Primo Geek’s Techdirt Profile


About Primo Geek Techdirt Insider

Primo Geek’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 28th, 2019 @ 12:24pm

    Not just the EU

    What I don't understand is how, legally and practically, this won't also apply to users everywhere in the world. Sure the Facebooks of the world can implement geofencing. However, geo-fencing is not 100% accurate and do they want to take on the legal liability of that risk? What if an EU user posts to .com instead of .fr? Don't you think that France would haul that company into court especially if they have a presence there? We all know filtering sucks so how many companies will just prohibit posting because it raises too much of a legal risk? Also, practically speaking, do they want to spend the money to have two development teams building two different products?

    I'm a glass half-empty person but I think non-EU users should be worried about this.

  • Nov 14th, 2018 @ 1:57pm

    Blame the maker not the method

    While I believe that Gab is protected as a platform despite their pathetic attempts at policing, the AG crafted a very smart, enforceable subpoena. It is a "who is your customer" request that has absolutely no implications on CDA 230. Because they are targeting the provider and not Gab it avoids any of those sticky issues.

    It reminds me of the kerfuffle about the John Doe subpoenas in music copyright cases. The problem wasn't the John Doe subpoenas or that they were used to obtain IP addresses or users accounts. It was what the Plaintiffs were doing after getting the information.

    There is a need for these tools but it is up to the courts and society to ensure they aren't being abused. The AG is trying to figure out who really controls Gab. Taking further steps with that information is where it may be abusive.

    Along those lines, most responsible hosts have terms of use that cover notice and a chance for the subject to contest the subpoena.
  • Sep 28th, 2018 @ 6:44pm

    (untitled comment)

    While I have some sympathy to Zoho, it appears to be a typical story where abuse handling and infrastructure security are treated as costs to be avoided by startups who are more concerned about playing on the company ping pong tables in between "disrupting" business. As someone who spends a lot of time combating phishing attacks I can tell you it is incredibly frustrating trying to get anyone to respond to a complaint. I regard registrars as the nuclear option but when you can't get a response and thousands of victims are being created every hour sometimes that button needs to be pressed. I suspect the phishing complaints were first placed with, and ignored by, Zoho. Having a registrar handle it is an imperfect solution but I would welcome a reasonable alternative that doesn't result in criminals being immune hiding behind a provider that doesn't respond
  • Aug 6th, 2018 @ 12:35pm

    There are other issue besides terrorism

    I agree that terrorism risk is extremely overblown. However, what makes this proposal asinine is the other risks that could escalate on the small airport to big airport runs if screening were eliminated. Domestic violence muder/suicide, people intent on taking others with them, and even old-style hijacking. Without screening, people intent on violence could take dangerous weapons and explosives that would make reliance on passenger intervention useless. Do you not think that elimination of screening would be a siren call to all the random crazys of the world? These acts would definitely increase. Maybe only a few a year (so more than the current rate of terrorism incidents) but dismissing them as worth the risk because planes have less than 60 passengers would not work out well. Personally, sitting behind someone who is muttering about armageddon while knowing they weren't screened would not make for a pleasant flight.
  • Jul 17th, 2017 @ 4:52pm


    As much as I want to laugh at this comment, if you go to the police forums this is exactly what they would say. No nuance. If they are 21 feet from you, blast away.
  • Apr 7th, 2017 @ 12:42pm

    Re: Re: DCMA notices

    It is clear that you don't understand how copyright works in the United States. Your assertions may be valid in some other country but not in this one.
  • Mar 14th, 2017 @ 3:00pm

    Re: Re:

    To be clear - you must hand your phone over and they can inspect it. However, if you are an American citizen, you are not required to provide the password. They can hassle you, detain you for a while, intimidate you, and use a forensic phone imaging unit like Cellebrite to try to bypass the lock but they can't force you to turn it over. They also can't "jail" you because that would involve handing you over to federal authorities for not violating a law that doesn't exist. They can just make your life miserable for a while - but it is your choice.

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