You seem awfully obsessed with sex for a guy who never has any, so much so that you're obsessed with a guy you don't know that is getting just as much as you - zero.
"...objecting to nearly every single question that Horwitz asks, followed by letting Galloway answer anyway."
He has to let Galloway answer [anyway].
With one exception (privilege) the deponent will answer ALL questions asked. The objections are merely there to establish for the record what the deponent's counsel intends to argue in court to exclude the question/response under objection.
Objections (other than privilege) aren't required, and if they are repetitive and/or disruptive the deposing counsel may just say "We'll just have a blanket XXX objection to every question going forward, so need to interrupt further, counselor."
Having the objections on the record is just showing your client you're working for them. In reality once in front of a judge objections can be moved on any q/a without regard to whether an objection was lodged during the deposition. (Again, privilege is the exception; it must be asserted in the deposition; the deponent should be instructed NOT to answer that question; all other questions are answered.)
I ran an ISP* that had the core of BackPage's real servers in it. These four racks of servers were replicated in lots of places to prevent e.g. DDoS attacks, but the ones we hosted were the source where content was developed.
The day the FBI and the Treasury came together with three SUVs to take all the servers -- with a valid search warrant, subpoena, and court orders -- was long before FOSTA was passed. It was even before Kamala "we need laws because I can't arrest BackPage for sex trafficking" and then "Oh I arrested these guys because I want to get elected despite what I testified under oath that I can't do it" got elected.
The key to legislation is to follow the money. "Think of the children"" and "stop the sex trafficking" are just rally-cries of Hollywood. The MAFIAA want CDA Section 230 gutted and they don't care what gets sacrificed in the process.
In this case it's sites (Craigslist, BackPage) that voluntarily cooperate[d] with LEOs to remove scum from freedom. Instead so-called "sex workers" (apparently now they're "workers" and before they were "trafficked victims"... not sure how that paradigm shifted) now are LESS safe, MORE attacked, and pimps are all the new rage.
When you lose your voice you lose your rights... and the removal of Sec 230 from these people has taken their voice, right to advertise, right to express, right to educate, and right to be heard from them.
You may be a right-wing religious nutbar who thinks sex only occurs between a married man and a woman when he tells her to... but for the other 99% of the world... it's a negotiated give and take. It's also legal in many countries and part of the United States.
Ehud Gavron
That's an Internet Service Provider, not a telco. Sorry, KB. One day you'll get the difference.
It's simplistic to call people idiots, but sometimes it's true. He likes to distill complex ideas into simple slogans. "Break up Facebook." "Remove Section 230."
I mean, seriously, if you Google-search "marc benioff quotes" you'll find entire web pages devoted to his "bon mots" or perhaps not so bon. This is no exception. He likes attention, and he likes getting people polarized so he says things.
Sure, it's not vetted by a PR department. He hired the PR department head! Sure, it may annoy some people -- he lives for that.
This is a slightly over week-old article where security expert (a real one) talks about passwords, encryption, choices, company responsibilities, etc.
It's a good read because the above posts about "whose fault is it" really miss the point. It's not about assigning blame but about correcting the issues. If all one wants to do is figure out whom to blame, that's easy. Fixing authentication, encryption, and security is HARD.
You also don't understand passwords and should not be writing about them. Adding on a character to a randomly generated password to satisfy a site is completely safe and not "literally a bad practice".
YOU are the one who doesn't understand cryptography, (not "passwords") and shouldn't be writing about it (not "them").
There's nothing which "is completely safe" and yes, it's bad practice to limit an encryption key length or choice of bit patterns.
You're not just an anonymous coward, you're an anonymous know-nothing bad-information-spouting dangerous-if-anyone-paid-attention-to coward.
Thanks for playing; you are awarded no points; may God have mercy on your soul. (Thanks, Adam Sandler).
DMCA says '(2) DESIGNATED AGENT.-...by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information..."
If you provided it prior to 2016 and have not changed it and continue to provide it on your website as per the law, you are in compliance.
The arbitrary decision on the part of the Copyright office to
change the process
add a fee
remove registrations already submitted
Is their choice to violate the law requiring them to hold on to the registrations, their choice to collect a fee without Congressional approval, and their choice to willfully cheat you out of your 3 months and make you jump through hoops.
HOWEVER, should you be sued in the interim, the DMCA actual language says you've got the safe harbor protections.
Not that it ever helped Yahoo.
Or many many other organizations.
The DMCA's safe harbor protections AT THEIR BEST were never worth much.
Ehud "DMCA registered agent since 2003 and paid $0" Gavron
Tucson AZ
Also, pro tip: out of shareholders, employees, suppliers, and customers, what can a business live/operate without?
