www.techdirt.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
2606:4700:20::ac43:4362
Public Scan
URL:
https://www.techdirt.com/2019/01/04/fifth-circuit-says-apple-cant-be-held-liable-car-crash-caused-someone-reading-text-me...
Submission: On May 10 via manual from US — Scanned from US
Submission: On May 10 via manual from US — Scanned from US
Form analysis 4 forms found in the DOM
GET https://www.techdirt.com/search/
<form method="get" id="searchform" action="https://www.techdirt.com/search/">
<input class="searchq" type="search" size="16" name="q" placeholder="Search Techdirt">
<button type="submit" class="search-submit icon" value="Search">
<svg class="search-icon">
<use href="https://www.techdirt.com/wp-content/themes/techdirt/assets/images/magnifying-glass.svg#search"></use>
</svg>
</button>
</form>POST https://www.techdirt.com/wp-comments-post.php
<form action="https://www.techdirt.com/wp-comments-post.php" method="post" id="commentform" class="section-inner thin max-percentage" novalidate="">
<p class="comment-notes"><span id="email-notes">Your email address will not be published.</span> <span class="required-field-message">Required fields are marked <span class="required">*</span></span></p>
<p>Have a Techdirt Account? <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/my-account/?redirect_to=https://www.techdirt.com/2019/01/04/fifth-circuit-says-apple-cant-be-held-liable-car-crash-caused-someone-reading-text-messages/#respond">Sign in now</a>. Want
one? <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/register/">Register here</a></p>
<p class="comment-form-author"><label for="author">Name</label> <input id="author" name="author" type="text" value="" size="30" maxlength="245"></p>
<p class="comment-form-email"><label for="email">Email</label> <input id="email" name="email" type="email" value="" size="30" maxlength="100" aria-describedby="email-notes"></p>
<p class="comment-form-newsletter"><input type="checkbox" name="comment_newsletter" id="comment_newsletter"><label for="comment_newsletter">Subscribe to the
<a href="https://listserv.techdirt.com/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/list/techdirt/">Techdirt Daily</a> newsletter</label></p>
<p class="comment-form-url"><label for="url">URL</label> <input id="url" name="url" type="url" value="" size="30" maxlength="200"></p>
<p class="comment-form-subject"><label for="td-subject">Subject</label> <input id="td-subject" name="td_subject" type="text" value="" placeholder="Subject"></p>
<p class="comment-form-comment"><label for="comment">Comment <span class="required">*</span></label> <textarea id="comment" name="comment" cols="45" rows="8" maxlength="65525" required=""></textarea></p>
<h3>Comment Options:</h3>
<div class="comment-form-markdown"><input checked="checked" type="radio" id="format-markdown-radio" name="td_comment_format" value="markdown"><label for="format-markdown-radio">Use <a href="https://commonmark.org/help/">markdown</a>.</label> <input
type="radio" id="format-text-radio" name="td_comment_format" value="text"><label for="format-text-radio">Use plain text.</label></div>
<div class="comment-form-rating">Make this the <span class="radio-first-last-word-wrap"><input disabled="" type="radio" id="first-word-radio" name="td_promote_rating" value="first-word"><label for="first-word-radio">First Word</label> or <input
disabled="" type="radio" id="last-word-radio" name="td_promote_rating" value="last-word"><label for="last-word-radio">Last Word.</label></span><span class="radio-no-rating-wrap"><input checked="checked" type="radio" id="no-rating-radio"
name="td_promote_rating" value="none"><label for="no-rating-radio">No thanks.</label></span> <small>(<a href="https://rtb.techdirt.com/products/credits/">get credits</a> or
<a href="https://www.techdirt.com/wp-login.php?redirect_to=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.techdirt.com%2F2019%2F01%2F04%2Ffifth-circuit-says-apple-cant-be-held-liable-car-crash-caused-someone-reading-text-messages%2F">sign in</a> to see balance)</small>
<a class="whats-this-toggle" href="#"><span class="screen-reader-text">what's this?</span></a>
<section class="comment-promoted-info">
<h4>What's this?</h4>
<p>Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the
<a href="https://rtb.techdirt.com/products/credits/" target="_blank">Techdirt Insider Shop »</a></p>
</section>
</div>
<p class="form-submit"><input name="submit" type="submit" id="submit" class="submit" value="Post Comment"><input name="preview" type="button" id="preview" class="submit" value="Preview"> <input type="hidden" name="comment_post_ID" value="94433"
id="comment_post_ID">
<input type="hidden" name="comment_parent" id="comment_parent" value="0">
</p>
<p style="display: none;"><input type="hidden" id="akismet_comment_nonce" name="akismet_comment_nonce" value="1014563f98"></p>
<p style="display: none !important;"><label>Δ<textarea name="ak_hp_textarea" cols="45" rows="8" maxlength="100"></textarea></label><input type="hidden" id="ak_js_1" name="ak_js" value="1683724904726">
<script>
document.getElementById("ak_js_1").setAttribute("value", (new Date()).getTime());
</script>
</p>
</form>POST https://news.techdirt.com/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi
<form action="https://news.techdirt.com/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi" method="post">
<input name="f" value="subscribe" type="hidden">
<input name="list" value="tddaily" type="hidden">
<input name="email" id="sub_email" size="25" maxlength="1024" placeholder="Enter Your Email Address" type="email">
<input id="td_subscribe" name="td_subscribe" value="Subscribe" type="submit">
</form>POST
<form method="post">
<input type="submit" value="Got it" class="accept">
</form>Text Content
