No, I wasn't incorrect at all. You're just misusing the word "incorrect." Not surprising, your punctuation sucks too. You failed to even successfully communicate what you think was in error.
I did see the term "name-calling," but that was mistaken too; you don't seem to understand the difference between an idea being stupid, and calling a person stupid. So even going back and reading to the completion of one sentence that you wrote was a mistake on my part, and contained falsehoods.
You don't know what is meant by a person's "record." That doesn't mean I'm wrong, because you can point to things that are some type of record. Not all records are at issue when talking about a person's "permanent record."
I actually have a deep understanding of US immigration paperwork, btw. You're just full of shit. Like, you don't know the difference between being arrested and being investigated.
And if you think users should be required to search for this info about every new aite before clicking a new link to decide if it's worth it to visit, you're absolutely fucking insane.
If you don't already know you trust the destination, don't click the link. That's my advice.
Also, if you're walking down the sidewalk and you see a door ajar, and don't know what is inside, don't go in. And if somebody is standing on the sidewalk asking you to come in, and you weren't already going to that place? Don't go in.
If you don't know where you're going, don't go yet. If you're going out for a walk, just keep walking until you're done, don't stop to randomly consume something because somebody said, "hey, stuff to consume, right here, you don't know what's in it but who cares!" If you didn't know you needed, you probably didn't need it.
To you, this might sound "absolutely fucking insane." To me it actually sounds like the default best practices that have been the same for thousands of years... or maybe millions.
If I'm walking in the woods and I see a juicy ripe berry, if I know what it is I might eat it. If I don't know what it is, I'm not going to eat it. If I'm going to run out and get a guidebook and find out what it is, I'm a nerd. Simple, easy stuff. They control you by tricking you into thinking it is something new.
I'm also super-happy with uMatrix! I recommend Privacy Badger instead of Ghostery. Don't count on just one layer of protection, there are too many sneaky bastards coding for Them. Something will slip through.
I added uMatrix in addition to uBlock and ScriptBlock. I might dump scriptblock now that I have uMatrix, but I'm running both for now. uMatrix is per-site instead of global to the browser instance.
With all that, nothing on slashdot makes it through to Privacy Badger.:) uBlock does still find 5 things. uMatrix catches 1 script that I temporarily enabled in ScriptBlock... for a different site.
One thing I noticed since the slashdot sale is that the "block advertising" checkbox no longer stays checked. I guess they're playing some sort of cross-site scripting or tracking game with it now? Or they just fiddled it innocently and it hit one of my blockers. No way for me to know... I don't see ads anyways, except however many stories are slashvertisements. Don't click the links and you're safe. Never click links.
Right, those of us who block the ads and also don't click whatever links somebody spams are partially inoculated.
The idea that simply being a "big industry" guarantees success for them is naive. They can be mostly successful, and I can also be mostly successful, because my goals are individual and their goals are aggregate.
I'll believe that my ad blocker is insufficient when I actually see ads. And I'll stop using those sites. If one of them turns out to be youtube, that doesn't mean I lose and the ads win; it means I would spend more time at archive.org, and none at youtube.
I also run two layers of scriptblock, plus privacy badger, and if it doesn't work, I just close the window (or use the google cache). I also spend a couple hours a day outdoors in the forest. They're not going to make me watch ads unless they lock me in a room and feed them to me A Clockwork Orange style.
This is why I'm effectively "allergic" to advertising and I block it all, I don't watch commercial television, etc. I do watch a few hours of TV sports per year when the local college team is on regular TV, but I strictly and compulsively mute during the ads. I do watch a little media content, but without ads; for example, the show Vikings I stream on the website without ads. If they were to get an ad past my blocker, I'd close the window instantly.
I can make my own purchasing decisions without any help. But I agree with you entirely; I can't expose myself to their content, and still be making my own decisions. Belief in mental fortitude does not change DNA or psychology, and the vast majority of mental processes are not even conscious and I don't get to "decide" how I feel about everything. That is an impossible dream, magical thinking. But I can, and mostly do, control what is on the screens I look at, the papers I look at. Usually, the sounds I listen to.