If your goal is to burn through investment dollars while doing no real business, all you really need is shareholder. No employees, vendors, nor customers are needed.
If your goal is to meet customer expectations you need customers, employees, and likely vendors.
If your goal is to chew through your own funds appearing to have a business (see e.g. Jeffrey Epstein) you need none of the above.
Show me where [I can't bother to google things and] any company has ever been sued for mismanagement ever by its shareholders. Ever! You can't [because I can't bother to google things and maybe you can't either]...
How about:
Cates v Sparkman
Uri Sikorski v Chiptole Mexican Grill, Inc.
R Andre Klein v Timothy D. Cook et al
Hind Bou Salman v Peter A Darbee et al
50 years ago Internet standards were made by engineers, who worked out the best way to do things. It started with open non-patented requests for comments (RFCs). After strenuous discussions at Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) conferences and online, decisions would be made.
Today standards are made by committees of vendor representatives, each pushing their [patented] [proprietary] method of accomplishing the new standard. The winner takes all because everyone else must pay licensing fees. These decisions take multiple meetings, in multiple cities, in multiple countries, to give every "stakeholder" a chance to spend their company's money in a new hotel, over multiple years.
5G is a perfect example. TD has eloquently explained why there's no 5G. There's some new WiFi thing that each company offering it is doing in different ways that allows the two new phones (S10, MotoZ) to access... but it has nothing to do with making your phone go to the Internet any faster out there on Route-66 [I-40].
All of this is driven by shareholder value. Pretend you are about to release 5G and people will buy your shares. Say you don't intend to deploy 5G and the masses think you have no "vision" and will leave you. Either way there's still no 5G, nobody has phones that get 5G, 5G doesn't work any further than a Wi-Fi hotspot... but go buy that stock now before others raise its price up!!
Entropy causes chaos. It works in shareholder value. It works in government regulations (always more, always more limiting, always removing rights). Inevitably it leads to an ending, either in that chaos, or in a revolution that replaces the whole system with something sane. Neither option sounds like it would be fun to go through.
Disclaimer: I am a former corporate officer of a US public corporation. I am a current corporate officer of several US nonpublic corporations and limited liability companies. I have been an officer of a US private nonprofit corporation.
People buy shares in a public company for one of two reasons: 1) Long-term growth... I buy it today for X and I sell it next year for much more than X. 2) Short-term profits... I buy it today for X and every quarter I get some money and I sell it when the price drops but my dividends plus the sales price are greater than X.
Either way I expect the corporate officers, directors, managers, and employees to ensure I make a profit... even though the irony is that in the stock market for every dollar I make, someone loses a dollar. [Extra issuance of stock aside. That's an Oroborous problem.]
Fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, or to society, or to short-term or long-term profits, or even in a nonprofit) are usually spelled out in the incorporation or founding documents. This is vital because if it's not done, than any number of entities [shareholders, customers, vendors, FTC, FDA, etc.] can claim in court a violation of this inviolable requirement.
Corporations are formed because of many reasons, but number one in US corporations is either growth (long term gain but perhaps lose money for 14 years like AMZ.) Then there's bottom-line profit (short term gain, but if you're eking out an existence to reward with dividends, bonuses, or other distributions, you're not able to reinvest into the company.
If the founding documents are in conflict with the focus on either top-line growth or bottom-line revenue then someone will file suit. Suits are expensive because already overworked CEOs, CFOs, etc. now have to sit for depositions, go through documents, and pay hundreds of thousands or millions to lawyers.
The only corporation I've seen in the US in the last two decades that had a high-profile IPO and said they care about society would be GOOG's "Do no evil." That didn't last long, as profits and a large bank balance and DARPA contracts seemed a bit of an easier target.
UDP is used for lots of useful stuff including DNS to e.g. Google's servers at 8.8.8.8/8.8.4.4. Of course YOU don't need that. You don't need to be on the net at all... because you're OK with being on an internal network where all services are offered on a COMPROMISED IoT router.
When writing in English try to make sense. If you're unable... that's understandable... but not ok. Have someone who speaks English review your postings before you post them.
Illiteracy isn't a sin. Not having someone review your work and prevent you from appearing illiterate is.
While the talk is of 'outlawing' encryption, as you and others have pointed out, anything from pig latin to literally saying numbers and letters (let alone Morse 'Code') are constitutionally protected forms of speech.
The solution to this non-problem in the 1990s was 'The Clipper Chip', a purposely broken encryption/decryption mechanism that The Authorities™ could decrypt its output anytime. It was going to be 'mandated' as THE ONLY method to encrypt in the US. As a result of this and other such brilliant ideas, people outside the US developed FOSS encryption software (e.g. PGP) that worked around Clipper.
I don't think they'll ever 'outlaw' encryption... but mandating a method they can break... they can certainly do that.
It still doesn't prevent four people in a park from whispering to each other. Wait till they mandate a minimum vocal amplitude, and a requirement to let 'The Authorites' know when you intend to have a meeting so they can attend or record.
On the post: Evangelical 'Financial Whiz' Who Apparently Hates Gossip, Sues YouTuber For Criticism
Zero sex and zero brains and ... yawn
You seem awfully obsessed with sex for a guy who never has any, so much so that you're obsessed with a guy you don't know that is getting just as much as you - zero.
E
On the post: Evangelical 'Financial Whiz' Who Apparently Hates Gossip, Sues YouTuber For Criticism
Repetitive insultive morons hijacking threads
No, a written medium isn't something one can listen to. No worries, we read your swill.
You're done here.
Lol. You're the worst thing you call everyone else. Time to up the meds and stop the opioids.
Say goodnight, Gracie.
E
On the post: Evangelical 'Financial Whiz' Who Apparently Hates Gossip, Sues YouTuber For Criticism
Deposition objections mean next to nothing.
He has to let Galloway answer [anyway].
With one exception (privilege) the deponent will answer ALL questions asked. The objections are merely there to establish for the record what the deponent's counsel intends to argue in court to exclude the question/response under objection.
Objections (other than privilege) aren't required, and if they are repetitive and/or disruptive the deposing counsel may just say "We'll just have a blanket XXX objection to every question going forward, so need to interrupt further, counselor."
Having the objections on the record is just showing your client you're working for them. In reality once in front of a judge objections can be moved on any q/a without regard to whether an objection was lodged during the deposition. (Again, privilege is the exception; it must be asserted in the deposition; the deponent should be instructed NOT to answer that question; all other questions are answered.)
Ehud
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 230: Backpage v. The Feds
The BackPage ecosystem
I ran an ISP* that had the core of BackPage's real servers in it. These four racks of servers were replicated in lots of places to prevent e.g. DDoS attacks, but the ones we hosted were the source where content was developed.
The day the FBI and the Treasury came together with three SUVs to take all the servers -- with a valid search warrant, subpoena, and court orders -- was long before FOSTA was passed. It was even before Kamala "we need laws because I can't arrest BackPage for sex trafficking" and then "Oh I arrested these guys because I want to get elected despite what I testified under oath that I can't do it" got elected.
The key to legislation is to follow the money. "Think of the children"" and "stop the sex trafficking" are just rally-cries of Hollywood. The MAFIAA want CDA Section 230 gutted and they don't care what gets sacrificed in the process.
In this case it's sites (Craigslist, BackPage) that voluntarily cooperate[d] with LEOs to remove scum from freedom. Instead so-called "sex workers" (apparently now they're "workers" and before they were "trafficked victims"... not sure how that paradigm shifted) now are LESS safe, MORE attacked, and pimps are all the new rage.
When you lose your voice you lose your rights... and the removal of Sec 230 from these people has taken their voice, right to advertise, right to express, right to educate, and right to be heard from them.
You may be a right-wing religious nutbar who thinks sex only occurs between a married man and a woman when he tells her to... but for the other 99% of the world... it's a negotiated give and take. It's also legal in many countries and part of the United States.
Ehud Gavron
On the post: Marc Benioff Calls For Section 230 To Be Abolished At The Same Time His Company Is Relying On 230 To Get Out Of A Lawsuit
Marc is an idiot
It's simplistic to call people idiots, but sometimes it's true. He likes to distill complex ideas into simple slogans. "Break up Facebook." "Remove Section 230."
I mean, seriously, if you Google-search "marc benioff quotes" you'll find entire web pages devoted to his "bon mots" or perhaps not so bon. This is no exception. He likes attention, and he likes getting people polarized so he says things.
Sure, it's not vetted by a PR department. He hired the PR department head! Sure, it may annoy some people -- he lives for that.
Smart guy. Idiot nonetheless.
E
On the post: Something Has Spooked AT&T Enough To Warrant Bringing Their Top Lobbyist Out Of Retirement
AT&T still hasn't gotten over...
Harold H. Greene.
He got it right.
E
On the post: Three Years Later And The Copyright Office Still Can't Build A Functioning Website For DMCA Agents, But Demands Everyone Re-Register
Brian Krebs on passwords
This is a slightly over week-old article where security expert (a real one) talks about passwords, encryption, choices, company responsibilities, etc.
