TasMot’s Techdirt Profile


About TasMot

TasMot’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 10th, 2021 @ 8:46am

    Body Cameras

    Since law enforcement agents (cough cough cough) can't seem to follow departmental policies and tend to lose the body cam footage anyway if it doesn't support their narrative, it's most likely time for journalists especially, and every protester generally to start wearing the body cameras to start protecting themselves. Maybe there are even some that will immediately stream the audio and video straight to the cloud so that it is just a little further out of reach of the delete immediately crowd of LEO's.

  • Feb 11th, 2021 @ 10:14am

    (untitled comment)

    Too bad that Section 230 couldn't be easily promoted to be a Constitutional Amendment. To legally put liability where it belongs, not on the intermediaries. Just the the phone company is not sued if people use their phones to talk about a crime and the car companies are not sued when a car is used in a crime, the platform and the wires that carry the Internet should not be sued all of the time because a person uses them to commit a crime.

  • Jan 5th, 2021 @ 5:33am

    Let's Try to Get This Straight

    The FCC, using its own (hopefully sophisticated- or not - equipment), has detected a Pirate radio station. Now, instead of using standard (relatively easy) triangulation to find the station and under its legal authority shutting it down. It stops and sends a letter to a landlord who now has to find a way to locate the Pirate station and shut it down. WOW. It sounds like the landlords now need a Section 230 to protect them from secondary liability. Instead, a law gets passed that says they have to become the FCC's enforcement arm, determine where the radio station is and then shut it down. This is a cluster of lawsuits against the landlords as they try to find the radio station and shut it down while possibly searching through hundreds of apartments in a building. Let's face it, if the FCC can detect the illegal radio station, they should be able to then locate it and shut it down.

  • Dec 28th, 2020 @ 12:14pm

    (untitled comment)

    An article in Bloomberg notes that basically the rest of the internet industry is pissed off at Facebook and recognizes the company's willingness to throw the open internet under the bus to maintain its market position (while also claiming to be "responsive" to Congress's misplaced anger).

    We have already seen that Facebook doesn't want to compete in an open internet. Just look at their closed system "internet" that was offered in India for a time to try to get people to sign up for a "free" internet service that only went to Facebook sites.

    What was that old saying, "Too big to compete, legislate instead".

    Facebook is just trying to lock up the market so that there is Facebook and only Facebook.

  • Dec 4th, 2020 @ 5:45am

    More Unverified Claims...

    And Clearview has been highly irresponsible in its marketing and distribution of its tech, making unverified claims...

    Any chance Pres. Trump is invested in Clearview? Then the trail of unverified claims would make sense....

  • Nov 10th, 2020 @ 10:30am


    Apple just started selling the new iPhone that has 5G. There have been a few Android phones for sale by Verizon that are supposed to support "real" 5G. Unlike the AT&T 4G LTE phones that magically started to support 5G with a software update of the icon - 5G is a new hardware standard so software just can't do it).

  • Nov 10th, 2020 @ 10:28am


    For a while equipment suppliers such as Comcast and Verizon were advertising for home Wi-Fi routers as 5G. Then 5G mobile came along and they changed all the Wi-Fi advertising to 6G (with no visible new features except the name change). Buyers beware of the name change for Wi-Fi only.

  • Nov 10th, 2020 @ 7:17am

    And it's hard to find "for sure" where 5G is Deployed

    If you look at the Verizon 5G map link, nowhere does is show just 5G. If you are "*nal" enough to know to look at the Legend and carefully read the entry for "Nationwide 5G", it actually says "5G Nationwide Includes 4G LTE coverage". So, no way to know if there is any place that is actually 5G without getting a 5G phone and bringing it to that exact location and trying it (which is usually after signing a long term contract for a very expensive phone and bringing it there only to find out it doesn't actually get 5G).

    I'll just stick with my existing 4G LTE phone for a while until there is some real buildout. Even then with the same speeds and being more expensive, I may just stick with getting a new 4G phone when I need one.

  • Nov 2nd, 2020 @ 4:59am

    Senator Wyden

    OK, he seems to have a lot of integrity and willingness to ask the hard questions. How do we make sure he keeps getting elected and doing such a great job? I, for one, hope he can stay around for a while and keep poking NSA and other to keep them straight. I don't see many other doing it.

  • Oct 16th, 2020 @ 5:50am

    Verizon 5G

    Here: https://www.verizon.com/coverage-map/, is a Verizon 5G coverage map. However; the most important thing to look at is that all those red 5G splotches. Wow, so much 5G coverage. Until you look at the "Legend". In there, the red 5G splotches are 5G AND 4GLTE coverage combined. There is no just 5G coverage displayed in the map, at all.

