Month: January 2012

The United States Government Coercing Other Governments into Censoring the Internet

While our “representatives” are debating the Internet censorship bill known as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) other agents of the state are busy coercing other government’s into enacting various forms of Internet censorship:

Though a deeply divided Congress is currently considering Internet website censorship legislation, the US has no such official policy—not even for child porn, which is voluntarily blocked by some ISPs. Nor does the US have a government-backed “three strikes” or “graduated response” system of escalating warnings to particular users accused of downloading music and movies from file-sharing networks.

Yet here was the ultimatum that the US Embassy in Madrid gave the Spanish government in February 2008: adopt such measures or we will punish you. Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have the text of the diplomatic cable announcing the pressure tactics.

We propose to tell the new government that Spain will appear on the Watch List if it does not do three things by October 2008. First, issue a [Government of Spain] announcement stating that Internet piracy is illegal, and that the copyright levy system does not compensate creators for copyrighted material acquired through peer-to-peer file sharing. Second, amend the 2006 “circular” that is widely interpreted in Spain as saying that peer-to-peer file sharing is legal. Third, announce that the GoS [Government of Spain] will adopt measures along the lines of the French and/or UK proposals aimed at curbing Internet piracy by the summer of 2009.

The Watch List referenced is the US Trade Representative’s “Special 301” list, updated annually. Spain was duly put on the list in 2008 after failing to take such measures. (“The United States is concerned by the Spanish government’s inadequate efforts to address the growing problem of Internet piracy, described by U.S. copyright industries as one of the worst in Europe,” said the 2008 report.) Spanish copyright holders applauded the move; indeed, the cables show that they repeatedly asked US officials to make it.

At least United States citizens aren’t the only people on the federal government’s watch lists. Whether through direct invasion or underhanded threats the government of the United States likes to force other countries to obey its bidding. What’s frightening about this is when the government here finally enacts Internet censorship legislation there are going to be fewer safe havens that can be proxied into.

The United States isn’t satisfied until the entire world is one big fucking police state. What’s next? Is our government going to give the Spanish government military weaponry to better suppress it’s citizens? Wait, that already happened (what’s really sad is I was going to make that quip but did a quick Google search to ensure it wasn’t false, my default assumption was that the United States had given Spain military aid at some point and apparently it was the correct assumption).

The Truth Behind Firearm Regulations

Via gunnit I came across a picture that basically sums up every major firearm regulation in existence:

Most states won’t let you carry gun… unless you pay the state money. You can’t ship gun powder and primers… unless you pay the shipping companies more money. You can’t own a supressor, machine gun, short barreled rifle, or various other cool guns… unless you pay the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) money. Firearm regulations aren’t about keep guns from criminals, by definition that’s impossible, they’re about making money off of gun owners.

When you think about it every regulations is simply about money. Do you want to drive a car? That fine, you can so long as you periodically pay the state a fee to hold a driver’s license and pay another annual fee to have a license plate sticker that may protect you from being pulled over. Do you want to build a house on the land you purchased? That’s fine, they’ll let you so long as you purchase a building permit. Do you want to dump toxic waste into a water supply? That’s fine, just pay us money for an exemption and you’re good to go.

We Can’t Have Lawful Activity

Via Another Gun Blog I found another example of the state passing another law to make something that was legal illegal:

The state Senate this week is expected to vote on a bill barring school employees from having sex with students of any age.

[…]

The bill was sparked by concerns from prosecutors who said they were unable to charge teachers who had sex with students after the students turned 18, including one who waited until the day after the girl’s birthday before taking to her a hotel room.

You read correctly, because two consenting adults had sex a law is being rammed through to make the act illegal. Why the fuck not? There are just too many things one can do in life that aren’t yet illegal and we can’t have that. Sure an 18 year-old can vote, go to war, smoke cigarettes, act in porn, and buy a long gun but they can’t make such a mature decision as to who they will have sex with.

What really galls me about this law is the fact it’s being passed because two consenting adults had sex and some prosecutor thought they shouldn’t have. If people have their panties all in a bunch about a teach having sex with an 18 year-old student wouldn’t it have been easier to, I don’t know, fire the teacher? I know it’s an entirely crazy concept but I believe it should be looked into. Many companies have professional codes of conduct that employees are required to sign. You know what clause can be found in many of these codes of conduct? Prohibitions against having relationships with co-workers. In other words if you’re caught banging a fellow co-worker both of you can get fired.

