Wall of Fame Assholes – Page 21

Eau Claire County Sheriff Kidnapping People for Jury Duty

Do you want some more proof that you live in the land of the free? How about this story:

EAU CLAIRE, Wis. (WEAU)– Imagine going about your daily routine, you’re running errands, and perhaps running by the mall, but that’s where you see Eau Claire County Sheriff Ron Cramer approaching you. He says he needs jurors, and you have to go with him, right then, right now.

[…]

Unless those that were approached wrote down their personal information and agreed to drive themselves to the courthouse, the Sheriff’s Department would physically bring them to the courthouse.

You read correctly. The Sheriff of Eau Claire County is literally kidnapping people off of the street and forcing them with the threat of physical violence to serve jury duty. Now some may ask, what choice does he have? Somebody has to server jury duty, right? Wrong. There are many alternatives. For example, you could declare a mistrial and let the accused go free. Obviously that’s not ideal when the crime involves an actual victim. In those cases you can pay people an actual wage to perform jury duty. I know, this is a radical concept. But giving people a pittance to serve jury duty is not a good motivator. If you actually paid people enough they would happily serve jury duty. So instead of walking around town and threatening people with violence Mr. Cramer could walk around town and offer people, say, $20.00 (or more if necessary) per hour of jury duty.

What Dying Free Speech Looks Like

Free speech is dying and states are killing it. In their zeal to destroy any potential challenge to their power, err, protect us from the terrorists states have been drafting more laws that speech they don’t approve of illegal. France is taking the next step. President Francois Hollande will introduce legislation that would hold Google, Facebook, and other sites that allows comments legally responsible for what users say:

(Bloomberg) — The French government is stepping up the pressure on Google Inc. and Facebook Inc. to help in the struggle against terrorist groups.

President Francois Hollande said Tuesday in Paris the government will present a draft law next month that makes Internet operators “accomplices” of hate-speech offenses if they host extremist messages. Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said he will travel to the U.S. to seek help from the heads of Twitter Inc. and Microsoft Corp. as well as Google and Facebook. Spokesmen for the companies did not immediately return requests for comment.

In other words, censor any speech he don’t like or face the wrath of the French legal system (which is pretty wrathful when it comes to persecuting Muslims or Romani). With enough legalese one could argue that this law isn’t an abridgement of free speech because companies, not the state, would be charged with the task of censorship. But with enough legalese I could argue that gravity is not longer in effect. Legalese is bullshit.

This is a clear abridgement of free speech by holding the state’s gun to the heads of companies that enable communication. And while it’s being marketed as a means of controlling hate-speech we all know that hate-speech is defined by the state and therefore can be used by it to censor anything it wants.

The story noted that spokespersons from any of the major companies that would be impacted by this law didn’t return any comments. Hopefully they’re all preparing comments that are variations on, “Go fuck yourself, Hollande.” Because that’s the only proper response to this law.

Police Love to Stalk But Hate Being Stalked

Police love stalking people. To this end most departments have invested a lot of money into acquiring technology that makes their creepy behavior easier. But what happens when the tables are turned at the people start keeping tabs on the police? The police cry foul, what else?

Sheriffs are campaigning to pressure Google Inc to turn off a feature on its Waze traffic software that warns drivers when police are nearby. They say one of the technology industry’s most popular mobile apps could put officers’ lives in danger from would-be police killers who can find where their targets are parked.

Talk about a bunch of hypocrites. They’re bitching about people being able to find and target them but the tracking technology they use is totally cool even though it’s used to find and target us. It’s not unheard of for police officers to use department resources to stalk an ex, a potential love interest, or just somebody they feel like harassing. Take this story for example:

Fort Collins police officer was fired following an investigation that determined he used agency resources to discover where a woman worked and lived.

So why aren’t these sheriffs volunteering to dispose of their departments’ license plates scanners, accounts will with cellular providers that allow them to request customer location information, cell phone trackers, and other technology that enables their officers to stalk us? It’s because they love doing to us what they fear us doing to them.

Obama Wants Enable Abusers to Better Surveil Their Victims

Last week David Cameron, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, publicly stated that he wanted all encryption to be broken so him and his cronies could better spy on the populace. Shortly afterward Obama came out in support of Cameron’s desire:

President Barack Obama said Friday that police and spies should not be locked out of encrypted smartphones and messaging apps, taking his first public stance in a simmering battle over private communications in the digital age.