And even still, I'm being exposed to it; how many slashdot stories are there because of what a database says about the readers? But it does help if you don't click any of the links. It reduces the exposure. And for a news junkie, such as myself, there is a lot of misleading crap that goes into what headlines are available for me to view. There is some bleed-over there, that I can't remove without rendering myself unaware of the broader world.
And the average person out there thinks that the Discovery Channel shows documentaries. LOL They also think "news entertainment" is news.
Most people have secrets. Some of those secrets aren't really very important...
Historically, the worst abuses have been based on things that weren't secrets until society and government changed drastically, and people started getting killed for what didn't used to be dangerous or secret. That's what I worry about; the future state of society is a known unknown! I have no idea if a fascist regime will take over in ten years and start killing people "like me." That's why I don't want too much information about me to be in databases. Especially where the short-term benefit of the information is to a corporation, not to me personally. I'd rather limit the information about me to what is required to manage government services, plus what I choose to share about myself because I decide it benefits me to share it.
I have no idea what data about me needs to be secret in the future, but I do know what data about me is personal and my own business. So that is the basis that I have to go on in managing the risk. Maybe it sounds paranoid, but my ancestors invaded my other ancestors countries multiple times and took all their land and killed a bunch of my cousins. To me it all feels personal and recent. Why am I an American? Because my ancestors successfully escaped my other ancestors! I'm descended from those paranoid enough to get out before they blocked the harbor.
I don't really understand how somebody can think that "investigate" and "search" are the same thing. The 4th Amendment covers searches, and sets some restrictions and requirements. It does not in any way restrict or regulate other types of investigation, like coming to your door and asking questions.
If you can't differentiate between those two basic words, that are important to the subject, how can you hope to engage in any sort of useful analysis? Won't anything you say just be mumbly nonsense?
You got confused by the word "declared" when the actual word is "valuated."
Once you realize that valuate is a technical verb, and not a made-up word, then you can start to understand what is meant by valuation, and assign value to the process.
It is actually very similar to home equity. It isn't actually worth anything unless sell the house. You can't hold equity in your hand; if you sell the house and find out how much equity you really had then it is also gone; you no longer have any, just the actual cash. But that doesn't mean home equity is not real; just that it isn't a liquid asset. It also doesn't guarantee that the equity listed on paper is what you'll get out of selling the house. Same as with a stock.
A judge can't decide there is no basis for investigating if a crime was committed. Judges aren't gate-keepers for the starting of investigations. They're gate-keepers for search warrants, and legal accusations. And they can quash a subpoena, sure. But they can't quash an investigation.
The stuff you're thinking about is at a later stage, in situations that have a formal accusation of some sort. You're way ahead of yourself here. That stuff doesn't even come up. if they investigated, and then charged him with a crime, that stuff would matter.
The actual act of you deciding what you think is reasonable is part of you doing your own investigation. Cops have to do that using a process. Deciding that the statement was hyperbole and doesn't require additional investigation? That is itself an investigation! That is the expected outcome of most threat investigations.
Bringing up President Obama doesn't help your case at all; the Secret Service investigates many thousands of "threats" and "potential threats" every year. The vast majority of them are found to be protected speech that doesn't contain a true threat. But investigation is why we know that. And there is no legal problem with them doing those investigations. That is well-settled; of course they can investigate.
I was kicked out of 8th grade math class for writing computer code (on lined paper), probably the teacher didn't understand the script and that I was actually doing math. You know, squiggly lines and the state of American education.
You're statistics-challenged, clearly, but murders do happen, and they are sometimes discussed casually first. There is a non-zero chance that they were going to murder somebody, and you simply have no fucking clue one way or the other.