Every time somebody says there ought to be a law there almost always shouldn’t.

Situations in Shades of Gray

I talk about a lot of bad police decisions but most of those situations are black and white. That is to say a police officer obviously abused his or her power or otherwise initiated violence. Sadly not every situation is black and white, many shades of gray exist. Take for instance the story about a police officer who show a 15 year-old kid brandishing a realistic pellet gun:

The parents of an eighth grader who was fatally shot by police inside his South Texas school are demanding to know why officers took lethal action, but police said the boy was brandishing — and refused to drop — what appeared to be a handgun and that the officers acted correctly.

The weapon turned out to be a pellet gun that closely resembled the real thing, police said late Wednesday, several hours after 15-year-old Jaime Gonzalez was repeatedly shot in a hallway at Cummings Middle School in Brownsville. No one else was injured.

A picture of the gun can be found at the link and from a distance I can see how an officer would mistake it for a real handgun. Some may say this is a valid case of using violence while others will claim it wasn’t. Others have also questioned the amount of force used by the officer, which I will address in a bit.

So far the story is mostly he-said-she-said. The officer is claiming the kid was pointing the gun at him. Without any way of knowing the weapon was fake that certainly qualifies as immediate threat to life. When I read about these kinds of situations I try to put myself in the shoes of the shooter. What did the cop see? Did the kid point the pellet gun at the officer? Was anything said during the altercation? In this case I have no answers and desire more data. Unfortunately more data isn’t always available and we may find ourselves in these kinds of situations. This reality must be acknowledge by anybody who carries a gun and should be given, at least, a cursory consideration. Most of self-defense is mental preparation and state of mind.

Now let us return to the amount of force that was used:

“Why was so much excess force used on a minor?” the boy’s father, Jaime Gonzalez Sr., asked The Associated Press outside the family’s home Wednesday night. “Three shots. Why not one that would bring him down?”

Let’s consider the use of a firearm. A firearm is a lethal weapon designed to kill, we shouldn’t kid ourselves otherwise. Employing a firearm should only be done when you have decided the situation requires the use of lethal force. Therefore it is safe to say when a firearm is drawn the amount of force necessary to end the situation becomes whatever is necessary.

Any self-defense class and, I’m assuming, police training class will teach you to shoot until the threat has stopped. If the threat stops at the presentation of the firearm you shouldn’t shoot, if it stops after a non-lethal wound you stop, if it stops only after the assailant is dead then that is what you must do. We must also realize that handgun cartridges are anemic and overall poor man stoppers. To overcome this limitation standard procedure is to fire two shots immediately at center mass. If the threat has not ceased after two shots you must take more, possibly even attempting to shoot the attacker in the head. Needless to say the round count is likely to start at two and escalate from there so three shots in this situation shouldn’t be surprising.

In the end the kid may have simply committed suicide by cop. While I’m not willing to pass final judgement in this case I am leaning towards this conclusion unless further data becomes available. Beyond the situation there is something else to take into consideration:

About 20 minutes elapsed between police receiving a call about an armed student and shots being fired, according to police and student accounts. Authorities declined to share what the boy said before he was shot.

Had the kid been in possession of a real weapon and malicious intent he would have had 20 minutes to do whatever he please. Schools, being gun-free zones, don’t allow for lawful self-defense. Teachers and faculty with valid carry permits are not allowed to carry in a elementary or high school so the only solution that really exists for stopping a violence individual is to wait for the police. A lot can happen in 20 minutes and the state prohibits use mere serfs from defending ourselves inside of these gun-free zones. This situation could have been far worse because of government decree.

The Fallacy of State Provided Protection

A recently widowed mother whose husband died of cancer found herself in another tragic situation. When she was at home with her child a thug with a knife decided it would be a jolly good idea to do a little breaking and entering. The mother called 911 but ended up having to defend herself as the phrase, “When seconds count the police are only minutes away.” was demonstrated once again:

Oklahoma news media have the compelling story of a shotgun-toting 18-year-old mother who killed an intruder on New Year’s Eve after a 911 operator told her, “Do what you have to do to protect your baby.”

