Upstream 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (630) comment rss

  • On the post: Indiana: Another Age Verification Bill Criminalizing Legal Pornography

    Upstream ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2023 @ 04:22pm

    The Midwest

    I don’t know what is happening in the Midwest, but these age verification bills are getting weird.
    I have been to the Midwest, and I have always thought it was weird, but, yeah, this repetitive insistence on unconstitutional, unworkable, and privacy-violating age verification laws is getting weirder. Maybe it is the Midwest lawmaker's inner fascists coming out of the closet.

  • On the post: FCC Starts Taking ‘Space Junk’ More Seriously, Fines Dish For Parking Satellite In A Dumb Spot

    Upstream ( profile ), 05 Oct, 2023 @ 07:30am

    Terminology

    The golf term is "Fore!" not FOUR.

  • On the post: Governor Newsom Desperately Begs NetChoice To Drop Its Lawsuit Over Unconstitutional AADC Bill

    Upstream ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2023 @ 04:52pm

    Not fighting is complicity.
    This is true in so many areas; in recent years most noticeably with respect to bad cops.

  • On the post: Section 230 Protects Public Records Portal, Says Judge While Tossing Bogus ID Theft Lawsuit

    Upstream ( profile ), 31 May, 2023 @ 03:42pm

    There was a murder case some time ago where the prosecutor prosecuted two different men for the same murder, in separate trials, using completely different theories of the crime for each trial, theories which completely contradicted each other, and theories which each claimed that only the man being prosecuted in this trial could have committed the murder. IIRC both were convicted. There is an article in the NYT about a Pensacola case that looks like it might be what I am remembering, but it is behind a paywall. Of course, there might be many of these types of cases. As the AC pointed out, this type of immoral behavior is SOP for lawyers.

  • On the post: Wisconsin City Decides It’s OK To Eavesdrop On Private Conversations In Its City Hall

    Upstream ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2023 @ 01:40pm

    Where before you’d get a silent grainy picture
    In general, the reason for the previously silent surveillance video was due to audio recording being illegal, which it generally still is. As was mentioned, there are different levels of "expectation of privacy" in different situations, but typically in any publicly accessible place, recording any conversation to which you are not a party is illegal, and the proscriptions will usually be found in the anti-wiretapping laws. A private college may be able to get around these prohibitions, but it would likely be a very grey legal area.

  • On the post: Wisconsin City Decides It’s OK To Eavesdrop On Private Conversations In Its City Hall

    Upstream ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2023 @ 11:16am

    More "single-party" clarification

    In most, if not all, states, "single-party consent" to record a conversation, whether in person or over the phone, means that anyone who is a party to the conversation can legally record it without running afoul of anti-wiretapping laws. In this case, those doing the recording and listening are not parties to the conversation, and in most, maybe all, states this would be considered illegal under the anti-wiretapping laws. Maybe the city government needs to get a legal opinion from someone other than their "we aim to please" lap dogs.

  • On the post: Missouri Judge Says State’s Public Defender Waiting List Is Unconstitutional

    Upstream ( profile ), 15 Feb, 2023 @ 03:55pm

    Inherent bias

    Some of the bias that permeates the criminal legal system is due to the prosecutor-to-judge, prosecutor-to-politician, and law enforcement-to-politician pipelines. I have long thought that making prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys (and their staff) permanently ineligible for judgeships or elected office might be a solution to this problem. Prosecutors would also be prohibited from becoming defense attorneys, and vice versa. Would-be prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, law enforcement, and elected officials could be completely separate and mutually exclusive career paths, starting in law school. Of course, anyone who was not in one of these professional categories could join any one of them at any time, but they would then be ineligible for any of the others thereafter. I am sure this idea would never fly, for any number of reasons, but I still think the idea has merit. The aforementioned pipelines create clear and unavoidable conflict-of-interest situations, which no amount of oath-taking can overcome. With vanishingly few exceptions: Once a prosecutor, always a prosecutor. Once a cop, always a cop. Once a defense attorney, always a defense attorney. Once a politician, always a politician.

  • On the post: Once Again, I See This Bad Internet Bill From Senators Manchin & Cornyn, And So I’m Saying Something

    Upstream ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2023 @ 09:49am

    Misdirection

    Manchin and Cornyn, like all politicians and many (most?) of the people running "solve a problem" NGOs, are not at all interested in actually solving any problems. That would put them out of their jobs, and make their uselessness quite apparent. They are interested in continuing "the fight" indefinitely, because that is what brings in the donations, campaign contributions, and votes. Looking at you, WLP & NRA, as one of the best examples of this.

  • On the post: Even Former NSA Lawyers Don’t Think A TikTok Ban Fixes The Actual Problem

    Upstream ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2023 @ 07:35am

    The fact that it will “cost companies billions” to comply with idiotic policies that no one wants or needs is all the reason we need to not have those policies.
    What kind of horse-$#it is this^? We all have a natural / inherent right to privacy. If any of us wants to voluntary surrender some of that privacy, that should be an option. But complete personal privacy should be the default. There should also be laws / policies against systems like some grocery stores and other merchants have where you can maintain your privacy while paying exorbitant / prohibitive prices, or "all your data is belong to us" systems in exchange for paying normal market prices. Privacy is a basic human right. The 4th Amendment to our Constitution, while not actually using the word "privacy," makes this very clear. The SCOTUS travesty of the "third party doctrine" is just as clear in it's effect of being an end run around the 4th Amendment guarantees of individual privacy. Our current status, with a largely surveillance-based government and a largely complicit surveillance-based economy, is also very clear as prima facie evidence of our increasingly fast decent into a completely authoritarian / totalitarian / fascist surveillance-based regime.

