Category: Wall of Fame Assholes

Sony isn’t Happy Until the Entire Internet Hates It

Sony has been on the Internet’s shit list at least since it included a rootkit on one of its audio CDs back in 2005. While nothing it has done since then has been as egregious in my opinion the company also hasn’t done anything to improve its image. Removing the feature on the PlayStation 3 that let you install Linux certainly didn’t go over well with people who paid for it.

Based on Sony’s reputation it shouldn’t surprise anybody that it was targeted for one hell of a nasty hack. But it still hasn’t learned its lesson. Since the hack Sony has been a really poor sport. It tried using Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks in a futile attempt to stop the data stolen in the hack from spreading. Now Sony is threatening to sue Twitter if it doesn’t ban accounts sharing stolen data:

Sony’s battle on people disseminating its hacked and leaked emails has extended from news outlets to random Twitter users to, now, Twitter itself. Sony’s lawyer has threatened Twitter with legal action if the social networking company doesn’t ban accounts that are sharing the leaks, according to emails obtained by Motherboard.

The letter—sent from David Boies, the lawyer Sony has hired to help guide it through the aftermath of the hack, to Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s general counsel—says that if “stolen information continues to be disseminated by Twitter in any manner,” Sony will “hold Twitter responsible for any damage or loss arising from such use or dissemination by Twitter.”

The only thing shenanigans like this will get Sony is more wrath from the Internet. At this point the only sane thing for Sony to do is admit defeat and work on tightening its security so this doesn’t happen for a third time. Once data has leaked onto the Internet there is no way to stop it from propagating. It’s not even possible to slow the rate of propagation in any meaningful way. The Internet exists to disseminate information. Any attempt to prevent it from doing that will not end well for you.

Torture Fetishism

Since the release of the summary of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) torture report two camps have the developed. The first camp, made up of decent human beings, opposes the use of torture. One the other side of the isle is the camp, made up by a bunch of sick fuckers who have no value to humanity whatsoever, supports the use of torture. As the debate wages on the second camp, made up primarily of neocons who often accuse “liberals” of appealing to emotion, have been appealing to emotion with meme like this:

torture-fetishism

That is a picture of somebody who jumped from the World Trade Center during the 9/11 attacks. The implication is that torture is acceptable because some terrorists crashed some planes in the towers and killed a lot of people. For those of you posting this meme and memes like it would you kindly provide me with one things? Either explain to me how torturing people who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks will obtain justice for those who died in the attacks or provide me the decision from the publicly held jury trail that convicted the people being tortured of being involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Until you can provide one or the other please kindly go sodomized yourselves with retractable batons.

Why I Hate Neocons Part Seven Billion

It’s no secret that I hold special disdain for neocons. They’re especially vile creatures that seem to only achieve full erection in the presence of violence. That’s probably why they’re always touting the “tough on crime” bullshit. Tough on crime is just a euphemism for police brutality, which we’re seeing plenty of this day and age.

The killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner have really shown the extent neocons will go to get their rocks off. In both situations, while most people were asking why the killings occurred, neocons were digging as deep as they could into the dead men’s pasts to uncover something, anything that would justify the cops’ actions. They didn’t give a damn that two people were dead, they only wanted an excuse to label those men thugs so they could jump onto their social media accounts and spew their joyous blood lust all over for everybody to see.

While I also hold special disdain for neoliberals I at least give them some credit for not being so public with their violence fetish. Yes, like neocons, neoliberals love bombing Middle Easterners and they love having a militarized police force to keep dissidents in line. But at least they aren’t hopping on social media sites just so they can exclaim how happy they are that people were killed.

Nothing Says “Love Thy Neighbor” Like Advocating Genocide

A lot of people, because of the things I’ve written (and probably because of my taste in music), assume that I am against religion. I’m not. In fact I believe most religions offer a lot of great things. Christianity, the religion I was raise under, preaches that we should love one another, help each other out, and generally avoid being dicks. Those are all great ideas. But there’s always some asshole who can take something good and turn it into something horrible. Unfortunately these assholes are usually very loud. Take Steven Anderson, a pastor in Arizona, who has decided to build a reputation on being a complete cunt. While claiming to being a Christian he advocates genocide:

In the sermon, which was uploaded to YouTube on Monday from Faithful Word Baptist Church, Pastor Steven Anderson said that God has ordered in the scriptures that gays should be killed, and that if humanity wants to have an “AIDS-free world by Christmas,” he said, that’s what should be done.

