Philip 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (104)

• On the post: Wyden Siren: Coats Is Answering A Different Question About Surveillance Of US Persons

  

  Philip ( profile ), 16 Jun, 2017 @ 01:21pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Am I missing something?

  Side Note: I understand "would it be possible" would also mean "can."
  
  However, in this contact of his question, 'Can' would mean: "Can the government", in which Coats stated, the document says the government cannot.
  
  Do note, nowhere in Wyden's question, to the text, did he ask "would/can" Coats's agency, which you implied.
  
  Yes. Text of the sentence. What word used matters so much, whether you're asking or answering.

• On the post: Wyden Siren: Coats Is Answering A Different Question About Surveillance Of US Persons

  

  Philip ( profile ), 16 Jun, 2017 @ 01:11pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Am I missing something?

  "would it be possible for your agency to [x]"

  I touched on that already:

  Does Wyden not know about English grammar? You ask if you can: Yes, I can, but would I? That's a different question. Can does not imply action. It only states if the possibility exists to for action.

  "Would" and "could/can" mean two different things. Wyden clearly stated "Can" not "Would." Coats stated they cannot, show him the text clearly states they cannot. Nowhere, in either statements, did "would" ever come up.

• On the post: Wyden Siren: Coats Is Answering A Different Question About Surveillance Of US Persons

  

  Philip ( profile ), 16 Jun, 2017 @ 12:26pm

  Re: Re: Am I missing something?

  i.e. Is he's asking if there are any legal loop holes in the text? It just seems pretty obvious the answer would be "no": The text of the law says the government "may not intentionally" - that's a very obvious answer "No, the government cannot use 702 to intentionally collect[...]" So, is he really asking if there's anyway the government can interpret 702 differently to allow it? This is why people get frustrated in government. People answer to the text. And people get pissed off: "That's what what I meant" Yes, I get there's a lot of shit the other way, too: they answer to the "text" without answer the question. However, in this instance, Wyden's intended meaning of the question is clearly--based on Coats's reply--not obvious.

• On the post: Wyden Siren: Coats Is Answering A Different Question About Surveillance Of US Persons

  

  Philip ( profile ), 16 Jun, 2017 @ 11:14am

  Am I missing something?

  Can somebody explain this for me?

  That was not my question

  "Can the government use FISA Act Section 702 to collect communications it knows are entirely domestic."

  "Not to my knowledge. It would be against the law." [...] "Section 702(b)(4) plainly states we 'may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States.'"

  I don't get it. That answers the question to the T. Wyden said Can. He did not say Has or Would.

  What am I missing here? Does Wyden not know about English grammar? You ask if you can: Yes, I can, but would I? That's a different question. Can does not imply action. It only states if the possibility exists to for action.

• On the post: Wired Releases A Story Early To Apple News Users; Wired Readers Not Happy

  

  Philip ( profile ), 21 Sep, 2015 @ 04:39pm

  It's up now

  It appears they've reverted their stance on this. The article is now working.

• On the post: Tomorrow Is Move Your Domain Day: Support The EFF And Get A Year For Free

  

  Philip ( profile ), 26 Jan, 2015 @ 03:57pm

  Re: Re: Tempting

  Oh? Well then. Let me look at this even more. I just xfered one of my domains here last week to Google Domains, because of email forwarding (to my gmail account).

• On the post: Tomorrow Is Move Your Domain Day: Support The EFF And Get A Year For Free

  

  Philip ( profile ), 26 Jan, 2015 @ 03:09pm

  Tempting

  I'm tempted, but I need email forwarding. I was about to move my domain to Google Domain so I can kill my mail server. It doesn't appear Namecheap offers email forwarding. :(

• On the post: Saying That You're Not Concerned Because The NSA Isn't Interested In You Is Obnoxious And Dangerous

  

  Philip ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2014 @ 02:38pm

  Aka: "Just because you're not a Jew doesn't mean you shouldn't care."

• On the post: If Your Kid's Playing M-Rated Games, You Can't Blame The Retailer

  

  Philip ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2013 @ 08:25am

  Less game purchases -> more violence?

  So, does that mean as minors were unable to buy such games themselves, their tendency to shoot up schools increased?? That's what I see.

