Tag: Shut Up Slave

Standard Weapons and Tactics

Denizens of the United States are very familiar with Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. At one point in our history SWAT teams, true to their name, were special forces that were called in when a situation required more firepower and training than standard police officers had. Today SWAT teams of used for everything breaking up unapproved poker games to evicting squatters:

OAKLAND, Calif. — There were some tense moments Thursday morning as a SWAT team stormed an apartment building in Oakland to evict squatters who had been living there for months without paying rent.

At this point I believe the term Special Weapons and Tactics should be changed to Standard Weapons and Tactics. The regular police force has been mitigated to issuing speeding tickets and serving parking citations. Everything else is now the job of the heavily armed and armored SWAT teams.

Watch Rand Paul Get His Statist On

I you’re a libertarian who believes the political process is the way to achieve liberty and envision Rand Paul as a critical part of your political strategy then, well, you’re not going to like this post. Between his political grandstanding, implicit approval on the drug war, and change of heart on domestic drone usage it’s pretty clear he’s a through and through statist. But if there is still any doubt in your mind that Rand isn’t a defender of liberty then put it to rest:

Sen. Paul reasoned that there need to be some laws that protect certain secrets and that Manning put many lives at risk by releasing millions of pages “willy-nilly”. His main concern is that whistle-blowers break laws in order to reveal state secrets.

“There do have to be laws to protect some secrets. I think if you’ve got the, you know, the plans on how to make a nuclear bomb that is a state secret. If you give that to the enemy, that is being treasonous,” said the Senator from Kentucky, “Even if you reveal it, you just have to have laws against that. What Manning did was just willy-nilly, just released millions of pages of things and I think some people have said there is potentially some harm from that. You know individual agents that could have been killed or put at risk from this. So there is a problem with that. So I just can’t support that.”

It appears, at least in the mind of Rand Paul, that Manning’s decision to collect documents, as he put it, “willy-nilly” trumps the fact that he revealed war crimes that were being perpetrated by the United States. Even if I believed in the legitimacy of the state I would believe that a state that conceals criminal activities loses the right to keep secrets.

A warrant is, effectively, a revocation of an accused person’s right to keep secrets. When you are accused of wrongdoing your home, business, personally electronics, and other properties can be riffled through by state agents. The same should apply to the state. It has been accused of war crimes since it entered Iraq (well, truthfully, before that) so the people should have a right to riffle through all of its stuff. But Rand seems to believe that the state has a special privilege to keep secrets even when its accused of wrongdoing. Rules are for thee, not for me after all.

If this is the type of person who you belief will deliver freedom to the United States then you’re sorely mistaken. On numerous occasions he has advocated giving the state special privileges that would allow it to maintain its reign of tyranny. Liberty cannot exist unless all members of society are subject to the same rulebook. As soon as one member gets to play by a different rulebook then the door is open for them to obtain power over others.

Gun for Me, Not for Thee

I’m left in awe of the ability politicians have for giving a long-winded response devoid of content in lieu of a short quip that would have done the same. After coming into office, Obama announced the release of the We the People Petitions. Supposedly the system is one where individuals can submit petitions and if that petition gets enough signatures within a specific span of time somebody from the White House will address it. The White House’s first slew of response let us know how popular petitions would be handled. Instead of giving any notable consideration to popular petitions they are simply ignored. Sometimes, I’m guessing when a petition is particularly uncomfortable for the White House, popular petitions vanish. Consider the history of We the People Petitions I’m not surprised to see this response:

A petition on the formal White House petitions website called for “gun free” zones to be extended to politicians, saying if it’s good enough for children in schools and other places where otherwise legal firearm carry by private citizens is prohibited, then it should be good enough for our country’s leaders, right?

[…]

Here is the response of the White House:

Working to Keep Everyone Safe

Thanks for your petition.

We live in a world where our elected leaders and representatives are subject to serious, persistent, and credible threats on a daily basis. Even those who are mere candidates in a national election become symbols of our country, which makes them potential targets for those seeking to do harm to the United States and its interests. In 1901, after the third assassination of a sitting President, Congress mandated that the President receive full-time protection, and that law is still in effect today. Because of it, those who are the subject of ongoing threats must receive the necessary and appropriate protection.

At the same time, all of us deserve to live in safer communities, which is why we need to take responsible, commonsense steps to reduce gun violence, even while respecting individual freedom. And let’s be clear: President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. You can see him talk about that in a previous petition response.

But the common-sense steps the President has proposed don’t infringe in any way on our Second Amendment rights. We ought to be able to keep weapons of war off the streets. We ought to close the loopholes in the background check system that make it too easy for criminals and other dangerous people to buy guns — an idea that has the support of 90 percent of people in the United States.

That’s why the President and an overwhelming majority of Americans are calling on Congress to pass gun safety legislation that closes loopholes in the background check system and makes gun trafficking a federal crime.

A minority in the Senate is blocking this common-sense legislation to reduce gun violence, but President Obama is already taking action to protect our kids with executive actions. He is taking the steps available to him as President to strengthen the existing background check system, give law enforcement officials more tools to prevent gun violence, end the freeze on gun violence research, make schools safer, and improve access to mental health care.

You can learn more about the President’s positions on this issue at WhiteHouse.gov/NowIsTheTime.

The White House could have simply said, “Guns are for masters, not for slaves.” Instead it gave a lengthy response that said nothing and merely plugged Obama’s gun control plan. Seriously, this response is a marvel when you look at it as an example of a political statement that runs on in length but fails to answer the question posed.

I did find it rather humorous that the response mentioned the assassination of President as justification for granting the position a full-time security detail. It’s a response that spits in the face of every non-politician who has been murdered. More non-politicians have been murdered than politicians yet the politicians are the ones who both receive special protection and prevent us from defending ourselves. If that doesn’t shine a light on the state’s attitude towards us then nothing will.

Ensuring the Continued Health and Labor of the Slaves

Many prisoners in California have gone on a hunger strike to protest the deplorable conditions and despicable acts taking place in that state’s overcrowded prisons. Once again, proving that the state doesn’t believe you own yourself, a district court has ruled that the prisoners can be forcefully fed:

A district court judge in California has given state authorities permission to force-feed dozens of prisoners who have been on hunger strike for more than six weeks.

Judge Thelton Henderson said some of the prisoners who were near death could be fed, despite some signing requests not to be revived.

One may ask, why would the state want to forcefully feed prisoners? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to let them die, as they wish to do? Although I’m not privy to the state’s insider conversations I have an educated guess. The district court is probably concerned that starving prisoners are poor laborers for UNICOR and Corrections Corporation of America. What good is a slave laborer if they are so hungry they cannot work? In order to ensure the continued flow of goods from the prison-industrial complex to the state and general economy the district court felt it necessary to feed the protesting slaves. This day and age one cannot even die without receiving governmental permission.

Why Reforming Police Departments is Impossible

Many people believe that most police officers are good people and there are a handful of bad apples ruining it for everybody. I disagree with this sentiment because whenever I see people of good conscious trying to reform a police department or the field of law enforcement they get stomped down. Such an atmosphere is a breeding ground of psychopaths. Imagine if you had violent tendencies and a general apathy towards the well being of others. Would a job that offered you an outlet for your vicious nature along with practical immunity from the consequences of wrongdoing sound like the perfect position? Would you allow a person trying to stop you to meddle with your dream job?

Take the recent example of Sheriff Nick Finch. Mr. Finch, from my point of view, did a good thing by preventing a non-violent individual who was openly carrying a firearm in Florida (which is generally illegal) from being kidnapped and caged. There is no reason to cage people who aren’t performing acts of violent acts. It would do the field of law enforcement a great deal of good to cease arresting non-violent individuals. But this is the United Police States of America and a cop who isn’t being a psychopath must be destroyed. For doing the right thing Mr. Finch was arrested:

The events began when Floyd Eugene Parrish, a Florida resident, was arrested and detained by one of Finch’s deputies for carrying a firearm without a permit on March 8th, 2013. In the state of Florida, this lands you a 3rd degree felony charge. Finch released Parrish because, in his assessment, Parrish was not a violent criminal and was acting innocuously. Finch called the clerk and told her not to draw up arrest documents until he was there to assess the situation. Note, Parrish had not been officially booked into jail- only detained.

[…]

Rick Scott, Florida governor, stepped in and had Finch arrested. Governor Scott then appointed a new sheriff. Finch says he did not vote for the Governor. “I’m not a republican, or a democrat. Just a man who believes in the Constitution,” says Finch.

This is another example of the grant statist machinery removing a malfunctioning cog from itself. It’s also an explanation of why good cops are far and few between. When a cop actually steps up to do something positive they are crushed either by their fellow police officers or by high ups in the state. Men of good conscious are pushed out of the law enforcement field while men with evil desires are attracted to it. It’s not an instance of a few bad apples ruining it for everybody else, it’s an instance of a few good apples becoming diseased by the vast majority of infected apples.

The Detention of David Miranda

Anybody who has continued to follow the surveillance state fiasco that became prominent thanks to Glenn Greenwald has probably already heard that David Miranda, Mr. Greenwald’s partner, was detained for nine hours at Heathrow airport:

David Miranda, who lives with Glenn Greenwald, was returning from a trip to Berlin when he was stopped by officers at 8.05am and informed that he was to be questioned under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The controversial law, which applies only at airports, ports and border areas, allows officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals.

The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual. According to official figures, most examinations under schedule 7 – over 97% – last less than an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than six hours.

Considering the person who was detained and the length of time he was detained it’s pretty obvious what was going on. The state, embarrassed by the National Security Agency (NSA) slides that were published by Mr. Greenwald, has resorted to a tactic favored by tyrants throughout history: intimidation. What’s particularly funny is that the same state that wasn’t bashful about detaining Mr. Miranda (who, for us Americans, has a rather ironic last name) has still decided to “investigate” the matter:

Senior politicians and an independent reviewer have said police must explain why David Miranda was detained for nine hours at Heathrow Airport.

The explanation is quite simple. As enforcers for the same people demanding an explanation, the guards at Heathrow airport decided to send Mr. Greenwald a message. The message itself was quite simple, the state can get to the people Mr. Greenwald cares about the most. It’s the same tactic used by mafia henchmen in the movies. When somebody falls out of favor with the local mafia a few henchmen are dispatched to pick up that person’s children from school and drive them home. The parent understands that the mafia is letting him or her know that they could easily kill his or her children at any time. From there the parent can decide to fall into line with the mafia or risk having his or her children killed.

Detaining Mr. Miranda was a coward’s move, which are the only moves the state knows. I’m sure several higher ups in the British government ensured that Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Miranda were added to a watch list so they would be harassed whenever they traveled by air. After the target has been entered into the computer it is up to the ordinance, in this case airport security personnel, to hit its mark. The nice thing about this methodology is it allows politicians to feign innocence. They can claim to have no knowledge of the event, perform an “investigation” into the matter, and punish a handful of disposable soldiers.

Fed Threaten to Arrest Lavabit Operator for Shuttering His Business

Ladar Levison, the owner and operator of Lavabit, recently shutdown his service instead of complying with the surveillance state. Although he was legally barred from discussing the specifics of his situation it’s pretty clear he received a national security letter, which requires him to comply with federal demands and prohibits him from discussing anything related to the letter including the fact he received a letter. In all likelihood he was commanded to install a backdoor into his service so government snoops could spy on his customers, which convinced him that it was time to shutdown entirely. This story reeks of police state tactics but now that Lavabit is shutdown the story should be concluded, right? Wrong. As it turns out, Mr. Levison is being threatened with arrest even though he is no longer operating his service and, therefore, is unable to comply with any demands from federal snoops:

The owner of an encrypted email service used by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden said he has been threatened with criminal charges for refusing to comply with a secret surveillance order to turn over information about his customers.

“I could be arrested for this action,” Ladar Levison told NBC News about his decision to shut down his company, Lavabit LLC, in protest over a secret court order he had received from a federal court that is overseeing the investigation into Snowden.

[…]

Levison said he has been “threatened with arrest multiple times over the past six weeks,” but that he was making a stand on principle: “I think it’s important to point out that what prompted me to shut down my service wasn’t access to one person’s data. It was about protecting the privacy of all my users.”

What is the term for somebody who is forced to work a job even if they have no desire to do so? A slave. If the federal government is threatening to arrest people who shutter their businesses, regardless of those people’s personal reasons for doing so, then it is declaring everybody slaves. Anybody who believes America is the land of the free is deluded.

Congress Attempting to Crush Bitcoin

You have to give Congress credit, it has remained consistent at trying to prevent any notable societal advancements. Now that Bitcoin is becoming kind of a big thing Congress has decided it’s time to being the process of putting its boot on Bitcoin’s neck:

Bitcoin, the once-obscure virtual currency, is getting attention from the most mainstream of all institutions: Congress. The chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, Thomas Carper (D-Del.) and his Republican counterpart Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) have announced plans to begin probing the virtual currency and the regulatory regime that governs it.

The new inquiry was announced in a Monday letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. “Virtual currencies appear to be an important emerging area,” the senators wrote, arguing that the subject “demands a holistic and whole-government approach to understand and provide a sensible regulatory framework.” Similar letters were also sent to the Department of Justice, the Federal Reserve, Department of Treasury, the Securities and Exchanges Commission, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

“A holistic and whole-government approach” has to be one of the most meaningless statements ever made in the history of mankind. But I digress. Congress is attempting to do the only thing it knows how to do with a new technology, regulate it. Historically its ability to regulate has stemmed from its ability to identify individuals in charge of developing, maintaining, or administering new technologies and coercing them into submission. Bitcoin, being a completely decentralized network, has no such person. In fact the person credited with creating Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, is a pseudonym used by the developer(s).