Apple, Google and Facebook have introduced encrypted products in the past half year that the companies say they could not unscramble, even if faced with a search warrant. That’s prompted vocal complaints from spy chiefs, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and, this week, British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Obama’s comments came after two days of meetings with Cameron, and with the prime minister at his side.

“If we find evidence of a terrorist plot… and despite having a phone number, despite having a social media address or email address, we can’t penetrate that, that’s a problem,” Obama said. He said he believes Silicon Valley companies also want to solve the problem. “They’re patriots.”

Every time a politician tells us that we need to surrender security they always sell it with fear. They tell us that they must be able to read all of our communications otherwise terrorists will kill us, pedophiles will kidnap and rape children, abusers will continue to abuse their victims, and murderers will be able to kill with impunity. I think it’s about time to bring this conversation full circle. Every one of those arguments can be flipped around.

Without having a means of anonymously and privately individuals become much easier for terrorists to target. Imagine an individual inside of a terrorist cell that wants to communicate the cell’s plans to counter-terrorists. Unless he is able to do this anonymously and privately he will likely be killed. The problem with breaking cryptographic tools so the government can bypass them is that anybody who knows about that weakness can also bypass them.

Then we have the children. Everything attack against our privacy is “for the children”. But cryptographic tools can also protect children from predators. Imagine a school setting where an instructor is planning to abduct one of the pupils. He’s obviously not going to do it on school grounds because the likelihood of him being caught is high. However if his target coordinates plans with other schoolmates via electronic communications and those communications are not secure the predator can view them and wait for them to go somewhere more isolated.

Abusers love to surveil their victims. Keeping tabs on where their victims go, what they spend, who they’re talking with, and what they’re talking about allows abusers to wield a great deal of psychological power. This ability to surveil also makes it less likely that their victims will seek help. When the chances of getting caught seeking help are high and the consequences are physical abuse then a victim is more likely to do what maintains to status quo.

Murders, like terrorists, would benefit greatly from broken cryptography. Like terrorists, murderers need to identify and track their target. If somebody is trying to murder a specific individual they may know where that individual works and lives. Businesses and neighborhoods often have too many witnesses around so a smart murderer is going to suveil their target and use the information he uncovered to strike at a more opportune time.

It’s time we start calling the politicians on their bullshit fear mongering. Whenever they bring up terrorists, pedophiles, abusers, or murderers we need to point out that those threats are also good arguments for strong cryptography.

Bigots Can’t Even Get Their Bigotry Right

Remember the fuckface gun range owner in Arkansas that decided to ban all Muslims from her gun range? Sickeningly I know some people who cheered this decision because they believe Islam is a synonym for terrorist. Apparently the range owner believes Islam is a synonym for brown people:

When we reported last fall on a Hot Springs firing range that was declared a “Muslim free zone” by its owner, several blog commenters asked, “how will she know who’s a Muslim?” The answer, unsurprisingly, seems to be good old fashioned racism. The Times was contacted over the weekend by a college student from Hot Springs who went to the Gun Cave with his father for a round of target practice.

They’re not Muslim, but they do happen to be South Asian. They were told to leave by a woman, presumably Jan Morgan, the owner.

[…]

“When we went in, a woman asked, ‘Where are you guys from?’ We told her we were from Hot Springs. She said, “this is a Muslim free shooting range,” so if we are [Muslim] and if we don’t like the rule, then leave. We said that we’re not Muslim, but my dad asked, ‘Why is it Muslim free?’ and they started having a conversation. Then, all of a sudden, I don’t know what went wrong, but she stopped us from filling out the paperwork and said ‘I don’t think you guys should be here.’ She told us to leave or she’d call the cops on us.”

Listen, if you’re hellbent on being a bigot at least get your bigotry right. I’m theorizing, with the circumstantial evidence available to me so far, that the owner of the range isn’t hating on Muslims specifically but claiming to hate Muslims being that’s more acceptable in this country than being a racist.

Either way, I really hope the range goes bankrupt. Or burns down in a fire. I’m not picky.