[…]

The 911 conversation lasted for 21 minutes. Then the door gave in.

21 minutes, that’s how long the call laster and the police had not arrive. This story, along with many like it, demonstrate the fallacy of state provided protection. How horrible is it that the government not only maintains a monopoly on police protection but has also ruled that it has no obligation to actually provide you the promised services.

Let’s look at where police protection in this country currently sits. In almost all cases the state maintains a monopoly on armed protective services and even if a private alternative exists customers are unable to cease paying the government for it’s ill-provided protection service. See those who seek alternative protection and thus no longer desire to utilize the government provided police will be kidnapped by those very officer and tossed into a cage unless they begin paying again.

Even protecting yourself is burdensome if not impossible because of government laws. Many countries and individual states in the United States have strong laws against self-defense. Some states don’t allow individuals to carry firearms on their person, many states don’t have any form of stand your ground of castle doctrine laws on the books, and other states have strong restrictions on who can even own a gun. The lack of stand your ground and castle doctrine laws are perhaps the most egregious because it assumes guilt on behalf of the defender, and in the case of missing castle doctrine that guilt is still assumed in the defender’s own home.

Firearms are hands down the best tools available for person defense but access to them is strictly controlled. In the United States any person charged with a felony, even a non-violent felony, is prohibited from owning firearms. If the mother in this story had been in possession of enough marijuana to be charged with felony possession she likely wouldn’t have had that firearm available to her and she and her child would likely be dead now. Outside of the United States firearm possession is even more strictly controlled with complete prohibition existing in some countries. Were this mother in England she and her child would likely be dead. Thus self-protection has been taken from the state and is only granted to those it deems worthy.

This story only ended happily because the woman lived in a place that “allows” people to defend themselves, own a firearm, and she wasn’t an “undesirable” person. Even though she has paid for police protection and will have to continue paying she has no recourse for the fact a squad car hadn’t arrive after 21 minutes. Were she able to seek a private provider a contractual agreement could have been made requiring protection to arrive within a specified span of time or the mother would no longer be made to continue paying for services.

State provide protection is a fallacy because they don’t actually offer protection. If you call the state protection service they may or may not send somebody to help, it’s a crap shoot.

Sending All the Wrong Messages

People are lambasting the Syrian government for the violence actions they’ve been taking against protesters. Don’t get me wrong what they’re doing is despicable but when you look at the situation you can understand why they’re responding as they are. The end of these peaceful demonstrations have almost all ended up in the death of those in power or the threat of future death after arrest. In the case of Egypt the message they’re trying to send is if you step down we’re going to kill you anyways:

Prosecutors in the trial of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak have demanded he be given the death penalty.

Mr Mubarak is on trial in Cairo, accused of ordering the killing of protesters during unrest which led to his overthrow in February.

On one hand I understand the desire for revenge if Mubarak did order the death of protesters but on the other hand every other despot in the Middle East is going to see this and Libya and say, “Well fuck stepping down, they’re just going to kill me anyways.” Putting Mubarak to death certainly isn’t going to help convince the Syrian government to find more peaceful ways to resolve the country’s turmoil nor will it send a positive message to countries where the government is more open to positive changes.

A Common Results When You Hire Thugs Instead of Peace Officers

Do people still refer to police officers at peace officers? I ask this question because the job of police officers seems to mimic that of a thug more ever day. Whenever I talk to people from my parent’s generation they often reminisces about the fact police officers used to be trustworthy people who literally attempted to keep the peace. Today the job of police officers appears to mirror that of a common thug, extort money from the populace (through fines) and use violence to ensure the King’s subjects do as they’re told. Needless to say with the transition from upholding peace to common thuggery means this story is not at all surprising to me:

A man tried to break into his neighbor’s home. When police officers arrived, he approached them, ignoring their commands to stop. The police used tasers, pepper spray and batons to wrestle the man to the ground, face down, then handcuff him behind his back. And while using physical force is the norm for an uncooperative suspect’s arrest, appearances do deceive.

The man, James Edward Wells, had just experienced a tonic-clonic seizure. In his post-seizure confusion, he mistook his neighbor’s house for his own and could not understand the officers’ orders. Shortly after the cops pinned him face down, Wells stopped breathing.