* Sign In * Register * Preferences Techdirt * TechDirt * GreenHouse * Free Speech * Deals * Jobs * Support Techdirt Daily Deal: TREBLAB Z2 Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones FCC Shuttered, Ajit Pai Forced To Cancel CES Trip Because The US Government Is a Hot Mess FIFTH CIRCUIT SAYS APPLE CAN'T BE HELD LIABLE FOR A CAR CRASH CAUSED BY SOMEONE READING TEXT MESSAGES Legal Issues FROM THE TEXTING-WHILE-LITIGATING DEPT Fri, Jan 4th 2019 11:55am - Tim Cushing Seeking to hold tech companies responsible for the actions of their customers and users is a national federal court tradition. Law firms like *checks notes* 1-800-LAW-FIRM and Excolo Law have made a cottage industry of this, scoring dismissal after dismissal of their lawsuits seeking to hold Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube responsible for the violent actions of terrorists around the world. Seeking justice — or at least compensation — for wrongs committed against you and the ones you love is a natural instinct. Issues only develop when you take the fight to a third party only tenuously connected to the wrong that was committed. A lawsuit against Apple has been dismissed for the second time. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is no more impressed with the arguments that failed to make an impact at the lower level. In this case, the appellants sued Apple for a car crash caused by a driver reading text messages on her iPhone 5. Maybe the driver turned out to be judgment proof — especially after being convicted on two counts of criminally negligent homicide. The appellants — who lost two family members in the auto accident — feel Apple is liable because it did not implement a lock-out process it had patented in 2008. The appellants claim Apple recognized the texting-while-driving problem but failed to do anything about it. The Appeals Court says [PDF] a Pavlovian response to incoming texts cannot be Apple’s fault, not even at the state level. > This case asks us to decide whether, under Texas law, a driver’s > neurobiological response to a smartphone notification can be a cause in fact > of a car crash. Because answering in the affirmative would entail an > impermissible innovation or extension of state law, we answer in the negative. The court goes on to point out that the cases cited by the appellants dealing with vicarious liability all have one thing in common: reasonable expectations. > The Texas cases on which Appellants rely make clear that acceptance of their > causation theory would work a substantial innovation in Texas law. These cases > present garden-variety theories of causation that ordinary minds would readily > accept, so they have little to say about the present case. One is Dover Corp. > v. Perez, which concerned a heater pumping carbon monoxide into an apartment > due to its negligent manufacture and installation… No useful analogy exists > between a smartphone’s effect on users and a heater generating carbon > monoxide. Others are Dew v. Crown Derrick Erectors, Inc., 208 S.W.3d 448, > 449–50 (Tex. 2006), about a worker who fell through an opening in an oil > derrick platform left unprotected, and Rio Grande Regional Hospital, Inc. v. > Villareal, 329 S.W.3d 594, 603–04 (Tex. App.––Corpus Christi 2010), about a > nurse who left a psychiatric patient unattended with razor blades. No > worthwhile analogies suggest themselves here either. Appellants also cite a > case about Ford’s decision not to install a seatbelt for the middle seat in > the Ford Bronco’s rear row. Ford Motor Co. v. Cammack, 999 S.W.2d 1, 8–9 (Tex. > App.––Houston [14th Dist.] 1998). An analogy may perhaps be drawn between a > distracting phone and a car seat without a seatbelt, but it does not get us > very far. A user of the former can make it safe for driving by silencing or > switching it off; no such simple fix exists for the latter. The court’s condensed take appears at the bottom of the footnote appended to this paragraph. > None of the causes alleged in these cases strains the sensibilities of a > reasonable person, nor does any resemble the cause advanced by Appellants > here. The court also notes that Texas laws governing distracted driving place the onus on the driver — not the cellphone provider nor the vehicle manufacturer, no matter what safety features may have been bypassed or never implemented. Under state or federal precedent, the outcome is the same: the cause of the crash was the driver, not the cellphone manufacturer. > No Texas case has addressed whether a smartphone manufacturer should be liable > for a user’s torts because the neurobiological response induced by the phone > is a substantial factor in her tortious acts. To our knowledge, informed by > submissions to us, no court in the country has yet held that, and numerous > courts have declined to do so. As such, no authority indicates to us that > Texas courts, contemplating reasonable persons and ordinary minds, would > recognize a person’s induced responses to her phone as a substantial factor in > her tortious acts and therefore hold the phone’s manufacturer responsible. As frustrating as it can be for those who’ve experienced a tragedy, the person who has wronged you is responsible for their actions — not their cellphone provider or their social media platform of choice. Apple Suit (PDF) Apple Suit (Text) Filed Under: 5th circuit, ashley kubiak, iphone, liability, texas, texting Companies: apple 44 CommentsLeave a Comment If you liked this post, you may also be interested in... * Fifth Circuit Tells Bad Cop That Being Placed On The 'Do Not Call' List For Witnesses Does Not Violate His Rights * The STOP CSAM Act Is An Anti-Encryption Stalking Horse * Texas School Serves Up Magnificent Redaction Failure To Vice Journalist * Texas Senate Approves Law Preventing University Instructors From Talking About Things These Senators Don't Like * Fifth Circuit Finally Finds A Cop Unworthy Of Immunity, Strips Protection From Officer Who Shot Man Five Times During Routine Traffic Stop * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Click to toggle Rate this comment as insightful Rate this comment as funny You have rated this comment as insightful You have rated this comment as funny Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam You have flagged this comment The first word has already been claimed The last word has already been claimed Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon COMMENTS ON “FIFTH CIRCUIT SAYS APPLE CAN'T BE HELD LIABLE FOR A CAR CRASH CAUSED BY SOMEONE READING TEXT MESSAGES” Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment * Filter comments in by Time * Filter comments as Threaded * Filter only comments rated Insightful * Filter only comments rated funny LOL * Filter only comments that are Unread 44 Comments Collapse all replies This comment is new since your last visit. Brad Jones says: January 4, 2019 at 12:38 pm This is an interesting case. I don’t understand why the Plaintiffs needed to plead that there’s a “neurobiological response” with respect to text messages. It’d be a simpler theory to just say that, in a given population, Apple knows that some users will be driving and looking at text messages and Apple can manufacture their product to prevent that foreseeable harm. Essentially a traditional negligence theory with maybe a design defect theory. I would guess there’s some barrier in Texas tort law that makes those claims not work, but I wish that were a bit more clear. Collapse replies (24) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [2] Anonymous Coward says: January 4, 2019 at 12:51 pm RE: RE: “Apple can manufacture their product to prevent that foreseeable harm. Essentially a traditional negligence theory with maybe a design defect theory” I don’t think so Tim. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [2] Killercool (profile) says: January 4, 2019 at 12:51 pm RE: RE: But… How is Apple supposed to manufacture a product that can differentiate between a distracted driver and a bored passenger? Make you super double pinkie swear that you’re not driving? Have the camera on constantly to monitor you? Forbid all phone interaction in a moving car? Better yet, why is it Apple’s problem that someone is using their device in an unsafe, and (in Texas, at least) illegal manner? Collapse replies (12) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [3] norahc (profile) says: January 4, 2019 at 1:04 pm RE: RE: RE: “Better yet, why is it Apple’s problem that someone is using their device in an unsafe, and (in Texas, at least) illegal manner?” Because Apple has the deep pockets. Collapse replies (2) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [4] Killercool (profile) says: January 4, 2019 at 1:19 pm RE: RE: RE: RE: Well, yeah… I keep waiting for a different answer, though. Preferably, one that stands up to the slightest scrutiny, too. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [5] Bergman (profile) says: January 5, 2019 at 6:05 pm RE: RE: RE:2 RE: If there was one, cases like this would not have been tossed by the court. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [3] kog999 says: January 4, 2019 at 1:40 pm RE: RE: RE: suppose for a second that apple can somehow magically tell if you are driving or not and shut off the phone if you are. Why would anyone who decides to txt and drive buy an apple phone. Collapse replies (4) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [4] Anonymous Coward says: January 4, 2019 at 2:46 pm RE: RE: RE: RE: Apple can already tell if you’re in a moving vehicle, and by default prompts to find out if you’re the driver, and if you say you are, turns off most functions. Anyone disabling this while driving is willfully evading DRM, and so can be sued under the DMCA by the government. Didn’t see that one coming, did you? Collapse replies (3) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [5] Anonymous Coward says: January 4, 2019 at 3:09 pm RE: RE: RE:2 RE: I fail to see how this feature you have described removes the possibility of some one texting while driving. Collapse replies (2) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [6] Anonymous Coward says: January 4, 2019 at 3:30 pm RE: RE: RE:3 RE: It prevents them getting text notifications while driving. Which means they have no urge to respond with their own text. It does nothing to prevent someone from picking up their phone and sending off a text carte blanche. For that, you have common sense. The only possible argument I can see that Apple is at all culpable is that it is attempting to get the driver’s attention while they’re driving. Apple has already implemented a fix for that part. In 2008, they had patented it but not yet implemented it, as outlined in the suit. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [7] Anonymous Coward says: January 4, 2019 at 4:13 pm RE: RE: RE:4 RE: “It does nothing to prevent someone from picking up their phone and sending off a text carte blanche” Exactly, and in addition it does not check to make sure you are not the driver. It also does not stop you from running with scissors while texting. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [3] Vidiot (profile) says: January 4, 2019 at 2:15 pm RE: RE: RE: Come on, now – you know why: like the mythical unbreakable encryption backdoor, anything is possible if they’ll just nerd harder. Get crackin’, high-paid coders. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [3] That Anonymous Coward (profile) says: January 4, 2019 at 10:54 pm RE: RE: RE: They applied for & were granted a patent on a system to protect stupid people from themselves, they never moved it much further than the application. Because it exists on paper, it must be completely possible & opens the door for us to collect 42 bajillion dollars from Apple. Waiting for the followup suits against the car makers & the company that poured the concrete for the road. Collapse replies (2) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [4] Anonymous Coward says: January 7, 2019 at 6:24 am RE: RE: RE: RE: > Because it exists on paper, it must be completely possible That’s the point of a patent, right? Not to throw ideas out so that you can own them after someone else does the hard work, but to tell other people how to do something useful. As dumb as this lawsuit is, I see no problem with making an assumption that a patent holder can do the thing they’ve patented. Otherwise, it would be a fraudulent patent. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [5] Anonymous Coward says: January 7, 2019 at 7:50 am RE: RE: RE:2 RE: “That’s the point of a patent, right? Not to throw ideas out so that you can own them after someone else does the hard work, but to tell other people how to do something useful.” In theory, yes. In practice, no. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [2] Anonymous Coward says: January 4, 2019 at 1:19 pm RE: RE: Apple knows that some users will be driving and looking at text messages and Apple can manufacture their product to prevent that foreseeable harm. But why would this be Apple’s responsibility, as opposed to Verizon’s? After all, it is Verizon (or AT&T et al.) that caused those text messages to be delivered. In point of fact, Verizon’s product is inextricably connected to the delivery of text messages and other data which could be distracting to a driver, whereas Apple’s products have multiple and varied uses independent of potential distractions to driving. In other words, substantially every use of Verizon cell services potentially impacts the attention of drivers, whereas substantial uses of Iphones do not include a reasonable potential to distract drivers. If we are going to assign negligence to third parties, we should assign the negligence to the correct third party. Collapse replies (2) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [3] kog999 says: January 4, 2019 at 1:44 pm RE: RE: RE: I charged my phone with power supplied by my local power company. without it the phone would not function and would not have received the txt message. perhaps i should sue the power company. oh an i paid my phone bill though my checking account at the local bank. my bank should have foreseen i was going to drive unsafely and prevented this by not paying verizon so that my service would be shut off and i wouldn’t have gotten that txt. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [4] Anonymous Coward says: January 7, 2019 at 8:26 am RE: RE: RE: RE: People crash their cars for any number of reasons from being distracted. maybe changing settings on a touch screen like in a Tesla. Playing with the Radio. Ir telling the kids in the back seat to stop fighting each other. Maybe it’s as simple as looking down to change the radio. Sure Apple could do something to stop a person from using their phone, but then Apple would be SUED over that. I’m a passenger, why can’t I use my phone in the car? So now Apple has a Class Action against them. If there’s a way to bypass that, then a driver is going to bypass it. You make the phone harder to use in this way, and people are going to get pissed off and not buy the phone. Instead, you should be smart enough and have more self control with your phone and just ignore it. Pull over if you have to and take a look if need be. Have a hands free setup. In general, you shouldn’t be looking at the screen anyway. It should tell you who’s calling, and you answer if you want. GPS navigation, you should be going by the voice directions it’s giving you, NOT looking at the screen. You should never be looking at your phone screen. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [2] z! (profile) says: January 4, 2019 at 1:33 pm RE: RE: “Apple knows that some users will be driving and looking at text messages and Apple can manufacture their product to prevent that foreseeable harm” They already do- all iThings have an on/off switch and many have a “silent” mode. Or do you imply the devices should -automatically- silence themselves (as the lawsuit suggests)? That’s a whole different kettle of worms. That would also suggest that even built-in devices, such as Tesla’s control panel, shouldn’t be accessible to the driver while they’re operating the car. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [3] Anonymous Coward says: January 4, 2019 at 2:49 pm RE: RE: RE: iDevices already DO automatically silence themselves when the device is moving without a walking cadence. You have to intentionally disable this to make it different. Frustrating when you’re a passenger in a car, and if you disable it while passengering, it stays disabled the next time you drive, but that’s not on Apple. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [2] Coyne Tibbets (profile) says: January 5, 2019 at 1:21 am RE: RE: They were hoping to snow the court with “neurological response.” They were pretty sure that if they called it “a bad habit,” it would be thrown out. The theory being that, if you make something sound important with big words, no one will notice what BS it is. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [3] Toom1275 (profile) says: January 5, 2019 at 6:41 am RE: RE: RE: Sounds like they were trying to establish in the minds of the jury a fictional world in which self-control doesn’t exist, therefore the only way for someone to not check their texts while driving is for them to be blocked. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [2] madasahatter (profile) says: January 5, 2019 at 7:36 am RE: RE: Misuse of something by the owner is generally not the manufacturer’s fault. In this case someone was misusing their phone while driving. In all US states the driver is supposed to be paying attention to driving while the vehicle is on the road; not playing guitar, reading a text, playing with the dog, etc. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [2] Anonymous Coward says: January 5, 2019 at 11:42 am RE: RE: Or, maybe they could pay attention to the thing that’s more likely to get them killed in the next 5 seconds instead of the latest BS from social media. This is a case of the irresponsible and lazy demanding that others be responsible for them. It’s also a case of not putting blame where it belongs because it’s more expedient to blame others. I could just as easily claim that people listening to their dashboard mounted infotainment centers and radios were just as dangerous as the idiot glued to their phone while driving. Should we sue the car manufacturers for putting those in the cars? Should we ban those for everyone as well? Personally I’d like to see a more personal consequence placed on those found guilty of texting while driving: X number of years banned from all cell services on all carriers nationwide. They could careless about the driving so taking their license away won’t help here. If we make them go through social media withdraw however, watch how quick they’d learn to be responsible while driving. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [3] Anonymous Coward says: January 7, 2019 at 7:56 am RE: RE: RE: “Personally I’d like to see a more personal consequence placed on those found guilty of texting while driving” Like what? – 30 days in the hole – 50 lashes – X number of years banned from all cell services on all carriers nationwide iirc, in the US, there are provisions in place to limit the implementation of cruel and unusual punishment. The law sometimes is not applied and therefore the regulations are sidestepped. In addition, there are laws in place that address reckless driving, distracted driving, impaired driving … and you want more? Let’s use the existing laws first. Asking these bozos to write new laws is sort of like shooting yourself in the foot. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Anonymous Coward says: January 4, 2019 at 1:09 pm Pretty sure there is an equal neurobiological response to phone/messaging alerts that falls along the lines of a groan, eyeroll, or “fuck that, not right now”. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [2] Anonymous Coward says: January 6, 2019 at 8:00 am RE: RE: Groan .. another telemarketing ass Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. lars626 (profile) says: January 4, 2019 at 1:27 pm SUE WHO It would be more plausible to sue the car manufacturer. They made the deadly weapon she was driving, not Apple. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Gary (profile) says: January 4, 2019 at 1:34 pm GOOD NEWS! Because Apple caused the death of natural persons, under common law it has not rights therefore it shouldn’t be selling phones in the first place? Why does TF keep shilling for these corporations that don’t even actually exist?? I’m sure the obvious solution is to break up apple. /s Collapse replies (7) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [2] Stephen T. Stone (profile) says: January 4, 2019 at 2:09 pm RE: You forgot to mention zombies, “globalists”, and Google. 6/10, best I can give you. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [3] Anonymous Coward says: January 4, 2019 at 2:50 pm RE: RE: RE: No mention of Masnick either. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [2] I C Thruitt says: January 4, 2019 at 2:17 pm RE: GOOD NEWS! -- NO, IT'S "GARY'S" FAKE NEWS, ONLY KIND HE HAS. Hey, there "Gary". You look like more Timothy Geigner, aka "Dark Helmet" with every comment, especially in the apparently drunken rambling, can’t even get "TD" right! You’re now pretending to be an expert on Common Law apparently to subvert use of it, but you have it wrong, of course. Common Law actually prohibits this over-reach. Since you zoomed from 12 comments in two years to your current rate to over 360 per year now, without explanation, you’re providing enough to point up similarities to Timmy: you’re both in "IT", bombastic, aggressively and repeatedly challenge, and so on. — Mainly, you’re similarly not making the site look good, so keep it up! Collapse replies (4) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [3] Stephen T. Stone (profile) says: January 4, 2019 at 2:38 pm RE: RE: > You’re now pretending to be an expert on Common Law Pot, kettle, black. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [3] Anonymous Coward says: January 4, 2019 at 5:06 pm RE: RE: RE: Common Law actually prohibits this over-reach. So you should have no problem citing the bit of common law that says this, right? Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [3] Anonymous Coward says: January 4, 2019 at 8:35 pm RE: RE: YOU GOT PUNKED BRO. DEAL WITH IT. You the fuck sure aren’t an expert an anything but lying. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [3] Gary (profile) says: January 7, 2019 at 8:53 pm RE: RE: GOOD NEWS! -- NO, IT'S FAKE TROLL!! Actually I am an expert in Common Law! Thanks for asking. As proof, let me show you what it actually means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law Law defined by judges and precedent. Your version – made up nonsense. Thanks!! Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Anonymous Coward says: January 5, 2019 at 4:39 am From the Apple suit file: > […]was driving her pick-up truck on April 30, 2013 when she received a text > message on her iPhone 5. Appellants allege that Kubiak looked down to read the > text, after which she turned her attention back to the road. At that point it > was too late to avoid colliding with a vehicle carrying two adults and a > child. The adults died, while the child survived but was rendered paraplegic. Own your mistakes! Especially those where you royally screw up and end up killing innocent people! Accept the blame when you deserve it. Collapse replies (2) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [2] Anonymous Coward says: January 7, 2019 at 7:58 am RE: RE: Sounds like reckless driving Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [2] Anonymous Coward says: January 7, 2019 at 8:30 am RE: RE: Looks like Natural Selection in action. It’s been slowed down so much, that there’s a growing number of dumb people. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Anonymous Coward says: January 5, 2019 at 4:53 am “Seeking to hold tech companies responsible for the actions of their customers and users is a national federal court tradition.” Seeking to hold any company responsible for the actions of its customers is a national tradition. We’re a society of blamers, everyone but the real culprit, ourselves. Got fat eating fast food? Blame McDonald’s. Got lung cancer from smoking? Blame tobacco companies. Got kidney failure and rotten teeth from drinking soft drinks? Blame the drink makers. Running over innocent pedestrians while drunk? Blame booze makers. Someone shoots up a nightclub? Blame the gun manufacturer. Almost a guarantee responses are going to explain away why all those companies are guilty as sin. You’re just making my point for me. Guess what? You’re part of the problem! Teaching our kids it’s always someone else’s fault does neither them nor our society any damned good! Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [2] Anonymous Coward says: January 5, 2019 at 6:27 am RE: RE: Yes and no, as usual. fast food, tobacco, soft drinks, alcohol were not forth coming with information about the use of their products, which they were aware of for some time – this is apparently not illegal but it does rub some people the wrong way. Lies told to potential customers is potentially illegal but as we have seen in the past charges will probably not be files, ever wonder why? Guess what? You are part of the problem. I did not teach my children that “it’s always someone else’s fault”, politicians did that. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Anonymous Coward says: January 6, 2019 at 3:37 am Also even if your phone is dash mounted, you should not have a password to unlock your phone. That password should be removed. This is in case the phone goes to sleep. Entering the access can be dangerous, even if the phone is mounted, as I narrowly avoided an accident once. In Android, the phone in Developer mode, and then set it where the phone will not to sleep, as long it is plugged into a charger. iPhones do not have that feature, so if you drive a lot, trash iPhone for an Android, so you can set it to where it never goes to sleep. You can also use an app called No Screen Off, that will prevent the phone from ever going to sleep. Android rules, iphones suck Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Threaded [2] Anonymous Coward says: January 7, 2019 at 8:35 am RE: RE: What a load of crap! Leave your password ON! Password should NOT be removed. If your iPhone is in a mount, great. Phone will not shutoff with certain apps like GPS navigation. So if you have Apple Maps, or WAZE, or Google Maps, it doesn’t turn off. If you’re playing music and it’s on the music screen it will, but the music is still playing and can still be remotely controlled. With touchID or FaceID, it’s simple and quick to unlock and open the phone in a couple seconds at most. Generally, you shouldn’t even be looking at the screen in the first place while driving so off is a good thing. As for Android, that Spy infested junk is just that. Complete crap!!! Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment is new since your last visit. Tin-Foil-Hat says: January 6, 2019 at 10:26 pm LOCK OUT The most common motor vehicles have 1 to five extra seats in them to accommodate passengers. I was in a car last night with lots of features that do not work while the vehicle is moving. I guess it’s a safety feature but it actually isn’t when you block passengers. I had to use google on my phone as the navigation system since the car wouldn’t allow it. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Close -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- says: ADD YOUR COMMENT CANCEL REPLY Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here Name Email Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter URL Subject Comment * COMMENT OPTIONS: Use markdown. Use plain text. Make this the First Word or Last Word.No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this? WHAT'S THIS? Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop » Δ Daily Deal: TREBLAB Z2 Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones FCC Shuttered, Ajit Pai Forced To Cancel CES Trip Because The US Government Is a Hot Mess Follow Techdirt TECHDIRT DAILY NEWSLETTER Essential Reading THE TECHDIRT GREENHOUSE Read the latest posts: * Winding Down Our Latest Greenhouse Panel: The Lessons Learned From SOPA/PIPA * From The Revolt Against SOPA To The EU's Upload Filters * Did We Miss Our Best Chance At Regulating The Internet? Read All » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRENDING POSTS * Wikipedia Tells UK Government It Won't Comply With Proposed Age Verification Mandates * Ed Sheeran, Once Again, Demonstrates How Modern Copyright Is Destroying, Rather Than Helping Musicians * Starlink Ditches Caps, But Congestion, Price Hikes, And Slower Speeds Remain A Problem Techdirt Deals Buy Now $99.00 Nix Mini Color Sensor V2 Techdirt Insider Discord The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel... * Tomac: Eh, they're cleaning up the old galleries and posts from before explicit content was banned. Not unexpected, kind of surprised it's taken this long. * The real question is around the "art exception" in their policy - which they admit will likely get deleted as well since the system is automated. * Candescence: I don't think that's the case? Explicit content was only banned in public community imgur posts, it was perfectly acceptable for private hosting, the new TOS explicitly involves banning/deleting explicit content outright even if it's only hosted privately * Also deleting all images uploaded by non-registered users is gonna create a huge graveyard of deadlinks * deadspatula: Fox has multiple trials over the same facts. A court could not have compelled an apology. Fox was never going to conceed to apologize. It would much rather have fought in the appealate court to limit damages. Anyone ever expecting an admission of guilt while fox was in seperate litigation was going to be dissapointed. * Because Pai's alliegence was to the lobbists who rewarded his brown nosing with his current position. Thats why he took the job in the first place. * Samuel Abram: very fair * I blocked my first person on Discord and it was someone on the Mastodon discord calling @Mike Masnick a “shill for Google” and a “free speech extremist”. * Basically, he sounded exactly like one of the trolls Techdirt often gets. * He also blames Section 230 for the election of TFG in 2016. What? It’s a total non-sequitur. * I rarely block people on discord, but that one took the whole cake and claimed it was a lie (metaphorically speaking). * Look, if this person made fair criticisms of Mike, I wouldn't have blocked him. But when I tried to offer counterevidence, he was like "You can't convince me!" like a denier. Better to block him. * deadspatula: Im at this point confused as to what Musk thinks Microsoft Ads was doing? Like he talks like it was another tweetdeck or something, providing the twitter feed without the ads? But from microsoft's description of the platform being affected, this prevents Microsoft ad customers from buying ad space on twitter? * Mike Masnick: No, it is basically a tool for managing corporate tweets AND ads. So it is tweetdeck like. * Lol. That's funny. There are always some folks like that. There was a congressional staffer who sent a good friend of mine a long rambling complaint about how i was a big tech shill when my friend suggested he read an article by me. But the bizarre thing was, the article in question was one where I was explaining how problematic a policy proposal was because it would strengthen big tech * pyrex: oof!! * that's a confusing take to me! i feel like the blog is pretty monofocused on legal thuggery, which tends to make it pretty opposed to big tech, even if like superficially it sides with one tech company over another tech company sometimes * John Roddy: I'm still waiting for my check. * Every time I suggested that Copyright maximalist policies were less than ideal, I was accused of being a Google shill. * mildconcern: I have literally worked for George Soros and not once did I get read into his secret plot to take over the US government for the UN world cabal in return for millions for my silence. I felt a lot of FOMO. * Samuel Abram: @Timothy Geigner Regarding this article in the Crystal Ball: [link] https://www.techdirt.com/2030/01/01/red-cross-continues-to-want-to-pretend-that-video-game-wars-are-irl-wars/ I actually think the Red Cross is onto something: Maybe there should be a game (or mod or whatever) where people adhere to IRL rules of engagement instead of having a typical FPS free-for-all! * I think the Red Cross just became game designers! * Candescence: Oh welp Elon straight up deleted all "state-affiliated" and "government-funded" labels, probably throwing a tantrum: https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/1... https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/1171236695/twitter-strips-state-affiliated-government-funded-labels-from-npr-rt-china * John Roddy: 10 years ago: "We see you just purchased a new washing machine. Would you like to consider purchasing one of these other washing machines?" * Today: "We see you purchased this video card. Would you like to consider purchasing these other $1k+ video cards?" * pyrex: as a walking bitcoin, this makes sense to me! * mildconcern: https://twitter.com/CooperCodes/... https://twitter.com/CooperCodes/status/1649559104627834880 * Tomac: It'd be neat if we all just stopped giving traffic to the bird site. * Let it become the new AM radio. * Samuel Abram: Everybody: I want to announce that I read Chapter II: Subchapter VII of the Penguin edition of the Upton Sinclair tome _OIL!