The reason it doesn't matter what you heard is that it is hearsay, you heard them say, you didn't record it, they didn't write it down or broadcast it, they didn't say it to the potential victim, and they did not describe an imminent crime. Therefore, it is not a threat and could not be investigated as a threat. There would be no complaint of a threat. It could be investigated as a potential conspiracy to commit murder, but only if there was something purported to be evidence. A published statement that may or may not be threatening is a real statement, that was really published, and so it is evidence; of a crime, or that there wasn't a crime, depending on the result of an investigation. In your case, there is only hearsay; you heard somebody else say things. That isn't evidence, so there would not be any investigation to determine if a crime was committed.
But if you recorded the guys, then it might be evidence of a conspiracy to commit murder. It all depends on if, in addition to what you overheard, they were also taking material actions to further the cause of the guy ending up dead. And you don't have any idea one way or the other if that is the case. They might have been talking about a video game, or a TV show, or even engaging in hyperbole. But contrary to your magical thinking, you don't know which it is.
If an investigation was a "consequence" in that sense then nothing would be allowed to be investigated. No, he won't "have a record" that is stupid. He'll have a file, but everybody has various files. The police keep a record of every time they pull you over, even if there is no citation, arrest, or even investigation. It isn't a meaningful metric. And when people talk about your "record" they're talking about the record of convictions. And sometimes people do also broaden that and ask about your arrest record, but nobody asks, "have you ever been suspected of a crime?" It would be a stupid question for a variety of reasons, but lets stick to the fact that you're lying, you just made that shit up.
The point that TechDirt (and their lawyers) made was that there was no grounds for suspicion that Digger had made an illegal statement, since the Supreme Court has ruled that similar statements were protected speech and not illegal.
If you have an accusation, you can't decide that it is covered by the SCOTUS ruling and drop the issue... without investigating! Investigation is the name of the process that is used to reach a conclusion one way or the other. That's a simple existential fact. The lawyers for TechDirt aren't responsible for investigating it, so rather than be stuck using a formal process they can just glance at what they know and make a conclusion. The people actually responsible for receiving the complaints have a less casual process, for real reasons.
Also, warrants come from a Judge. Subpoenas usually come from a lawyer in their capacity as an officer of the Court. It is a real process. You don't have to like or agree with the process, but that is what it is. It doesn't make sense to misunderstand who did what while also complaining about the details and if the rules are being followed. This is a standard, appropriate step in an investigation. And see above, waving your hands and saying "there is no grounds for suspicion" does not resolve a complaint. That is exactly the question they're investigating. They're not required to have "grounds for suspicion" when they have an actual complaint; they would need grounds for suspicion to follow up with a search, or to arrest somebody, etc. In your world, the cops would just decide if there is suspicion, all on their own without rules, right? But cops suck, the quality of the work is very low, so we have a system with rules, and they don't just get to decide, they have to investigate and have reasons that can be articulated, and involve facts. "Gosh, sounds good to me" isn't a fact or an articulated analysis.
Also, the summary clips out the worst parts and gives a misleading sense of the comment. It is indisputably a "gray area" comment, and so cannot be waved away. It is simply not clear if it is a poorly worded statement, or a correctly worded threat.
Right, it is normal to be investigated and still "get away with" it. A huge number of threats against politicians are "investigated" every year in the US. Almost no charges are ever filed. But if you say something in a gray area and the wrong person reports it, you could indeed be required to sit down for an interview where they ask you if you were serious, or not. That is what they're preparing to do here; sit him down, explain how serious it is to make such statements, and ask if he was serious. If he says, "gosh no, I was just venting my frustrations but I didn't mean to threaten anybody!:(" then no problem, he loses an hour of time and however much sleep. If he says, "Hey, fuck you, I know my rights, and I'm not answering that!" then they'll just have to get all sorts of search warrants and search his home, car, work place, past work place, friend's houses, etc until they can determine that they didn't find any evidence of a crime.