It's a good read because the above posts about "whose fault is it" really miss the point. It's not about assigning blame but about correcting the issues. If all one wants to do is figure out whom to blame, that's easy. Fixing authentication, encryption, and security is HARD.
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/08/forced-password-reset-check-your-assumptions/
Ehud
On the post: Three Years Later And The Copyright Office Still Can't Build A Functioning Website For DMCA Agents, But Demands Everyone Re-Register
Adding on a character
YOU are the one who doesn't understand cryptography, (not "passwords") and shouldn't be writing about it (not "them").
There's nothing which "is completely safe" and yes, it's bad practice to limit an encryption key length or choice of bit patterns.
You're not just an anonymous coward, you're an anonymous know-nothing bad-information-spouting dangerous-if-anyone-paid-attention-to coward.
Thanks for playing; you are awarded no points; may God have mercy on your soul. (Thanks, Adam Sandler).
E
On the post: Three Years Later And The Copyright Office Still Can't Build A Functioning Website For DMCA Agents, But Demands Everyone Re-Register
What the law says
DMCA says '(2) DESIGNATED AGENT.-...by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information..."
If you provided it prior to 2016 and have not changed it and continue to provide it on your website as per the law, you are in compliance.
The arbitrary decision on the part of the Copyright office to
Is their choice to violate the law requiring them to hold on to the registrations, their choice to collect a fee without Congressional approval, and their choice to willfully cheat you out of your 3 months and make you jump through hoops.
HOWEVER, should you be sued in the interim, the DMCA actual language says you've got the safe harbor protections.
Not that it ever helped Yahoo.
Or many many other organizations.
The DMCA's safe harbor protections AT THEIR BEST were never worth much.
Ehud "DMCA registered agent since 2003 and paid $0" Gavron
Tucson AZ
On the post: Potentially Big News: Top CEOs Realizing That 'Maximizing Shareholder Value' Isn't A Great Idea
Re: Re: Big news? No.
If your goal is to burn through investment dollars while doing no real business, all you really need is shareholder. No employees, vendors, nor customers are needed.
If your goal is to meet customer expectations you need customers, employees, and likely vendors.
If your goal is to chew through your own funds appearing to have a business (see e.g. Jeffrey Epstein) you need none of the above.
E
On the post: Potentially Big News: Top CEOs Realizing That 'Maximizing Shareholder Value' Isn't A Great Idea
Re: Re: Big news? No.
How about:
Cates v Sparkman
Uri Sikorski v Chiptole Mexican Grill, Inc.
R Andre Klein v Timothy D. Cook et al
Hind Bou Salman v Peter A Darbee et al
E
On the post: Potentially Big News: Top CEOs Realizing That 'Maximizing Shareholder Value' Isn't A Great Idea
UPL
Yes, perfect example of UPL.
And a total lack of knowledge of law.
E
On the post: Potentially Big News: Top CEOs Realizing That 'Maximizing Shareholder Value' Isn't A Great Idea
Re: The changes are irreversable
Change is entropy and it is always toward chaos.
50 years ago Internet standards were made by engineers, who worked out the best way to do things. It started with open non-patented requests for comments (RFCs). After strenuous discussions at Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) conferences and online, decisions would be made.
Today standards are made by committees of vendor representatives, each pushing their [patented] [proprietary] method of accomplishing the new standard. The winner takes all because everyone else must pay licensing fees. These decisions take multiple meetings, in multiple cities, in multiple countries, to give every "stakeholder" a chance to spend their company's money in a new hotel, over multiple years.
5G is a perfect example. TD has eloquently explained why there's no 5G. There's some new WiFi thing that each company offering it is doing in different ways that allows the two new phones (S10, MotoZ) to access... but it has nothing to do with making your phone go to the Internet any faster out there on Route-66 [I-40].
All of this is driven by shareholder value. Pretend you are about to release 5G and people will buy your shares. Say you don't intend to deploy 5G and the masses think you have no "vision" and will leave you. Either way there's still no 5G, nobody has phones that get 5G, 5G doesn't work any further than a Wi-Fi hotspot... but go buy that stock now before others raise its price up!!
Entropy causes chaos. It works in shareholder value. It works in government regulations (always more, always more limiting, always removing rights). Inevitably it leads to an ending, either in that chaos, or in a revolution that replaces the whole system with something sane. Neither option sounds like it would be fun to go through.
