So you think the info that the feds will get about/from Ken will point to other people, which will in turn point to other people, and so on? That Ken is involved with multiple people in some sort of conspiracy? If so, what is that conspiracy?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to fix the problem in five minutes:
Also, if you're the one who keeps talking about common law: when you refer to common law, please name which part of common law you're talking about. That way it would be possible to actually have a discussion about the piece of common law you have in mind.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How to fix the problem in five minutes:
Your suggestions rather get lost among all your haranguing:
Become a Fully Informed Juror.
Protest.
Hold politicians accountable.
And the last one I had rea a different comment to translate from your "stop sucking political dicks".
So my suggestion to you: communicate more effectively. Or, if you're uninterested in communicating effectively with those here, and you just enjoy ranting and venting, then carry on.
The voters have direct control over who gets elected and no, it is not democratic because the system was setup to specifically prevent that.
So, then, something is only "democratic" if the voters have direct control, and thus anything where voters have indirect control is explicitly not democratic? If not, what do you mean? If that's right, then the term "representative democracy" is an oxymoron?
1) Are you the one who previously claimed that voters in the U.S. don't even have any indirect control over who gets elected?
2) If so, did the Founding Fathers intend it that way?
3) If the answer to #2 is "yes", why did they set up ways to have elections? Surely there's other ways to ensure that offices of state aren't inherited.
It would be easy for them to insert an additional key.
Are you proposing that, upon getting a court order, Apple would push out a special key to a particular phone, and after a certain amount of time had passed the regular key would be put back in?
And then, Blumenthal's response is to say that those startups are criminals who should be prosecuted:
I think what he meant was "all of those startups (no matter how small) do have the infrastructure to do the monitoring required by the bill, and only a few outliers will choose to forgo the monitoring that they're all definitely capable of doing". Which is stupid, but not nearly as stupid as your interpretation.
Re: Re: Re: I agree: corporate shouldn't have stopped it!
If corporate used threat of firing to prevent employees from doing this on their own, then corporate is extorting them: preventing from actions otherwise legal. That's big problem.
Do you mean that Motel 6 should have put into their employment contracts that employees are prohibited from distributing customer data on their own? Or do you think that such a prohibition should be invalid, and that employees should be able to do whatever they want with customer data as long as it doesn't break any laws?
You think that if the Techdirt articles on Ayyadurai had left out all the mockery, that while he still would have been pissed off at Techdirt he wouldn't have been pissed off enough to file the lawsuit? If so, what do you base that on?
If merely serving their prison term isn't enough of a consequence, what should those consequences be? Hurricanes don't affect all parts of the U.S., and the parts that they do affect they only affect sporadically.
Personally I know there is a couple of things about this article that should be said that won't be. I won't say them for fear of institutional retribution,
Retribution from whom? Dr. Phil? The judicial system?
Re: Re: Phantom 'safety' trumps legal rights apparently
While you may feel it's phantom security or security theater, most people know that it's effective compared to the era without it, when planes were routinely hijacked and the public's lives put in danger on a very regular basis.
Given that after 9/11 that pilot's cabins are locked, passengers will fight back against hijack attempts, and that TSA agents are abysmally bad at stopping weapons from being smuggled past security checkpoints, exactly how much extra security do does TSA actually provide?
In order to protect a trademark, does a company like Google only have to make a good-faith effort to prevent the public from genericizing their trademark, or do they have to actually succeed? It seems to me that requiring success would be setting the bar too high, since (from my non-lawyer understanding of trademark law) a company can only sue if their trademark is used by as a name of a product or is used to advertise a product.
On the post: DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Popehat, Dissent Doe And Others Over A Smiley Emoji Tweet
Re: Where's the smirk, Ken?
What exactly is your beef with Ken White?
So you think the info that the feds will get about/from Ken will point to other people, which will in turn point to other people, and so on? That Ken is involved with multiple people in some sort of conspiracy? If so, what is that conspiracy?
On the post: NYPD Tells Judge Its $25 Million Forfeiture Database Has No Backup
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to fix the problem in five minutes:
Also, if you're the one who keeps talking about common law: when you refer to common law, please name which part of common law you're talking about. That way it would be possible to actually have a discussion about the piece of common law you have in mind.
On the post: NYPD Tells Judge Its $25 Million Forfeiture Database Has No Backup
Re: Re: Re: Re: How to fix the problem in five minutes:
Your suggestions rather get lost among all your haranguing:
And the last one I had rea a different comment to translate from your "stop sucking political dicks".
So my suggestion to you: communicate more effectively. Or, if you're uninterested in communicating effectively with those here, and you just enjoy ranting and venting, then carry on.
On the post: Court Tells Sheriff's Dept. Shackling Kids Above The Elbows Is Excessive Force
If they're going to handcuff kid, shouldn't they have kid-sized handcuffs? Or use zip-tie handcuffs instead of metal ones?
On the post: Statute Of Limitations Has Run Out On Trump's Bogus Promise To Sue The NY Times
Re: OMG!!