[…]

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them,” Anderson read aloud.

“And that, my friend, is the cure for AIDS,” he said. “It was right there in the Bible all along — and they’re out spending billions of dollars in research and testing. It’s curable — right there. Because if you executed the homos like God recommends, you wouldn’t have all this AIDS running rampant.”

I’m a pretty peaceful guy so I won’t go so far as to say Mr. Anderson should be killed but I will say that the world would be a far better place if he wasn’t in it (or was at least stranded on a desert island from which no escape were possible).

I don’t understand the rampant hatred some Christians seem to have for homosexuals. If you look at Jesus, who Christians are supposed to do their damnedest to mimic, he hung out with a bunch of unsavory people. He didn’t spend his time hanging out with saints (since saints didn’t exist at that point) but spent his time hanging out with sinners (who, in general, are way cooler people to hang out with). Furthermore he made it a point that people shouldn’t judge others. So I’m always confused when self-proclaimed Christians advocate for violence.

Police Considering Charging Michael Brown’s Father for Inciting a Riot

What happens when a police officer kills you son and you react emotionally? The police may decided to charge you with inciting a riot:

(CNN) — Michael Brown’s stepfather was hurt and angry when he urged a crowd in Ferguson, Missouri, last week to “Burn this bitch down,” his wife and attorney say, but that hasn’t stopped authorities from launching an investigation into whether he incited a riot.

Following the announcement that the grand jury would not indict Officer Darren Wilson in his stepson’s death, Louis Head stepped onto a platform above the crowd and embraced his wife, Brown’s mother. He then turned to the demonstrators — some of them shouting “F— the police!” — and yelled, “Burn this motherf—er down!” and “Burn this bitch down!”

[…]

The police chief told TV and radio host Sean Hannity something similar Monday, but he didn’t classify the probe as formal.

“We are pursuing those comments, and there’s a lot of discussion going on about that right now, but I really can’t get into that at this time,” he said.

But police aren’t singling out Head, Jackson told Hannity.

“We can’t let all that happened in Ferguson and Dellwood and the community die. Everyone who is responsible for taking away people’s property, their livelihoods, their jobs, their businesses — every single one of them needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” he said.

I have a few problems with this.

First, the idea that one can be charged with inciting a riot. That charge, in my opinion, is bullshit. When people decided to riot who is to blame? The rioters as they were the people who rioted. Nobody else is responsible for their behavior. Claiming that inciting a riot is a criminal offense absolves, at least in part, rioters of responsibility by insinuating they were only acting because somebody else made them act.

Second, insinuating that a grieving individual should express their anger in a logical manner. I’m not a fan of calls for violence but when a kid is killed and the parent(s) feels as though the justice system failed to deliver justice I can understand them being a bit upset. In fact I can understand them being so upset that they would say angry things aimed at the person(s) they felt wronged them. If Michael Brown’s father had actually done something wrong, like tossed a Molotov cocktail at a house, there would be grounds for seeking redress for his misdeed. But all he did was say some unsurprising words considering the situation.

Third, charging Michael Brown’s father with inciting a riot is likely to start more riots. Right now the riots have calmed down. I’ve been told that the police are supposed to be keepers of the peace. If that is the case shouldn’t they leave things alone at this point in the hopes of avoiding more civil unrest? Especially when the person they’re looking at charging didn’t do anything wrong?

The only reason Ferguson police are even considering charging Michael Brown’s father, as far as I can tell, is pure spite. They want somebody’s head, besides their own, over these riots. Since Michael Brown is very dead and they won’t dare blame themselves for instigating the matter in the first place that leaves a family member of Brown’s (sins of the father, sins of the son). I hope they don’t charge him simply because I would like to see some semblance of tranquility in Ferguson but the police in that city have already proven themselves to be less than concerned with maintaining the peace.

Fear Mongering at Its Worst

One of my friends sent me some quality fear mongering. We’re not the usual namby pamby bullshit that gets tossed around during political debates but straight up claims that sexual predators will get your children if said vote passes:

Michelle Duggar of TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting is warning Fayetteville residents that transgender people are child predators and that the law will somehow protect that predatory behavior.