_ at my local Barnes & Noble without paying for it. I'm awaiting a lawsuit from Penguin any second now… * Candescence: Uh, Tucker Carlson is gone from Fox News?? * https://twitter.com/axios/status... https://twitter.com/axios/status/1650524593923260416 * BentFranklin: It's too bad that FO comes so long after FA but it'll have to do. * Candescence: https://twitter.com/srl/status/1... https://twitter.com/srl/status/1650527565671542784 * Something happened _all of a sudden_ that caused Fox to yeet him * The lawsuits might've been a factor at least but nobody knows what the hell is going on * Definitely not an amicable parting tho * Tomac: He's such a big fan of them, maybe he tried to stage a coup at fox * mildconcern: Maybe he was due to make exactly $780 million in the next 10 years and they did the math * Bode: i suspect they've discovered some nasty messages or tapes tethered to that sexual harassment lawsuit that will be revealed in time. can't imagine what he said or did to cause king propagandist murdoch to implement actual accountability * Candescence: The MS Activision merger is dead at least for now, the UK CMA has announced they're blocking the merger. * But not for the reasons you'd think - apparently the sticking point is *cloud gaming* of all things. * Which is baffling considering how small and irrelevant cloud gaming is atm * mildconcern: The MS response is also downright angry. Threatening, even. * I wonder if they'd just pull up stakes and leave the UK gaming market if it stands. Another Brexit Benefit! * Candescence: I'd be genuinely surprised if they actually were desperate enough to do that * Tomac: I read that response as a threat as well. Interesting path to take when you're trying to persuade them. * mildconcern: Right. Means they think they have leverage I suspect. I wonder what their UK numbers are like. the UK is a lot more bully able lately, but I'd not have thought it had gone that far. * Samuel Abram: If that were the case, it makes me think of the principle as to why Google pulled out of markets due to things like link taxes. The main differences are that Google was pulling out due to impossibility of doing business, and Microsoft would (theoretically) pull out for prevention of getting bigger, so technically, different principles. * Candescence: I'm noticing conversations about Bluesky are being tainted by the fact that Jack Dorsey is the face of it as people think it'll just be another libertarian techbro pipedream because of that * BentFranklin: One bright side to this Wizards of the Coast / Hazbro debacles is millions of young adults are getting a history lesson about the brutality of the capitalists resisting unionization and waking to the reality that it's not over. * Mike Masnick: yeah, it's a bit frustrating, especially since jack has basically written off bluesky, has made it clear he disagrees with the direction they're going in, and the bluesky team has publicly described how they're moving in a different direction than jack wanted. People freaking out about it because of Jack don't realize that it's not a jack project * The bluesky team is incredibly thoughtful in how they're going about things. they'll make mistakes, but it's not going to be a "libertarian techbro pipedream" * Candescence: Oh, interesting, I didn't know that - what's got Jack's feathers ruffled in this instance? * Or is it just a case of vague disagreement with no publicly known reasons * Mike Masnick: No, he's been pretty clear that he (1) doesn't think bluesky should be so much like Twitter and that it should be more different and (2) he disagreed with the idea that they should build out content moderation tools before launching * mildconcern: So he was in the "let a thousand Nazis bloom" school? * I suppose that's not surprising * pyrex: i realize this isn't a thing everyone cares about, but has bluesky hinted at a pivot towards cryptocurrency features? * Candescence: I'm pretty sure they've ruled out any kind of crypto integration * pyrex: i wouldn't be that offended by their existence, but i would be if the platform decided to move into that only after getting a captive userbase and i guess i'm looking for foreshadowing * mildconcern: that could also be part of what turned Dorsey off * if I remember right he is/was into crypto * pyrex: i definitely wanna clarify, i wouldn't use the service if it had crypto features, but like, i probably won't use it anyways and it's ok for things to exist that aren't for me * suddenly springing it on people and hoping platform lock-in keeps people there would be pretty unethical though, IMHO * Mike Masnick: bluesky has no crypto. jay has been clear from the very start (from before she was hired, actually) that even though she's worked in crypto, it makes no sense to build a social network on crypto. * but because she worked in crypto, and because of jack's "involvement" many people assume that it's a crypto project * pyrex: thanks, that's what i was hoping to hear! * Mike Masnick: before she was hired, i was actually in a meeting with her and some other folks, including a group that is trying to build a crypto-based social network, and she was quizzing them on why, and asking what benefits they thought it brought, and just kept pushing them when they tried to handwave around things. so she's not anti-cryptocurrency by any stretch, but she's one of the most practical and thoughtful people i know on this stuff. she's very focused on building a good service, not based on