So Trump's lawyer sending a letter to the NYT was also hyperbole?
On the post: Emails Show ICE Couldn't Find Enough Dangerous Immigrants To Fulfill The Adminstration's Fantasies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, then, something is only "democratic" if the voters have direct control, and thus anything where voters have indirect control is explicitly not democratic? If not, what do you mean? If that's right, then the term "representative democracy" is an oxymoron?
On the post: Emails Show ICE Couldn't Find Enough Dangerous Immigrants To Fulfill The Adminstration's Fantasies
Re: Re: Re:
1) Are you the one who previously claimed that voters in the U.S. don't even have any indirect control over who gets elected?
2) If so, did the Founding Fathers intend it that way?
3) If the answer to #2 is "yes", why did they set up ways to have elections? Surely there's other ways to ensure that offices of state aren't inherited.
On the post: Analysts Predict Sprint, T-Mobile Merger Will Be A Massive Job Killer
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thumbs Up!
So far as I can tell, his solutions are:
1) A single regulation which breaks up a company into smaller companies once it gets big enough.
2) Enforcement of common law. Which parts of common law and exactly how they'll obviate the need for regulation, I have yet to see him explain.
On the post: UK Home Secretary Calls Tech Leaders 'Patronizing' For Refusing To Believe Her 'Safe Backdoors' Spiels
Re: crypto fans are being disingenuous
Are you proposing that, upon getting a court order, Apple would push out a special key to a particular phone, and after a certain amount of time had passed the regular key would be put back in?
On the post: Senator Blumenthal Happy That SESTA Will Kill Small Internet Companies
I think you're misinterpreting him
I think what he meant was "all of those startups (no matter how small) do have the infrastructure to do the monitoring required by the bill, and only a few outliers will choose to forgo the monitoring that they're all definitely capable of doing". Which is stupid, but not nearly as stupid as your interpretation.
On the post: Arizona Motel 6 Branches Start Handing Out ICE To Unsuspecting Customers
Re: Re: Re: I agree: corporate shouldn't have stopped it!
Do you mean that Motel 6 should have put into their employment contracts that employees are prohibited from distributing customer data on their own? Or do you think that such a prohibition should be invalid, and that employees should be able to do whatever they want with customer data as long as it doesn't break any laws?
On the post: Yes, You Can Believe In Internet Freedom Without Being A Shill
Re: Umm...
So if you happen to be on the same side of a debate as Google/Microsoft/etc, you then have to go offtrack to enumerate their failings?
On the post: Case Dismissed: Judge Throws Out Shiva Ayyadurai's Defamation Lawsuit Against Techdirt
Re: Congrats Etc
You think that if the Techdirt articles on Ayyadurai had left out all the mockery, that while he still would have been pissed off at Techdirt he wouldn't have been pissed off enough to file the lawsuit? If so, what do you base that on?
On the post: Florida Sheriff Plans To Use Hurricane Irma To Bump Up Arrest Numbers, Fill His Jail
Re:
Wouldn't that same reasoning apply to rapists and murderers living anywhere, as anywhere they could live they'd have a neighbor?
On the post: Florida Sheriff Plans To Use Hurricane Irma To Bump Up Arrest Numbers, Fill His Jail
Re:
If merely serving their prison term isn't enough of a consequence, what should those consequences be? Hurricanes don't affect all parts of the U.S., and the parts that they do affect they only affect sporadically.
On the post: Florida Sheriff Plans To Use Hurricane Irma To Bump Up Arrest Numbers, Fill His Jail
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then why didn't his tweets just say "police will be at hurricane shelters to make sure the shelters remain safe"?
On the post: Awful Court Decision Says Dr. Phil Producer's Video Not 'Fair Use'
Re: Re: Re: This comment censored.
Retribution from whom? Dr. Phil? The judicial system?
On the post: Twitter Suspends Reporter's Account... After He Gets Targeted By Russian Twitter Bots
Re: Re: Re: So, Twitter acting stupidly completely refutes common law?
Which part of common law? Can you name it? If you can't name it, can you explain how you know that common law forbids it?
On the post: Court: TSA Agents Can Be Shielded From Certain Civil Rights Lawsuits Because They're Too Important
Re: Re: Phantom 'safety' trumps legal rights apparently
Given that after 9/11 that pilot's cabins are locked, passengers will fight back against hijack attempts, and that TSA agents are abysmally bad at stopping weapons from being smuggled past security checkpoints, exactly how much extra security do does TSA actually provide?
On the post: Failed Cybersquatter Asks Supreme Court To Declare 'Google' A Generic Term
In order to protect a trademark, does a company like Google only have to make a good-faith effort to prevent the public from genericizing their trademark, or do they have to actually succeed? It seems to me that requiring success would be setting the bar too high, since (from my non-lawyer understanding of trademark law) a company can only sue if their trademark is used by as a name of a product or is used to advertise a product.
Next >>