E
On the post: Potentially Big News: Top CEOs Realizing That 'Maximizing Shareholder Value' Isn't A Great Idea
Costs vs Benefits in a Social World
Disclaimer: I am a former corporate officer of a US public corporation. I am a current corporate officer of several US nonpublic corporations and limited liability companies. I have been an officer of a US private nonprofit corporation.
People buy shares in a public company for one of two reasons: 1) Long-term growth... I buy it today for X and I sell it next year for much more than X. 2) Short-term profits... I buy it today for X and every quarter I get some money and I sell it when the price drops but my dividends plus the sales price are greater than X.
Either way I expect the corporate officers, directors, managers, and employees to ensure I make a profit... even though the irony is that in the stock market for every dollar I make, someone loses a dollar. [Extra issuance of stock aside. That's an Oroborous problem.]
Fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, or to society, or to short-term or long-term profits, or even in a nonprofit) are usually spelled out in the incorporation or founding documents. This is vital because if it's not done, than any number of entities [shareholders, customers, vendors, FTC, FDA, etc.] can claim in court a violation of this inviolable requirement.
Corporations are formed because of many reasons, but number one in US corporations is either growth (long term gain but perhaps lose money for 14 years like AMZ.) Then there's bottom-line profit (short term gain, but if you're eking out an existence to reward with dividends, bonuses, or other distributions, you're not able to reinvest into the company.
If the founding documents are in conflict with the focus on either top-line growth or bottom-line revenue then someone will file suit. Suits are expensive because already overworked CEOs, CFOs, etc. now have to sit for depositions, go through documents, and pay hundreds of thousands or millions to lawyers.
The only corporation I've seen in the US in the last two decades that had a high-profile IPO and said they care about society would be GOOG's "Do no evil." That didn't last long, as profits and a large bank balance and DARPA contracts seemed a bit of an easier target.
E
On the post: Consumer Reports Finds Numerous Home Routers Lack Even Basic Security Protections
Re: Re: UDP is the new bad guy?
SO you're ok with discssing UDP and UPnP as if they're the same thing but "a lot less" and "fewer" get your panties in a bunch.
Roger, got it. Please unbunch your panties and go back to discussing the topic. Hint: it's in the article above.
Best regards and best wishes for your eventual recovery,
E
On the post: Consumer Reports Finds Numerous Home Routers Lack Even Basic Security Protections
Re: Re: UDP is the new bad guy?
UDP is used for lots of useful stuff including DNS to e.g. Google's servers at 8.8.8.8/8.8.4.4. Of course YOU don't need that. You don't need to be on the net at all... because you're OK with being on an internal network where all services are offered on a COMPROMISED IoT router.
You did read the original article, right?
Oh. No?
Try that first.
E
On the post: Consumer Reports Finds Numerous Home Routers Lack Even Basic Security Protections
UDP is the new bad guy?
UDP is definitely evil. It makes DNS and DHCP and BOOTP and lots of things work. If we got rid of UDP and IP we'd have a lot less problems with IoT.
Seriously, I can only think MAYBE you meant UPnP and proofreading is too hard.
E
On the post: Yosemite Changing The Names Of Popular Park Landmarks Following The Most Ridiculous Trademark Dispute Ever
Settled
The 2015 issue that became well known in 2016 has been settled in 2019.
The original $44M claim that became a $51M claim has been settled, it was announced today, for $12M.
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/yosemite-national-park-name-changes/index.html
Our taxes at work.
E
On the post: AT&T Breaks Another Merger Promise In Making 'Friends' Exclusive
English
When writing in English try to make sense. If you're unable... that's understandable... but not ok. Have someone who speaks English review your postings before you post them.
Illiteracy isn't a sin. Not having someone review your work and prevent you from appearing illiterate is.
E
On the post: Here We Go Again: Trump Administration Considers Outlawing Encryption
Is it even possible to outlaw encryption
While the talk is of 'outlawing' encryption, as you and others have pointed out, anything from pig latin to literally saying numbers and letters (let alone Morse 'Code') are constitutionally protected forms of speech.
The solution to this non-problem in the 1990s was 'The Clipper Chip', a purposely broken encryption/decryption mechanism that The Authorities™ could decrypt its output anytime. It was going to be 'mandated' as THE ONLY method to encrypt in the US. As a result of this and other such brilliant ideas, people outside the US developed FOSS encryption software (e.g. PGP) that worked around Clipper.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
I don't think they'll ever 'outlaw' encryption... but mandating a method they can break... they can certainly do that.
It still doesn't prevent four people in a park from whispering to each other. Wait till they mandate a minimum vocal amplitude, and a requirement to let 'The Authorites' know when you intend to have a meeting so they can attend or record.
Ehud
Next >>