Her recorded robocall says:

“Hello, this is Michelle Duggar. I’m calling to inform you of some shocking news that would affect the safety of Northwest Arkansas women and children.”

“The Fayetteville City Council is voting on an ordinance this Tuesday night that would allow men – yes I said men – to use womens and girls restrooms, locker rooms, showers, sleeping areas and other areas that are designated for females only. I don’t believe the citizens of Fayetteville would want males with past child predator convictions that claim they are female to have a legal right to enter private areas that are reserved for women and girls. “

File this under government so small that it fits in your bathroom. Last year Arizona was looking to dictate who could use what bathroom backed with the threat of honest to goodness prison time. But I don’t think the fear mongering, at least that I found, reached this absurd of a level.

First of all, with all due respect (which is none) to Duggar, a transwoman is not a man. You have to be a pretty ignorant fuckstick to think that (to all those who I just offended please feel free to file a complaint in the comments below and I will explain why you’re an ignorant fuckstick when time is available).

Second, does Duggar even have a single example of a male child predator attempting to pass as transgender for the explicit purpose of preying on young girls? I didn’t think so.

This is another example of collectivist bigotry that can’t help but resort to fear mongering in a sad attempt to get others to hate a group of people. It wouldn’t be so bad if everybody recognized fear mongering for what it is but many don’t and that leads to good people getting hurt.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

A common act of hypocrisy I notice from individuals that could best be described as tough on crime or neocons is their willingness to declare anybody shot by a cop a thug and demand an investigation before making any negative judgements about a cop who shoots somebody. Case in point, the grand jury decision regarding the Darren Wilson case will soon release a decision. In anticipation for the decision the Missouri governor had told his cops to have their batons at the ready. But there are individuals, sadly within the gun rights movement, that apparently already know what went on. Bob Owens, for example, has two tweets that demonstrate the mindset I mentioned at the beginning:

Even without a trial or so much as a grand jury decision Mr. Owens has already determined that Michael Brown was nothing more than a violent thug and that the people upset by his death are misguided.

I sometime wish I had clairvoyant powers and could know, for certain, what went down in situations I wasn’t in any way involved in. But this seems to be a power only the tough on crime and rioters possess. According to one side Michael Brown deserved to be shot by the cop and according to the other side the cop murdered Michael Brown without cause.

The Skies Have Eyes

We know that the government, primarily through its official surveillance department known as the National Security Agency (NSA), has been spying on Americans for years. When thinking about government surveillance I would bet things like wiretaps in data centers are the first things to come to mind. What about small aircraft? As it turns out the government has been using them to spy on you as well:

The US Department of Justice has been using airplanes to collect Americans’ cell phone data, reports The Wall Street Journal’s Devlin Barrett.

The surveillance program, which is run by the US Marshals Service under the DOJ, has reportedly been in effect since 2007.

Officials have been using portable cell towers, known as “dirtboxes,” on small planes to collect identity and location information on cell phone users.

Those Cessna aircrafts fly from at least five airports near major cities, effectively allowing them to surveil most Americans.

Considering what we know thanks to Edward Snowden this isn’t surprising. Really this is just a Stringray with wings, which means it has a lot of range. What this story really shows is just how much time, effort, and money the state is dumping into its various programs to spy on each and every one of us.

At Least One ISP Trying to Prevent Customers from Using Encrypted Communications

Once again the centralized nature of today’s Internet is biting us in the ass. In addition to Internet Service Providers (ISP) already throttling traffic we now have one wireless provider actively preventing its customers from using STARTTLS:

But the second example Golden Frog provides is much scarier and much more pernicious, and it has received almost no attention.

In the second instance, Golden Frog shows that a wireless broadband Internet access provider is interfering with its users’ ability to encrypt their SMTP email traffic. This broadband provider is overwriting the content of users’ communications and actively blocking STARTTLS encryption. This is a man-in-the-middle attack that prevents customers from using the applications of their choosing and directly prevents users from protecting their privacy.