As far as packing your bags, if you're a foreign national visiting the US and you say something that pisses off the government.... yeah, bye-eeeee! lol The good news is, you won't go to jail for it. If you're a US citizen, the above listed stuff is the whole threat, there is no bag-packing involved. I mean, except for packing to move after losing your job and home and all that.
Getting out in front of the predictable gag order and bringing attention to this was ballsy and smart. Of course now DHS will probably start gag-ordering the pre- subpoena request... But thanks techdirt staff for shining the light.
It might not be technically possible to gag the request for the address to send the gag to, for procedural reasons. Expect this to become a thing. Also, expect somebody to try to game this with rotating addresses, because they only need to ask once (ever) if the address is still current.
or could you seriously not deduce exactly who 'Masnick' is simply from the point of view within TFS?
Right, it is a good policy to just assume that anybody quoted has a biased interest, and no opinion is ever expert, neutral, or third-party. Never give benefits for doubt; doubt is always a sign of bullshit. Except when it is horseshit.
... they always want the gold and silver but never the copper and lead. So picky.
I wish that I lived on your planet. On my planet, thieves don't know silver from chrome and couldn't care less, but they'll strip the wiring out of partially constructed buildings for the copper.
And sometimes they even steal car batteries for the $10 deposit return on the lead!
Well, I do know a guy who thinks all security are the KGB, even private security.
He also spent 2 years thinking he was a Klingon, and worrying that the coffee shop baristas were in a conspiracy to downgrade the planetary defenses and leave us open to attack.
The past couple years have been better. He's an elf now, and has a more peaceful existence. The orcs will arrive eventually, though, sad but true.
Seriously, dude, consider how many things have the word "security" in them. Notice the resemblances?!?
Slashdot Mirror
No, I wasn't incorrect at all. You're just misusing the word "incorrect." Not surprising, your punctuation sucks too. You failed to even successfully communicate what you think was in error.
I did see the term "name-calling," but that was mistaken too; you don't seem to understand the difference between an idea being stupid, and calling a person stupid. So even going back and reading to the completion of one sentence that you wrote was a mistake on my part, and contained falsehoods.
You don't know what is meant by a person's "record." That doesn't mean I'm wrong, because you can point to things that are some type of record. Not all records are at issue when talking about a person's "permanent record."
I actually have a deep understanding of US immigration paperwork, btw. You're just full of shit. Like, you don't know the difference between being arrested and being investigated.
Words have meaning.
Stopped reading at your. insistence. that. I. just. agree. with. you. sorry. I. do. not.
And if you think users should be required to search for this info about every new aite before clicking a new link to decide if it's worth it to visit, you're absolutely fucking insane.
If you don't already know you trust the destination, don't click the link. That's my advice.
Also, if you're walking down the sidewalk and you see a door ajar, and don't know what is inside, don't go in. And if somebody is standing on the sidewalk asking you to come in, and you weren't already going to that place? Don't go in.
If you don't know where you're going, don't go yet. If you're going out for a walk, just keep walking until you're done, don't stop to randomly consume something because somebody said, "hey, stuff to consume, right here, you don't know what's in it but who cares!" If you didn't know you needed, you probably didn't need it.
To you, this might sound "absolutely fucking insane." To me it actually sounds like the default best practices that have been the same for thousands of years... or maybe millions.
If I'm walking in the woods and I see a juicy ripe berry, if I know what it is I might eat it. If I don't know what it is, I'm not going to eat it. If I'm going to run out and get a guidebook and find out what it is, I'm a nerd. Simple, easy stuff. They control you by tricking you into thinking it is something new.
I'm also super-happy with uMatrix! I recommend Privacy Badger instead of Ghostery. Don't count on just one layer of protection, there are too many sneaky bastards coding for Them. Something will slip through.
I added uMatrix in addition to uBlock and ScriptBlock. I might dump scriptblock now that I have uMatrix, but I'm running both for now. uMatrix is per-site instead of global to the browser instance.