Emphasis mine, as always. What I find most appalling about this story is the fact the use of Tasers, pepper spray, and batons is considered a proper response when a person isn’t complying with the orders of a police officer. My understanding behind arming the police is allowing them to response to violence using similar levels of violence, not response to merely uncooperative persons with a fucking assault on their person.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s one thing to pin a potential burglar to the ground, handcuff him, and detain him for questioning. The problem comes from the fact a whole different world springs up when a lethal weapon (and let’s face it, Tasers are lethal weapons) is introduced into a situation where nobody’s life is currently being threatened. This entire situation would likely have been a nonissue had the officers responded with equivalent or a slightly higher level of force to which they were being subjected. Instead the state’s shock troops decided to go from zero to full retard in 0.8 seconds.

In the end the police should be held to the same standard everybody else is. That is to say if I couldn’t legally employ the use of force in a situation police officers shouldn’t be able to either.

A tip of the hat to my friend Vicky for sending me this story.

The United States Faces a New Crisis

I find myself in an unfortunate position as I must inform you that the United States faces a new crisis, one which threatens the very structure of our public school systems. It has recently been reported that the supply of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drugs are in short supply:

Medicines to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are in such short supply that hundreds of patients complain daily to the Food and Drug Administration that they are unable to find a pharmacy with enough pills to fill their prescriptions.

The shortages are a result of a troubled partnership between drug manufacturers and the Drug Enforcement Administration, with companies trying to maximize their profits and drug enforcement agents trying to minimize abuse by people, many of them college students, who use the medications to get high or to stay up all night.

Emphasis mine. You can almost admire how the government ensures no “crisis” goes to waste. When a shortage of ADHD drugs occurs they claim it’s because the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has been cracking down as college students are using the drugs to get high. In actuality the shortage is most likely due to the fact ADHD drugs are horrendously overprescribed because any child who acts like a normal child is instantly diagnosed with ADHD and drugged up. After all a normal child is active and curious, traits that can be hard to deal with for teachers and parents so it’s far easier for everybody involved (well except the children, but fuck them since they’re not old enough to be in the military and therefore useless to the state at this point) if kids are sedated. This article did bring up an interesting fact I was previously unaware of:

While the Food and Drug Administration monitors the safety and supply of the drugs, which are sold both as generics and under brand names like Ritalin and Adderall, the Drug Enforcement Administration sets manufacturing quotas that are designed to control supplies and thwart abuse.

I never knew the DEA put quotas on the supply drug manufacturers can produce. Economically speaking the government is creating an artificial shortage, which is likely, at least partially, responsible for the insanely high cost of prescription drugs in this country.

We’ll Just Build Our Own Internet

While various world governments have been conspiring to censor the Internet groups of hackers have been hard at work finding mechanisms to bypass proposed censorship methods. Ultimately there is a limitation of what can be done because governments can force internet providers to comply with any demand so the only effective option is to setup an alternate Internet. Members of the Chaos Communications Congress have made an interesting proposal involved low-cost satellites:

The new plan calls for sending up home-made satellites into space as part of a Hackerspace Global Grid. The project includes low-cost ground stations to track and communicate with the satellites.

Anti-censorship activist Nick Farr, bothered by the world’s threats in blocking the free flow of information, started campaigning for contributions to the Grid earlier this year.

Launching communications satellites has been attempted in the past by some amateur groups but low-budget projects have not easily managed the task of tracking the devices.

According to reports, a few small satellites have gone into orbit but usually for brief periods only. Initiatives like space missions have required the big pockets of large public agencies and private companies, but Farr hopes his plan can work.

Farr and colleagues envision a grid of low-cost ground stations to track and communicate with the satellites. They are working with Constellation, which is a German aerospace research initiative. The initiative interlinks student projects.

Attempts to setup an alternative Internet have been proposed but none have succeeded. The main Achilles’ heel has been the hardware side of things. Unless an entirely independent architecture is setup government agencies still have control of the “kill switch” (that is the central points of control such as internet providers, root domain name system servers, etc.). The obvious solution involves wireless of some sort simply because running physical cable is very expensive and it’s unlikely independent entities will be able to get right of way agreements to perform such a task. While satellite communication has a high lag time it’s far better than nothing. You may not be able to play Call of Duty 11 on a satellite linkup but you can certainly communicate with other people in the world.