[…]

This is scary. If ISPs are actively trying to block the use of encryption, it shows how they might seek to block the use of VPNs and other important security protection measures, leaving all of us less safe. Golden Frog provides more details of what’s happening in this case:

Golden Frog performed tests using one mobile wireless company’s data service, by manually typing the SMTP commands and requests, and monitoring the responses from the email server in issue. It appears that this particular mobile wireless provider is intercepting the server’s banner message and modifying it in-transit from something like “220 [servername] ESMTP Postfix” to “200 ********************.” The mobile wireless provider is further modifying the server’s response to a client command that lists the extended features supported by the server. The mobile wireless provider modifies the server’s “250-STARTTLS” response (which informs the client of the server’s capacity to enable encryption). The Internet access provider changes it to “250-XXXXXXXA.” Since the client does not receive the proper acknowledgement that STARTTLS is supported by the server, it does not attempt to turn on encryption. If the client nonetheless attempts to use the STARTTLS command, the mobile wireless provider intercepts the client’s commands to the server and changes it too. When it detects the STARTTLS command being sent from the client to the server, the mobile wireless provider modifies the command to “XXXXXXXX.” The server does not understand this command and therefore sends an error message to the client.

As Golden Frog points out, this is “conceptually similar” to the way in which Comcast was throttling BitTorrent back in 2007 via packet reset headers, which kicked off much of the last round of net neutrality concerns. The differences here are that this isn’t about blocking BitTorrent, but encryption, and it’s a mobile internet access provider, rather than a wired one. This last point is important, since even the last net neutrality rules did not apply to wireless broadband, and the FCC is still debating if it should apply any new rules to wireless.

The article is arguing from a net neutrality angle but I see this as a technical issue. This is only made possible because Internet access is centrally controlled and end-to-end encryption wasn’t in the original design. Decentralizing Internet access would be a major win because it would prevent any single organization from weakening Internet security by blocking encrypted traffic. And if end-to-end encryption was in the originally design (which, I understand, was not technically feasible at the time) this wouldn’t be possible because blocking encrypted communications would block any communications.

Net neutrality will not save us. After all the government, especially the National Security Agency (NSA), probably has a literal hard-on for this idea. Again I reiterate that the only way to save the Internet is to wrestle control over it away from the state and its corporate partners that are providing our Internet access. I will again point out that mesh networks are a pretty neat idea for accomplishing exactly this. Instead of howling for the government to step in and save us from itself I believe we should be investing our energies in trying to decentralize Internet access as much as possible.

Shut Up, Slaves

It looks like British rulers are tired of hearing criticisms and have thus begun working on crushing free speech, at least from a legal point of view:

Nearly 350 years after us Brits abolished the licensing of the press, whereby every publisher had to get the blessing of the government before he could press and promote his ideas, a new system of licensing is being proposed. And it’s one which, incredibly, is even more tyrannical than yesteryear’s press licensing since it would extend to individuals, too, potentially forbidding ordinary citizens from opening their gobs in public without officialdom’s say-so.

It’s the brainchild of Theresa May, the Home Secretary in David Cameron’s government. May wants to introduce “extremism disruption orders”, which, yes, are as terrifyingly authoritarian as they sound.

[…]

Once served with an EDO, you will be banned from publishing on the Internet, speaking in a public forum, or appearing on TV. To say something online, including just tweeting or posting on Facebook, you will need the permission of the police. There will be a “requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web, social media or print.” That is, you will effectively need a licence from the state to speak, to publish, even to tweet, just as writers and poets did in the 1600s before the licensing of the press was swept away and modern, enlightened Britain was born (or so we thought).

There’s a reason George Orwell’s 1984 takes place in Britain, it really is the prototype police state for western civilization. It’s interesting to see a British politician take such an overt stance on destroying free speech. Most British politicians that I’ve heard anything about, much like the politicians here in the United States, at least pay lip service to free speech.

What’s laughable about this idea is that censoring speech is impossible. Thanks to the Internet a person can post material anonymously. We know this because people in tightly control countries such as China and Thailand have continued to post criticisms of the regimes of those countries without getting crushed (in all fairness some of them do get crushed but that’s what happens when you fail to properly utilize the tools available to you).

People wanting to post “extremist” speech in Britain will continue to do so. The only difference is that a few people of lukewarm intelligence that post “extremist speech” will get arrested and made an example of (and being individuals of lukewarm intelligence they will probably be unable to actually go through with any “extremist” plans they post about).