ideology, but on what's actually good * pyrex: that's pretty reassuring! i briefly used uh, i think steemit? like, in at least one case i saw jack dorsey float the idea of using crypto-based cash tipping instead of likes. i understand why this is appealing to people and at the same time i don't like the kind of content this incentivizes people to make * Mike Masnick: jack was floating that idea on nostr, which is also interesting (to me) but i doubt will go mainstream * pyrex: it's in "i probably won't use it, it should definitely be allowed to exist, maybe i will like it in four years" territory to me * i don't really understand nostr's fixation on censorship, which is very frequently a dogwhistle * i kinda like their protocol design, it looks to me like it does not attempt to do very many things and would probably scale pretty well. with standard cryptographic protocol problems like "if you lose your key, heaven help you" * John Roddy: Wait... He *disagreed* on moderation tools being built out before launch? * Cathy Gellis: I don't understand that. But I also don't understand how anyone could have volitionally decided to be a minority shareholder in a platform Musk was about to take over, so I have already been perplexed by his judgment. * John Roddy: Especially right after so many other ones launched and immediately slammed into exactly the same problem of bad moderation policies * mildconcern: It would save them not at all if the network were not explicitly aimed at crazy right wingers like so many of those were, too. Maybe that would delay the pain by a day. * Candescence: I think the only other main competitors that are worth watching so far are Mastodon, Post and Hive * Mike Masnick: Yeah, I'm perplexed a bit by that as well, but... * there's also T2 and spoutible. spoutible seems... very questionable to me. T2 is... fine. But, it just looks like a twitter clone. I think if they were smart, they'd quickly adopt the AT Protocol once bluesky releases federation details * BentFranklin: Is there a way to get techdirt in dark mode? * Mike Masnick: not currently, no * Candescence: So the Writer's Guild of America has started striking, and this was one of their demands that the studios rejected: https://twitter.com/pmiscove/sta... https://twitter.com/pmiscove/status/1653249330239909888 * According to the guild, the counteroffer was "annual meetings to discuss advancements in technology". * Even though it's quite obvious to everyone what the end goal the studios have with AI is, aka eventually reduce as much involvement of writers in the actual writing process as possible * MSR4: [link] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/02/pornhub-says-no-more-porn-for-folks-in-utah-unless-they-know-how-to-use-a-vpn/ This is so stupid. You can not legislate morality. Just like attempts to ban Usenet in the 90s because some teen could take a few text messages, mush them together, and get a nude photo. Or heading over to a friends house to view his dads playboy, there is nothing going to stop people from seeking out this material. What is the end game, ban all porn in the US. Great, everyone will move their opeations overseas. Then what, block internet connections to those countries? Even North Korea and Iran is accessable from the Internet, not to mention Tor. It is stupid virtual signaling to get around parents not wanting to monitor what their kids are doing online and take responsibility for their actions. * Mike Masnick: yup. * Samuel Abram: I would say this is as copyrightable as Naruto's selfie: https://twitter.com/depthsofwiki... https://twitter.com/depthsofwiki/status/1653093584042614792 * Actually, I wouldn't mind this monkey script replacing Lorem Ipsum... * BentFranklin: “material harmful to minors” Today it means porn. Tomorrow it means information on guns and climate change. * Maybe Nintendo should hire the Pinkertons. * Samuel Abram: I chuckled. https://twitter.com/amatsujanait... https://twitter.com/amatsujanaito/status/1653518113697144832 * Happy Bandcamp Friday! Today, I have released a single I had long finished but didn't have the cover art done until now: Lo, a track by the band Genesis on the Sega Genesis (Mega Drive outside of North America), Mama (with the vocaloid MEIKO)! [link] https://ironcurtain.bandcamp.com/album/mama-feat-meiko * Mike Masnick: i want to delete this spam, but the response is so good that i feel like i have to leave it. * Samuel Abram: [video] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7GdDLbm55U * mildconcern: I'm going to be hiking in the Canadian rockies this summer for a couple weeks. This video was a good chance to practice my Canadian language skills. * "Abooot.....aboooooooot....." * Samuel Abram: @mildconcern I swear, I've been to Canada many, many times, and J. J. is the only one I know who does that. * mildconcern: I've met a couple others who do, but yeah for the most part these days we're all raised by the same TV Become an Insider! Recent Stories WEDNESDAY 05:23 FCC Low Income Broadband Program A Huge Windfall For Monopolies Causing The Broadband Affordability Problem We're Pretending To Fix (2) TUESDAY 19:41 Harpo Settles With 'Oprahdemics' Podcast, Gets Name Change That's Silly (8) 15:40 Starlink Ditches Caps, But Congestion, Price Hikes, And Slower Speeds Remain A Problem (5) 13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 352: Utah's War On Porn (0) 11:57 Mozilla Wonders What Social Media Could Look Like If It Started With A Clear ‘No Assholes’ Policy (23) 10:44 Wikipedia Tells UK Government It Won't Comply With Proposed Age Verification Mandates (21) 10:41 Daily Deal: The All-Inclusive Adobe CC Training Bundle (1) 09:24 Adult Content Industry Sues Utah Over Porn Law (22) 05:24 Regulators Are Rewarding Sinclair Broadcasting For Lobotomizing Local Broadcast News (5) MONDAY 19:38 Creative: Finnish Newspaper Has 'Counter-Strike: Global Offensive' Custom Map Made To Deliver News To Russians About The War (5) MORE × EMAIL THIS STORY This feature is only available to registered users. You can register here or sign in to use it. TOOLS & SERVICES * Twitter * Facebook * RSS * Podcast * Research & Reports COMPANY * About Us * Advertising Policies * Privacy CONTACT * Help & Feedback * Media Kit * Sponsor / Advertise MORE * Copia Institute * Insider Shop * Support Techdirt Brought to you by Floor64 Proudly powered by WordPress. Hosted by Pressable. This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy