Tag: Shut Up Slave

Exploiting Aaron Swartz’s Memory to Expand State Tyranny

After Aaron Swartz committed suicide several politicians claimed they would make an effort to reduce the penalties of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was the law being used to nail Swartz to the wall. I’m not surprised to find out that the politicians are planning on doing the exact opposite of what they promised:

So, you know all that talk about things like Aaron’s Law and how Congress needs to fix the CFAA? Apparently, the House Judiciary Committee has decided to raise a giant middle finger to folks who are concerned about abuses of the CFAA. Over the weekend, they began circulating a “draft” of a “cyber-security” bill that is so bad that it almost feels like the Judiciary Committee is doing it on purpose as a dig at online activists who have fought back against things like SOPA, CISPA and the CFAA. Rather than fix the CFAA, it expands it. Rather than rein in the worst parts of the bill, it makes them worse. And, from what we’ve heard, the goal is to try to push this through quickly, with a big effort underway for a “cyberweek” in the middle of April that will force through a bunch of related bills. You can see the draft of the bill here (or embedded below. Let’s go through some of the pieces.

Exploiting the dead to push an agenda is nothing unusual for statists, in fact it’s their standard mode of operation. It’s unfortunate that this is the outcome of Swartz’s death, but we need not worry for there are solutions to state’s encroachment on the Internet.

State Surveillance is the Problem, Crypto-Anarchism is the Solution

It’s a new day, which means the state must be planning to expand its surveillance system:

The U.S. government is expanding a cybersecurity program that scans Internet traffic headed into and out of defense contractors to include far more of the country’s private, civilian-run infrastructure.

As a result, more private sector employees than ever before, including those at big banks, utilities and key transportation companies, will have their emails and Web surfing scanned as a precaution against cyber attacks.

The state can’t help but expand its automated surveillance capabilities as automated surveillance systems allow the state to keep more of its stolen wealth for itself. Needless to say we’re not going to see a reduction in the amount of spying the state does on us but we can avoid Big Brother’s gaze. It really is time to start participating in crypto-anarchism. Encrypting e-mail, using anonymizers, accessing information through location hidden services, and performing transactions with crypto-currencies should be standard practice. In fact parents should be teaching their children how to use these technologies at an early age (because we know the state’s indoctrination centers won’t). If you don’t know how to use these technologies you should learn.

New York Looking to Prohibit Children from Gun Shows

New York is doing its best to win the Most Tyrannical Fiefdom in the United States award. Unfortunately for its government that award doesn’t exist so all of their efforts are for naught. After prohibiting magazines that hold more than seven rounds, banning rifles that have one esthetic feature from a list of cool esthetic features, and setting up a hotline for people to turn over their gun owning neighbors to the Stasi the politicians are looking to prohibit children from attending gun shows:

A bill just introduced in the state Assembly would bar children younger than 12 from entering a gun show in New York. The bill was put forward by Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, who hails from that trackless wilderness and sportsmen’s paradise known as Manhattan.

“Children should be learning to read and write, not to shoot a firearm,” Rosenthal says in a statement, as if the two skills were mutually exclusive. “Today in New York State, however, a child of any age can gain unfettered access to gun shows. We as a society have placed reasonable restrictions on the ages at which children may watch violent films” — clearly, Rosenthal does not have premium cable — “or play video games that involve hyper-real gunplay; however, there are no age limits on gun shows. My bill will change that.”

Children should be learning what they want to learn. When I was a kid (damn I sound old saying that) I was learning to read, write, repair computers, and shoot firearms. You know what? I can do three of those four things very well and my writing is as deplorable as most (although, I admit, it’s pretty shitty). I’m not sure where Rosenthal gets off saying that our society has placed restrictions on the ages at which children can watch violent films, the Motion Picture Association of American (MPAA) ratings are voluntarily followed by movie theaters, they are not enforced by law. There are also no laws preventing children from playing video games, in fact I played a lot of violent video games when I was a child. Did I mention that I attended a few gun shows? I basically did everything that Rosenthal said I couldn’t.

I can tell Rosenthal one thing, if I ever have a child and want to take him or her to a gun show no bureaucrat sitting in a marble building or costume-clad thug is going to stop me.

Cuomo Claims to Push for Lighter Firearm Restrictions, Ends Up Lying Through His Teeth

After banning magazines that can hold more than seven rounds and offering rewards to individuals willing to turn their neighbors in to the stasi, Cuomo is now saying that he will push to reduce the restrictions he signed into law. I’m not sure what his definition of restriction is but it differs vastly from my own:

The gun-control law, approved in January, banned the sale of magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. But, Mr. Cuomo said Wednesday, seven-round magazines are not widely manufactured. And, although the new gun law provided an exemption for the use of 10-round magazines at firing ranges and competitions, it did not provide a legal way for gun owners to purchase such magazines.

As a result, he said, he and legislative leaders were negotiating language that would continue to allow the sale of magazines holding up to 10 rounds, but still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those magazines.

“There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine,” Mr. Cuomo said at a news conference. “That doesn’t exist. So you really have no practical option.”

How does legalizing the sale of 10-round magazines but still prohibiting storing more than seven rounds in it a lesser restriction? You can buy the magazine but if you load more than seven rounds in it you will still find yourself in a cage (or dead if you don’t go quietly with the costume-clad thug send to kidnap you). I’m guessing Cuomo thinks gun owners should get down on their knees and kiss his ass in the hopes of getting a very minor liberty back. The only correct response is to give him a swift kick in the ass and making sure the same mistake isn’t repeated by electing another person to the position of governor (seriously, you don’t need or want rulers because they’ll just screw you over).

