist Says The NSA's Actions Are Fine Because 'Privacy Is Dead'
Re: Re:
On the post: Border Patrol's Horrific Treatment Of On The Media's Producer, Family & Friends Highlights The Lack Of Accountability From DHS
Re: Really Confused
Read the first sentence!
On the post: All It Takes Is Two Words To Wipe Away One Of The Pillars Of Free Speech Online
Re: assumptions
Did you miss the first sentence of that article?
On the post: All It Takes Is Two Words To Wipe Away One Of The Pillars Of Free Speech Online
Re: First, Mike, learn about capitalization: it's "or State".
Let me fix that for you: Most people with half a brain don't want Internet companies to have responsibility or face any consequences for user-generated content on their site. The reasons for this are so obvious and such simple common sense that I struggle to believe you're not just an obnoxious troll instead of genuinely clueless.
But if you truly do stand behind your ravings, perhaps you can directly address the analogous examples Mike provided. Why don't you also blame AT&T when a phone is used in a crime or Ford when one of its cars was used in a drive-by shooting?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Techdirt's Blatant Astroturfing.
Yeah, coz mocking something that is demonstrably true doesn't make you look foolish at all...
On the post: Universal Music Targeting Domain Registrars To Take Down File Sharing Sites Without Due Process
Re: Re:
And where do you think Universal Music in Germany takes their orders from?
On the post: How Ruling On WiFi Snooping Means Security Researchers May Face Criminal Liability
Re: Re:
On the post: How Ruling On WiFi Snooping Means Security Researchers May Face Criminal Liability
Re:
On the post: How Ruling On WiFi Snooping Means Security Researchers May Face Criminal Liability
Re: So, very narrow risk so far only in Mike's FUD...
Of course you do. That you cannot see or understand the benefits of security research only highlights your extraordinary ignorance of the topic.
On the post: NBC Universal Funded Study Shows, Yet Again, How Infringement Is Hollywood's Own Damn Fault
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unfortunately not. The demonisation of BitTorent and file lockers by copyright maximalists is proof of that. These are both perfectly legal methods of sharing files, whether or not the actual files are authorised to be shared or not.
On the post: California College Tells Student He Can't Hand Out Copies Of The Constitution On Constitution Day
Re: Re:
The procedures you refer to are NOT "proper".
On the post: NBC Universal Funded Study Shows, Yet Again, How Infringement Is Hollywood's Own Damn Fault
Re: Hollywood causes people to steal, eh?
Can you please point to the words used by Techdirt to actually encourage piracy? No, you can't, because you're a liar.
Explaining why something happens is not encouragement, as anybody with a mental age of ten or over can understand. Particularly when the proven way to reduce piracy is described in the same damn sentence!
"Your technique is simply to repeat fraud over and over."
There's a truly stunning level of hypocrisy in those ten words...
On the post: Kim Dotcom Seeks Millions From The New Zealand Government For Illegal Raid On His Home
Re: Yes, criminals have no shame. And pirates cheer it.
Not many, since completely unjustified, military-style raids are extremely rare in NZ.
On the post: Conan Doyle Estate Is Horrified That The Public Domain Might Create 'Multiple Personalities' Of Sherlock Holmes
Re: Re: Why does every hack want to taint his source with crappy imitation?
Or maybe he's just a really good troll...
On the post: Apple's Fingerprint ID And How It May Take Away Your 5th Amendment Right To Protect Your Data
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because lying about something like this in such a public manner would be an extremely stupid commercial decision, and Apple make very few of those.
On the post: Though Wrong About 'Treason', Yahoo's Marissa Mayer Shows Why It's Hard To 'Just Say No' When The NSA Comes Calling
Re: Re: It may be in bad taste but...
On the post: Thai Airways Tries To Cover Logo On Crashed Plane, Gets Egg On Face Instead
Re:
On the post: Court Says WiFi Isn't Radio Because It's Not Audio; Therefore WiFi Sniffing Can Be Wiretapping
Re: Like Google, Mike thinks everything is open to the public.
Total analogy fail. Your lawn is on your property; your WiFi signals can reach well outside your property.
"No one is intentionally broadcasting to the public."
Except for those people deliberately running open WiFi for the specific purpose of providing public access.
"Passers-by including Google Streetview have no right to access your network."
Receiving open WiFi signals is not accessing a network! Now you sound just as technologically ignorant as this judge.
"As for Mike's all-inclusive "radio communications" -- PFFFT! Distinctions are easily made, and should be."
But we note you haven't made any distinctions, most likely because you know you can't.
Next >>