  • Oct 14th, 2020 @ 11:34am

    (untitled comment)

    Constitution, what constitution? This is about the government protecting the government. It is no longer about serving the citizens they were elected to protect. AKA, high-court vs. low-court justice. T.Rump says prosecute those who spread "Fake News" except when he does it.

  • Oct 14th, 2020 @ 8:28am

    Fake News

    Why isn't T.Rump tweeting about this load of fake news? Oh Yeah! It's his fake news. This is not the fake news he's looking for......
    Yep, look over here where he has recovered from Covid thanks to $100K of doctor's care.

  • Oct 3rd, 2020 @ 10:03am

    (untitled comment)

    Because trademark owners now want to own each and every word in their trademark, not just the trademark phrase. So, "Be Boss, Be Kind" and "Hugo Boss" both contain the word boss. Since the Hugo guy was first, he want's to own EVERY use of Hugo or Boss. Just because they got money.

    When are trademark offices going to start denying these types of applications? The trademark was on Hugo Boss, not Hugo and Boss.

    There must be a lot of lawyers in trademark offices that just want to keep their buddies (lawyers and judges) working at high billing rates.

  • Sep 11th, 2020 @ 8:31am

    Just Fishing

    So a filter for words or phrases would suspend my account if I posted a tweet and said "I caught a perch yesterday and cut myself. That filet is going to have a little extra bloody flavor. Band-aid should fix it right up."

    Based on a word filter, I am a person at risk and my account should be suspended. In real life, I need somebody nearby with some anti-biotic and a band-aid.

    If I actually meant to hurt myself, I need somebody to see the tweet and respond that they are there to help or will get help.

    On the other hand, Twitter seems to want to follow the "head in sand" method of dealing with it and hiding the problem, not resolving the problem.

  • Sep 9th, 2020 @ 5:48am

    (untitled comment)

    Except for bragging about a satellite system, you would think that burying fiber once would end up being cheaper (and way more permanent) than a satellite. Based on the launch and maintenance cost fiber sure does seem like a cheaper long term option. See here for cost references: https://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite10.htm#:~:text=Launching%20a%20single%20satellite%20into, be%20almost%20%2414%2C000%20per%20pound.

  • Aug 14th, 2020 @ 12:39pm

    (untitled comment)

    AND, after 8 years in the film business, they have not found a way to properly secure their property and/or start suing over hosting the films in torrents. If they sued a torrent host, they could stage (and film) the raids on the locations of the computers hosting the torrents and stop the downloading. However; that would stop the potential revenue stream from the "settlements" of the suits every month (provided their new lawyers aren't stealing it from them - https://www.torrentlawyer.com/lipscomb-claimed-malibu-unprofitable/

  • Jul 20th, 2020 @ 12:23pm

    (untitled comment)

    Ah, you missed another point, now the CIA is going to be asking for more and more money for another eternal war like the war on terror and the war on drugs. This is the beginning of the approved cyberwar on whomever they feel is the enemy of the moment. No supervision. No prior approval. No public documentation. Just more and more taxpayer to give a cyber-beatdown to the bad-guys-of-the-moment or whatever else they feel like attacking. Look out Google and Amazon, TenCent and TikTok! The CIA feels like gunning for you today.

  • Jul 8th, 2020 @ 12:28pm

    (untitled comment)

    Second, the line about 230 being a shield "that is not enjoyed by any other industry in the same way" is also nonsense.

    Oh come on, if every industry was liable for what others did, then road builders couldn't build roads, car builders couldn't build cars; just in case somebody else did something bad with them. Knife makers, gun makers, all sorts of explosives makers would be liable if others did something bad with the things they made. AND, all the different companies involved in communications (phones, equipment, backhaul, towers, even the people leasing the ground used for towers) would not do any of it if they could be sued because someone used a phone call to do something bad. When will the idiocy of correctly assigning blame to the wrong-doers be firmly established. The idea of suing Twitter, Facebook or other providers because one of their users did something illegal on the platform is just stupid. Instead of changing 230, we need a smart politician to put in place a law that immediately does a treble legal fee back-charge (plus a $100K nuisance charge) to anyone who files the frivolous lawsuits against the platforms when they are found innocent of any violations because they were protected by 230 (or let's throw in the 1st Amendment as well).

  • Jul 7th, 2020 @ 10:55am


    Welcome to the facts optional 2020's. It's easier to generate FUD if all the meanings are very blurred and no actual facts presented, just grumblings about vague fears and conflated ideas.

  • Jun 23rd, 2020 @ 11:59am

    (untitled comment)

    Mike, you missed one reason why we desperately need to get rid of Section 230 altogether: "IT'S A RICO ACT VIOLATION".
    Now go get rid of 230. /sarc

More comments from TasMot >>


This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it