  • On the post: Three Years After BS Arrest For Hacking, Swedish Digital Rights Activist Freed By Ecuadorian Court

    Upstream ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2023 @ 06:44am

    A damn shame that merely telling them to (to use an analogy) stop parking their car on the street with the door open and the keys in the ignition is a jailable offence, I hope the next “hacker” gives them a real lesson in security.
    Unfortunately, in the US there have been many prosecutions / threats of prosecution of computer security researchers due to vindictive interpretation of the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act). Last year the DOJ said they would quit doing this. But since no one can believe anything the DOJ says, the chilling effect is still there.

  • On the post: NFL Loses Lawsuit Over Phoenix Super Bowl ‘Clean Zone’

    Upstream ( profile ), 10 Feb, 2023 @ 06:29am

    RE: superb owl

    ^Yes. But as Tim wrote in the last sentence of the post:

    As we’ve long said, you can say “Super Bowl” all you want, so long as you’re not confusing the public into believing there is some sponsorship or association with the NFL.
    So there is absolutely no legitimate reason for the "superb owl" nonsense. Also, there is no legitimate reason to watch the damn thing, or to participate in any of the surrounding hype, at least as far as I am concerned.

  • On the post: Elon Musk Is Basically Zero Percent Of The Way Towards His Goal In Signing Up Users To Twitter Blue

    Upstream ( profile ), 08 Feb, 2023 @ 10:32am

    Subscription social media

    If it does, it would have to be social media that provides something strikingly different and more attractive than anything we’ve seen to date.
    It could offer actual privacy. That would be strikingly different.

  • On the post: ShotSpotter Employees Not Only Have The Power To Alter Gunshot Reports, But Do It Nearly 10% Of The Time

    Upstream ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2023 @ 02:55pm

    RE:

    One more reason Not to trust not just them, But the surrounding industry
    This^. The law enforcement / prison / industrial complex has become just as powerful and just as evil as the military / industrial complex. Really the only difference is that the law enforcement / prison / industrial complex is directing it's evil, violence, and expense inward, against our own citizens, whereas the military / industrial complex directs it's evil and violence outward, against people of other countries (except for the expense, of course, which still comes inward).

  • On the post: Federal Court Says Election Disinformation Isn’t Protected Speech

    Upstream ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2023 @ 04:09pm

    Misinformation versus disinformation

    Let's keep our terms straight: misinformation versus disinformation This was clearly a case of disinformation, since it was definitely intentional. As the linked-to website states, these two terms are often used interchangeably, but it is worth our while to make the distinction, as the proper terminology will help to make our discussions and our meanings clear.

  • On the post: Federal Court Says Election Disinformation Isn’t Protected Speech

    Upstream ( profile ), 01 Feb, 2023 @ 01:43pm

    Fraud:

    I believe the five points that constitute fraud are: 1) A misrepresentation 2) of a material fact 3) knowingly made 4) that was relied on 5) to the victim's detriment It seems to me that Mackey's words clearly meet all five of these conditions, and fraud is already very well established as a crime (sometimes misdemeanor, sometimes felony). So maybe he should just be charged with (at least) 4,900 counts of fraud. That would avoid any grey areas involving the 1st Amendment, etc.

  • On the post: FBI’s Crime Data Collection Still Being Stymied By Major Police Departments Not Reporting Crime Stats

    Upstream ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2022 @ 07:36am

    It's a rare case where someone hides info that makes them look good
    Yeah, if the data made them look good they would be shouting it from the rooftops and putting it on billboards.

  • On the post: BMW’s Push To Make Heated Seats A $18 Per Month Subscription Portends A Dumb And Costly Future

    Upstream ( profile ), 13 Jul, 2022 @ 07:22am

    BMW copying Microsoft

    Slogan: “If there was a way we could force you into a monthly subscription for the driveway space your BMW parks on, we would.” Also, isn't disabling or charging for features that you bought and paid for essentially the same as theft, at least morally, if not legally? Just because it is done "with a computer" should not matter. But the solution is simple: people can use their "dollar vote" and just not buy BMWs. I once heard that a marketing VP for BMW claimed to have repealed the law of supply and demand. He said that the more they raised their prices, the more cars they sold. This would be a good opportunity to prove him wrong.

  • On the post: Policymakers Need To Realize How Any Internet Regulation Will Impact Speech

    Upstream ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2022 @ 09:59am

    It would be a problem if they had the power to ban speech everywhere
    The point I was trying to make is that we should be concerned about them getting in a position where they effectively can ban speech everywhere, or where they can otherwise function as an extralegal "branch," or form, of government. The problems associated with private companies functioning as an outlaw surveillance arm of government are recurrent topics at Techdirt. Allowing private companies get in a position where they can function as outlaw censorship branches of government (or alt-government censorship entities) would likewise be very problematic.

  • On the post: Policymakers Need To Realize How Any Internet Regulation Will Impact Speech

    Upstream ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2022 @ 09:56am

    It would be a problem if they had the power to ban speech everywhere
    The point I was trying to make is that we should be concerned about them getting in a position where they effectively can ban speech everywhere, or where they can otherwise function as an extralegal "branch," or form, of government. The problems associated with private companies functioning as an outlaw surveillance arm of government are recurrent topics at Techdirt, Allowing private companies get in a position where they can function as outlaw censorship branches of government (or alt-government entities) would likewise be very problematic.

  • On the post: If It’s Impossible To Compete With Google, How Come New Search Engines Keep Launching?

    Upstream ( profile ), 11 Jul, 2022 @ 01:22pm

    No tracking?

    When I tried Neeva, Privacy Badger reported "neeva.containers.piwik.pro" as a potential tracker. Whether or not this is a real tracker, and what it may or may not be tracking, is well beyond my level of expertise in the area, but I found it amusing, at least.

Next >>