David Cameron Joins the Legion of Naive People Who Think They Can Stop the Progress of Technology

David Cameron, the fascist prime minister of the United Kingdom, has decided that us serfs have no need for secure communications. He has expressed a desire to make the use of end-to-end encrypted communications illegal:

The prime minister has pledged anti-terror laws to give the security services the ability to read encrypted communications in extreme circumstances. But experts say such access would mean changing the way internet-based messaging services such as Apple’s iMessage or Facebook’s WhatsApp work.

This is just another battle in the crypto wars that have been waged between the state and the people. Needless to say the state hasn’t been faring so well. Nobody should be surprised by this though. History is littered with examples of power hungry despots trying to control commonly available technology and failing miserably. For example, the Inquisition was very interested in controlling access to printing presses in order to prevent the spread of anti-Church literature. It didn’t end well for them.

Today states are interested in restricting our access to secure communications. We’re told that these restrictions are necessary for the state to keep us safe but history has shown that such restrictions are put into place to bolster the state’s power. History has also shown us that any restrictions unpopular with the people fail in time.

Secure communication tools are now so pervasive that they cannot help but hold popular support. Nobody wants to transmit their authentication credentials in a way that anybody can intercept them (and if the state can intercept them then anybody can). People suffering from embarrassing medical conditions don’t want the world to know about it when they’re searching for related material online. And few people want others to know what kind of porn they watch.

We have need for secure communications and the tools to enable it are widely available. That means Cameron’s desires cannot be realized. Even if he passes a law making end-to-end encryption illegal people will use it coupled with anonymity tools to protect themselves from prosecution. You can’t put the djinn back in the bottle once it’s out no matter how many laws you pass. The fact that Cameron doesn’t realize this shows how delusional of his power he truly is.

Breathe Easy

Eric Garner died when an officer put him in a choke hold. Even though choke holds are against New York Police Department (NYPD) policy the officer was not fired or even disciplined. To make matters worse NYPD officers are still using choke holds despite all of this:

Back in 1994, just over a year after the police commissioner at the time, Raymond W. Kelly, categorically banned officers from using the maneuver, a Bronx man named Anthony Baez Jr. died when an officer, enraged that a football had hit his patrol car, put Mr. Baez in a chokehold.

Two decades later, complaints about officers using chokeholds continue to flow into the independent city agency responsible for investigating police abuse. From 2009 to June 2014, the agency, the Civilian Complaint Review Board, found enough evidence to substantiate complaints against 10 officers accused of using the move on duty.

In July, the use of a chokehold emerged again, this time in the fatal encounter on Staten Island between Mr. Garner and Officer Daniel Pantaleo. The confrontation, much of it captured on video, provided a direct look at the potential effect of an officer’s arm being wrapped around a person’s neck.

The tough on crime crowd will tell you that you’re safe so long as you don’t break the law. What these authority apologists won’t tell you is that the average American unknowingly commits an average of three felonies a day. Good luck with that whole not breaking the law strategy.

I Visit the Dark Side of Twitter So You Don’t Have To

Some rather unpleasant Twitter harassment ended up in me digging deep into the bowels of Twitter’s neoconservatives. It’s a shitty place, pun intended, that one should only venture if they’re prepared to see hatred in its purest form. Because of the shooting in Paris yesterday the neocons were finally able to achieve the full erection that so often eludes them. What that means is that social media sites were on fire with masturbatory hatred. What follows are a few of the highlight I came across.

Let’s start with this gem:

The neoconservative movement, being mostly composed of zealous “Christians”, always claim that “moderate Muslims” don’t protest the actions of extremists. This accusation is an implication that all Muslims secret support these acts. Of course these same “Christians” always seem to be silent when organizations such as the Lord’s Resistance Army commits a heinous crime or a self-proclaims Christian attacks an abortion clinic. I guess they must support those actions.

This isn’t the only tweet made by this account. It also inflicted this stupidity on the Internet:

You can see the account holder’s raging neocon erection from here! Nothing gets a neocon off as effectively as the thought of American soldiers being sent to the Middle East for no reason to kill people who, by and large, are uninvolved in any of these hostilities. But the American military is composed heavily of Christians so neocons get to fantasize about them being the modern Crusaders. And, you know, the fact that we’re invading Middle Eastern countries for no reason has nothing to do with the fact that violent extremists periodically attack Western nations.