• On the post: Instagram: 'Wait, Wait! That's Not What We Meant!'

  

  Philip ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2012 @ 05:19pm

  Re:

  PS: I don't see updates on the part about making advertising indistinguishable from real content.

• On the post: Instagram: 'Wait, Wait! That's Not What We Meant!'

  

  Philip ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2012 @ 05:14pm

  "In the end, we stand by our initial analysis: almost all of the complaints against Instagram's new terms of service were quite similar to complaints made against other terms of service in the past few years when someone got around to reading the details, which are hard to understand because of the annoying legalese that the lawyers want you to put in. "
  
  That's not entirely true. In this instance, the wording of the TOS (new, mind you, not existing), did give the impression they would sell your photos to advertisers. So the concern was very real. Instagram just farked up their meaning when putting it down in legal mumbo-jumbo.
  
  While your interpretation as what they were trying to do is correct, the complaints over the language was quite valid.

• On the post: Why Copyright Shouldn't Be Considered Property… And Why A Return To 1790 Copyright May Be Desirable

  

  Philip ( profile ), 05 Dec, 2012 @ 10:00am

  Re: Re: Copyright is a grant of limited property rights for limited time.

  * "Keep me sign in" likes to forget ... And it's "You're blaming..." Oops.

• On the post: Apparently Attacking A Candidate For Being A World Of Warcraft Player Is Not An Effective Campaign Strategy

  

  Philip ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2012 @ 11:16am

  Re:

  People that attack on these grounds live in their own reality where games are for kids. They can't fathom "adults" playing video games.

• On the post: Tomorrow: Internet Freedom Experts Team Up For A Giant Reddit AMA

  

  Philip ( profile ), 23 Oct, 2012 @ 04:36pm

  That's assuming Reddit will remain up for (and during) it. ;)

• On the post: Dan Bull: Censored By Copyright For Protesting Being Censored By Copyright

  

  Philip ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2012 @ 07:52am

  Re-release on Viamo? How about embedding on his site using HTML5? Have other users host the video in their channels? Put it on PirateBay for others to pull down and post to their discretion?
  
  There are many ways to get the video air play. While this is a obvious display of censorship, it's very, very easy to "play around" Finesse's "commercial use" claim. Dan Bull can easily "fight back" without falling under the terms of the counter-notices.

• On the post: Kim Jong Un's Mysterious Female Companion Hides The Real Issue: Piracy Of Disney Characters!

  

  Philip ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2012 @ 08:42am

  Re: Typical statement.

  And crap ... with "China" I meant North Korea. lol

• On the post: Kim Jong Un's Mysterious Female Companion Hides The Real Issue: Piracy Of Disney Characters!

  

  Philip ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2012 @ 08:40am

  Typical statement.

  I'm sure this is a response from Disney being ask by a third party if this was authorized or if Disney is connected with the performance (in efforts to get info. about said woman).
  
  I'm a little disappointed. You make it sound like Disney is threatening Kim John Un for the illegal use of Disney characters. Now, if I'm wrong, and this is a real legal threat; then yes, Disney is jumping the "MUCH PROTECT IP" gun before realizing China doesn't care about US IP.

• On the post: Pirate Bay Founder Takes Fight To EU, Argues Swedish Censorship Violates Human Rights

  

  Philip ( profile ), 16 May, 2012 @ 07:43am

  Use phones.

  He should be using the analogy of making phones illegal because people use them to conduct illegal activity. Can even use the postal service as illegal because people use it to ship illegal packages.
  
  Both of those would fit well with TPB's use.

• On the post: Wil Wheaton Reminds Us That Torrents Are Awesome, And Not Just For Pirated Movies

  

  Philip ( profile ), 16 May, 2012 @ 05:40am

  Re:

  Came here to say exactly this. A lot of new market games developers are doing the same, too.

• On the post: Slow Down TSA Lynch Mob: That Naked Scanner Expose Video Is Exaggerated & Old News

  

  Philip ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2012 @ 11:41am

  So it's possible that the TSA agents saw this thing in his pocket and immediately saw that it wasn't something dangerous.
  
  You give the TSA far too much credit. lol

Next >>