With all that, nothing on slashdot makes it through to Privacy Badger. :) uBlock does still find 5 things. uMatrix catches 1 script that I temporarily enabled in ScriptBlock... for a different site.
One thing I noticed since the slashdot sale is that the "block advertising" checkbox no longer stays checked. I guess they're playing some sort of cross-site scripting or tracking game with it now? Or they just fiddled it innocently and it hit one of my blockers. No way for me to know... I don't see ads anyways, except however many stories are slashvertisements. Don't click the links and you're safe. Never click links.
Right, those of us who block the ads and also don't click whatever links somebody spams are partially inoculated.
The idea that simply being a "big industry" guarantees success for them is naive. They can be mostly successful, and I can also be mostly successful, because my goals are individual and their goals are aggregate.
I'll believe that my ad blocker is insufficient when I actually see ads. And I'll stop using those sites. If one of them turns out to be youtube, that doesn't mean I lose and the ads win; it means I would spend more time at archive.org, and none at youtube.
I also run two layers of scriptblock, plus privacy badger, and if it doesn't work, I just close the window (or use the google cache). I also spend a couple hours a day outdoors in the forest. They're not going to make me watch ads unless they lock me in a room and feed them to me A Clockwork Orange style.
This is why I'm effectively "allergic" to advertising and I block it all, I don't watch commercial television, etc. I do watch a few hours of TV sports per year when the local college team is on regular TV, but I strictly and compulsively mute during the ads. I do watch a little media content, but without ads; for example, the show Vikings I stream on the website without ads. If they were to get an ad past my blocker, I'd close the window instantly.
I can make my own purchasing decisions without any help. But I agree with you entirely; I can't expose myself to their content, and still be making my own decisions. Belief in mental fortitude does not change DNA or psychology, and the vast majority of mental processes are not even conscious and I don't get to "decide" how I feel about everything. That is an impossible dream, magical thinking. But I can, and mostly do, control what is on the screens I look at, the papers I look at. Usually, the sounds I listen to.
And even still, I'm being exposed to it; how many slashdot stories are there because of what a database says about the readers? But it does help if you don't click any of the links. It reduces the exposure. And for a news junkie, such as myself, there is a lot of misleading crap that goes into what headlines are available for me to view. There is some bleed-over there, that I can't remove without rendering myself unaware of the broader world.
And the average person out there thinks that the Discovery Channel shows documentaries. LOL They also think "news entertainment" is news.
Most people have secrets. Some of those secrets aren't really very important...
Historically, the worst abuses have been based on things that weren't secrets until society and government changed drastically, and people started getting killed for what didn't used to be dangerous or secret. That's what I worry about; the future state of society is a known unknown! I have no idea if a fascist regime will take over in ten years and start killing people "like me." That's why I don't want too much information about me to be in databases. Especially where the short-term benefit of the information is to a corporation, not to me personally. I'd rather limit the information about me to what is required to manage government services, plus what I choose to share about myself because I decide it benefits me to share it.
I have no idea what data about me needs to be secret in the future, but I do know what data about me is personal and my own business. So that is the basis that I have to go on in managing the risk. Maybe it sounds paranoid, but my ancestors invaded my other ancestors countries multiple times and took all their land and killed a bunch of my cousins. To me it all feels personal and recent. Why am I an American? Because my ancestors successfully escaped my other ancestors! I'm descended from those paranoid enough to get out before they blocked the harbor.
I don't really understand how somebody can think that "investigate" and "search" are the same thing. The 4th Amendment covers searches, and sets some restrictions and requirements. It does not in any way restrict or regulate other types of investigation, like coming to your door and asking questions.
If you can't differentiate between those two basic words, that are important to the subject, how can you hope to engage in any sort of useful analysis? Won't anything you say just be mumbly nonsense?
There is no search warrant involved here.
or sheep
You got confused by the word "declared" when the actual word is "valuated."
Once you realize that valuate is a technical verb, and not a made-up word, then you can start to understand what is meant by valuation, and assign value to the process.
It is actually very similar to home equity. It isn't actually worth anything unless sell the house. You can't hold equity in your hand; if you sell the house and find out how much equity you really had then it is also gone; you no longer have any, just the actual cash. But that doesn't mean home equity is not real; just that it isn't a liquid asset. It also doesn't guarantee that the equity listed on paper is what you'll get out of selling the house. Same as with a stock.
A judge can't decide there is no basis for investigating if a crime was committed. Judges aren't gate-keepers for the starting of investigations. They're gate-keepers for search warrants, and legal accusations. And they can quash a subpoena, sure. But they can't quash an investigation.
The stuff you're thinking about is at a later stage, in situations that have a formal accusation of some sort. You're way ahead of yourself here. That stuff doesn't even come up. if they investigated, and then charged him with a crime, that stuff would matter.
The actual act of you deciding what you think is reasonable is part of you doing your own investigation. Cops have to do that using a process. Deciding that the statement was hyperbole and doesn't require additional investigation? That is itself an investigation! That is the expected outcome of most threat investigations.
Bringing up President Obama doesn't help your case at all; the Secret Service investigates many thousands of "threats" and "potential threats" every year. The vast majority of them are found to be protected speech that doesn't contain a true threat. But investigation is why we know that. And there is no legal problem with them doing those investigations. That is well-settled; of course they can investigate.
I'm surprised that a person who is that consumed with fear was capable of actually being on an airplane.
She wasn't, she made herself so sick with worry they were already taking her off the flight by the time they questioned the Prof.
She did manage to get onto a later flight. I guess it takes a few tries sometimes.
I was kicked out of 8th grade math class for writing computer code (on lined paper), probably the teacher didn't understand the script and that I was actually doing math. You know, squiggly lines and the state of American education.
You're statistics-challenged, clearly, but murders do happen, and they are sometimes discussed casually first. There is a non-zero chance that they were going to murder somebody, and you simply have no fucking clue one way or the other.
The reason it doesn't matter what you heard is that it is hearsay, you heard them say, you didn't record it, they didn't write it down or broadcast it, they didn't say it to the potential victim, and they did not describe an imminent crime. Therefore, it is not a threat and could not be investigated as a threat. There would be no complaint of a threat. It could be investigated as a potential conspiracy to commit murder, but only if there was something purported to be evidence. A published statement that may or may not be threatening is a real statement, that was really published, and so it is evidence; of a crime, or that there wasn't a crime, depending on the result of an investigation. In your case, there is only hearsay; you heard somebody else say things. That isn't evidence, so there would not be any investigation to determine if a crime was committed.
But if you recorded the guys, then it might be evidence of a conspiracy to commit murder. It all depends on if, in addition to what you overheard, they were also taking material actions to further the cause of the guy ending up dead. And you don't have any idea one way or the other if that is the case. They might have been talking about a video game, or a TV show, or even engaging in hyperbole. But contrary to your magical thinking, you don't know which it is.
If an investigation was a "consequence" in that sense then nothing would be allowed to be investigated. No, he won't "have a record" that is stupid. He'll have a file, but everybody has various files. The police keep a record of every time they pull you over, even if there is no citation, arrest, or even investigation. It isn't a meaningful metric. And when people talk about your "record" they're talking about the record of convictions. And sometimes people do also broaden that and ask about your arrest record, but nobody asks, "have you ever been suspected of a crime?" It would be a stupid question for a variety of reasons, but lets stick to the fact that you're lying, you just made that shit up.
The point that TechDirt (and their lawyers) made was that there was no grounds for suspicion that Digger had made an illegal statement, since the Supreme Court has ruled that similar statements were protected speech and not illegal.