It’s time to look at a new account spewing the same shit:

19,250 attacks? I wonder where they got that number. It was probably pulled out of their asses. Because of how large the number is I’m assuming it includes any engagement between American military forces and Middle Easterners. As the American military is composed heavily of Christians one could just as easily as that there have been 19,250 deadly Christian attacks since 9/11/01. After all, if we’re going to pull numbers out of our asses they might as well be fairly evaluated.

Do you know what’s fun? Disrespecting everybody who subscribes to a religion for the actions of a few:

Islam prohibits the consumption of pork, much like Judaism. Obviously that means it’s hilarious to put pork products in the halal meat section. That way you can cost the business, which is entirely uninvolved in any of this shit, money while disrespecting people who are also entirely uninvolved (because those Muslims shopping at your local Cubs Food for their weekly groceries probably aren’t shooting Christians in the fact).

What do neocons hate almost as much as Muslims? Black people! Somewhere out there a neocon was going to try to combine the Paris shooting with the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. Here it is:

Because people protesting killings of black people by police officers is the exact same thing as some nutjobs storming a building and gunning down innocent people. But in the eyes of neocons if you oppose any actions by police officers, no matter how gruesome, you’re supporting murderers of all kinds (except the ones with badges, of course).

Besides being cantankerous asses, neocons also enjoy very childish humor. Nothing makes an ideological point like potty humor:

So much edge you can cut yourself on it! Like many neocons, Mr. O’Halloran has a radio show. What hat means is that nobody besides the 10 or so remaining neocons actually listen to him. Everybody who is culturally relevant have moved onto more modern mediums such as YouTube, Twitter, and podcasts.

It was this point that I decided to turn off the Internet for the night. This was too much for even me to take. Yet I felt it was important because neocons always complain about “liberals” hating on them and seem entirely ignorant as to why. This is why. Every tweet I linked to is being written by a neocon and reads like it was written by a complete asshole (because it was). People don’t hate neocons because they’re not liberals, people hate neocons because so many of them sound like complete jackasses.

North Korea Facing New Sanctions Because of Something It Didn’t Do

In the infinite wisdom of our government the country of North Korea, which probably already has the status as most sanctioned country on hear, must be punished for something it wasn’t involved in. Last week Mr. Obama signed more sanctions against North Korea because of the latest Sony hack:

The US has imposed new sanctions on North Korea in response to a cyber-attack against Sony Pictures Entertainment.

President Barack Obama signed an executive order on Friday allowing sanctions on three North Korean organisations and 10 individuals.

The White House said the move was a response to North Korea’s “provocative, destabilising, and repressive actions”.

US sanctions are already in place over North Korea’s nuclear programme.

But Friday’s actions are believed to be the first time the US has moved to punish any country for cyber-attacks on a US company.

Of course the only entity in the world that is seriously claiming that North Korea was involved is the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). Nobody else is buying that claim.

What Laws Actually Entail

I often wonder if people really know what they’re saying when they say “There ought to be a law.” In their heads I’m sure they believe that they’re saying that a specific type of behavior is wrong or dangerous and must be curtailed. What they’re actually saying is that they want costume-clad men with guns and liability shields to inflict violence against anybody who performs said behavior.

For example, when people said there ought to be law requiring cyclists to have lights when riding at night they probably though they were saying that riding a bike at night without a light is dangerous. What they actually said was that people riding a bike without a light should result in K9 units and police helicopters being deployed and dogs being shot:

Deputies tell us they attempted to stop a suspect on a bicycle outside of the Dollar General store on Gunnery Road for riding without a light. That’s when the suspect ran away from deputies.

A helicopter and K9 unit were called in to help search for the suspect. While tracking the suspect in a wooded area, a K9 unit was attacked by an unleashed Pit bull. That’s when a deputy in pursuit shot the Pit bull.

When laws are passed police are given orders to use whatever force is available to them to stop anybody who breaks said law. It doesn’t matter how minor the offense is. Something insignificant as selling an untaxed cigarettes can escalate to deadly force when the act is declared illegal.