I predict that Congress will implement numerous laws and regulations in an attempt to curtail Bitcoin’s expansion but those attempts at imposing order will accomplish nothing. Decentralized systems have traditionally been impossible for centralized forces to defeat. While Congress may pass laws making it illegal to use Bitcoin those laws will remain impotent because Bitcoin can be used in a mostly anonymous manner. In the end, Congress will find itself unable to deal with Bitcoin just as it has found itself unable to deal with any determined decentralized force.

Lavabit Shutdown and Silent Circle Shutters Its E-Mail Service

Lavabit, the e-mail host that gained recent popularity by being the go to host for Edward Snowden, has been forced to shutdown. By the looks of it the order to shutdown came from the glorious defender of freedom known as the United States government:

My Fellow Users,

I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I have decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know what’s going on–the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests.

What’s going to happen now? We’ve already started preparing the paperwork needed to continue to fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A favorable decision would allow me resurrect Lavabit as an American company.

This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.

Sincerely,
Ladar Levison
Owner and Operator, Lavabit LLC

Defending the constitution is expensive! Help us by donating to the Lavabit Legal Defense Fund here.

Since Mr. Levison wrote that he’s unable, for legal reasons, to discuss why he’s being forced to shutdown it’s likely that he either received a national security letter or the National Security Agency (NSA) demanded he created a backdoor in his service less he be harassed with legal charges for cause harm to national security.

As a preemptive move to avoid suffering the same fate, Silent Circle, another organization that attempts to provide means of secure communications, has shuttered its e-mail service:

However, we have reconsidered this position. We’ve been thinking about this for some time, whether it was a good idea at all. Yesterday, another secure email provider, Lavabit, shut down their system less they “be complicit in crimes against the American people.” We see the writing on the wall, and we have decided that it is best for us to shut down Silent Mail. We have not received subpoenas, warrants, security letters, or anything else by any government, and this is why we are acting now.

We’ve been debating this for weeks, and had changes planned starting next Monday. We’d considered phasing the service out, continuing service for existing customers, and a variety of other things up until today. It is always better to be safe than sorry, and with your safety we decided that in this case the worst decision is no decision.

Shutting down their e-mail service before receiving a national security letter or being coerced into installing a backdoor for the NSA is a smart move. At least Silent Circle is able to publicly discuss their reason for doing so, unlike Lavabit.

These shutdowns go to show how far this police state of a country has gone. An organization can’t even provide secure e-mail hosting without becoming a target of the state’s aggression. I can only hope Mr. Levison and the people at Silent Circle moves their operations to a country that respects a man’s privacy, such as Iceland, so they can continue offering services their customers want.

Solving One Problem at a Time

I must say, as Bill Gates gets older I find him more and more annoying. The man becomes more of a petty authoritarian ever day. In a recent interview with Bloomberg Business Week he was asked about Google’s plan to launch weather balloons to provide Internet connectivity to developing societies:

One of Google’s (GOOG) convictions is that bringing Internet connectivity to less-developed countries can lead to all sorts of secondary benefits. It has a project to float broadband transmitters on balloons. Can bringing Internet access to parts of the world that don’t have it help solve problems?

His answer?

When you’re dying of malaria, I suppose you’ll look up and see that balloon, and I’m not sure how it’ll help you. When a kid gets diarrhea, no, there’s no website that relieves that. Certainly I’m a huge believer in the digital revolution. And connecting up primary-health-care centers, connecting up schools, those are good things. But no, those are not, for the really low-income countries, unless you directly say we’re going to do something about malaria.

Google started out saying they were going to do a broad set of things. They hired Larry Brilliant, and they got fantastic publicity. And then they shut it all down. Now they’re just doing their core thing. Fine. But the actors who just do their core thing are not going to uplift the poor.

Apparently it’s impossible to solve multiple problems at once. The reason I referred to him as an authoritarian is because of his attitude that things can only be accomplished his way. In his opinion we must cure malaria before any other problems are solved in developing societies. He doesn’t consider the possibility that getting access to the collected knowledge of mankind may allow somebody in one of those developing societies, somebody who is used to solving large problems with few resources, may be able to come up with a more efficient way of solving the malaria problem than vaccinations.

There’s no reason multiple problems can’t be worked on simultaneously. Eradicating malaria and providing Internet connectivity can be done at the same time. In fact achieving one goal may help achieve the other.

As the saying goes, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. Just because the solution you’ve developed may work in the long run doesn’t mean it’s the only, or even best, solution.