If you have an accusation, you can't decide that it is covered by the SCOTUS ruling and drop the issue... without investigating! Investigation is the name of the process that is used to reach a conclusion one way or the other. That's a simple existential fact. The lawyers for TechDirt aren't responsible for investigating it, so rather than be stuck using a formal process they can just glance at what they know and make a conclusion. The people actually responsible for receiving the complaints have a less casual process, for real reasons.
Also, warrants come from a Judge. Subpoenas usually come from a lawyer in their capacity as an officer of the Court. It is a real process. You don't have to like or agree with the process, but that is what it is. It doesn't make sense to misunderstand who did what while also complaining about the details and if the rules are being followed. This is a standard, appropriate step in an investigation. And see above, waving your hands and saying "there is no grounds for suspicion" does not resolve a complaint. That is exactly the question they're investigating. They're not required to have "grounds for suspicion" when they have an actual complaint; they would need grounds for suspicion to follow up with a search, or to arrest somebody, etc. In your world, the cops would just decide if there is suspicion, all on their own without rules, right? But cops suck, the quality of the work is very low, so we have a system with rules, and they don't just get to decide, they have to investigate and have reasons that can be articulated, and involve facts. "Gosh, sounds good to me" isn't a fact or an articulated analysis.
Also, the summary clips out the worst parts and gives a misleading sense of the comment. It is indisputably a "gray area" comment, and so cannot be waved away. It is simply not clear if it is a poorly worded statement, or a correctly worded threat.
There is no need to tell me what I need to say, no, we're not saying the same thing at all.
Right, it is normal to be investigated and still "get away with" it. A huge number of threats against politicians are "investigated" every year in the US. Almost no charges are ever filed. But if you say something in a gray area and the wrong person reports it, you could indeed be required to sit down for an interview where they ask you if you were serious, or not. That is what they're preparing to do here; sit him down, explain how serious it is to make such statements, and ask if he was serious. If he says, "gosh no, I was just venting my frustrations but I didn't mean to threaten anybody! :(" then no problem, he loses an hour of time and however much sleep. If he says, "Hey, fuck you, I know my rights, and I'm not answering that!" then they'll just have to get all sorts of search warrants and search his home, car, work place, past work place, friend's houses, etc until they can determine that they didn't find any evidence of a crime.
As far as packing your bags, if you're a foreign national visiting the US and you say something that pisses off the government.... yeah, bye-eeeee! lol The good news is, you won't go to jail for it. If you're a US citizen, the above listed stuff is the whole threat, there is no bag-packing involved. I mean, except for packing to move after losing your job and home and all that.
Getting out in front of the predictable gag order and bringing attention to this was ballsy and smart. Of course now DHS will probably start gag-ordering the pre- subpoena request... But thanks techdirt staff for shining the light.
It might not be technically possible to gag the request for the address to send the gag to, for procedural reasons. Expect this to become a thing. Also, expect somebody to try to game this with rotating addresses, because they only need to ask once (ever) if the address is still current.
or could you seriously not deduce exactly who 'Masnick' is simply from the point of view within TFS?
Right, it is a good policy to just assume that anybody quoted has a biased interest, and no opinion is ever expert, neutral, or third-party. Never give benefits for doubt; doubt is always a sign of bullshit. Except when it is horseshit.
... they always want the gold and silver but never the copper and lead. So picky.
I wish that I lived on your planet. On my planet, thieves don't know silver from chrome and couldn't care less, but they'll strip the wiring out of partially constructed buildings for the copper.
And sometimes they even steal car batteries for the $10 deposit return on the lead!
Well, I do know a guy who thinks all security are the KGB, even private security.
He also spent 2 years thinking he was a Klingon, and worrying that the coffee shop baristas were in a conspiracy to downgrade the planetary defenses and leave us open to attack.
The past couple years have been better. He's an elf now, and has a more peaceful existence. The orcs will arrive eventually, though, sad but true.
Seriously, dude, consider how many things have the word "security" in them. Notice the resemblances?!?
I don't know, did the shooter have any milk in his pocket when he did it? These food rules are complicated.