Obama Threatening Iran

Over the last four years Obama has proved to be quite the war monger. Besides continuing Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama has been using his personal arsenal of drones to bomb people all around the Middle East, including two American citizens. As his term continues it is becoming more apparent that Obama wants to instigate a war with Iran. During a speech, supposedly meant for the Iranian people, Obama first blamed Iran for current international tensions:

In a video to the Iranian people, Mr Obama urged Iran to take “immediate and meaningful steps” to reduce tension with the international community.

I’m not sure how Iran is supposed to reduce tensions with the “international community” when the “international community” is the one who placed and is enforcing sanctions (an act of war) on Iran, continues to threaten Iran, and has made it impossible for Iran to satisfy demands because the demands aren’t concretely defined:

“To date, however, they have been unable to convince the international community that their nuclear activities are solely for peaceful purposes.

“Now is the time for the Iranian government to take immediate and meaningful steps to reduce tensions and work toward an enduring, long-term settlement of the nuclear issue.”‘

Perhaps it would help if the “international community” would tell the Iranian state what it needed to do to satisfy them. I continue hearing murmurs about Iran failing to ease the concerns of outside countries but nobody has really stated what Iran can do to ease those concerns. Looking at the situation objectively it appears that the “international community” wants war and is therefore ensuring Iran cannot satisfy their needs. We know that the “international community” has been at odds with Iran ever since Iran threw out the puppet government established by the British and United States in 1953. At this rate Obama will have the United States embroiled in yet another war, which is rather ironic because he was whisked into power, in part, by support from the anti-war movement.

Aaron Swartz’s Lawyer Files Misconduct Complaint

In the ongoing Aaron Swartz case a misconduct complaint has been filed regarding the state’s absolutely barbaric behavior in its pursuit of nailing Swartz to the wall:

The complaint letter [PDF], which is dated January 28 but was just published this afternoon by The Huffington Post, accuses Heymann of withholding key evidence, as well as abusive behavior related to plea bargaining. The letter was sent to the Office of Professional Responsibility, a part of the Department of Justice tasked with overseeing its lawyers.

Specifically, Peters says that Heymann withheld a key e-mail until after a hearing in which it would have been useful. The e-mail “demonstrated that the Secret Service both had effective control over Mr. Swartz’s electronic devices and knew it needed to obtain a search warrant,” as of January 2011, according to Peters. That contradicted other government testimony about delays in searching Swartz’s devices. Heymann thus violated his “duty of candor to the court,” wrote Peters.

The plea bargaining abuse really lends precedence to the belief that the state was seeking revenge on Aaron Swartz for his perpetration of the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) incident. Not only was the state seeking insane charges but they also demanded cage time “>in order to justify those charges. I’m sure this case is going to get more interesting but no result will really matter since Swartz is no longer with us.

You Can’t Touch This

Many people have been demanding that the state prosecute corrupt bankers. The prospects of that happening are almost zero if Eric Holder has anything to say about it:

Eric Holder made this rather startling confession in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, The Hill reports. It could be a key moment in the debate over whether to do something about the size and complexity of our biggest banks, which have only gotten bigger and more systemically important since the financial crisis.

“I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,” Holder said, according to The Hill. “And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.”

This statement can really be taken two ways. Either the state is so powerless and ineffective that they are unable to enforce the law or the banks and the state are on the same team. I’m going with the latter but many people seem to believe the former. One thing is certain, those who were fucked by the banks aren’t going to get justice.

Another Article Claiming Gun Owners are Terrorists

Another day, another mainstream media report trying to label gun owners as terrorists:

There are, in increasingly frightening numbers, cells of angry men in the United States preparing for combat with the U.S. government. They are usually heavily armed, blinded by an intractable hatred, often motivated by religious zeal.

They’re not jihadists. They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists.

No, the greatest danger to the lives of American is the United States government. Considering the Attorney General stated that it’s legal to murder American citizens on United States soil with drones I don’t think there is any way to claim that those who oppose the state are a real danger. I do lover this excerpt:

Patriot groups are motivated by a host of anti-government attitudes, but their primary focus is guns. They are convinced that the government is out to seize their weapons, even though most legislation is focused on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or restricting the types of weapons that can be sold.

I would say the “patriot” movement’s primary focus is to make the United States government abide by the Constitution, which is why I’m not part of the movement (I want to abolish the government entirely). What the Los Angeles Times is trying to do with that statement is isolate gun owners from the general populace, divide them from the large group so they can be easily conquered. The irony, of course, is that the Los Angeles Times is trying to make gun owners look dangerous while their city’s police department shoots up random trucks and burns a man down instead of following due process. Denizens of Los Angeles should be well aware of the fact that the state is far more dangerous than independent gun owners.

On the upside, at least they’re not blaming the anarchists this time.

LAPD Refuse to Replace Truck They Wrongly Shot Up

During the Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPD) hunter for Christopher Dorner they decided to shoot up random vehicles. Apparently the LAPD promised to replace the truck (how gracious of them). As it turns out what they really meant was that the truck would be replaced with a great number of strings attached:

The two newspaper delivery women who were shot at during the manhunt for Christopher Dorner will not be getting a new replacement truck as promised by the LAPD, according to their attorney Glen Jonas.

It has been more than a month since LAPD Chief Charlie Beck promised the truck to Emma Hernandez, 71, and her daughter, Margie Carranza, who had been working in Torrance, Calif. before dawn on Feb. 7.

Police said it was a “case of mistaken identity” that prompted officers to open fire on the women. Beck later apologized and promised to replace their truck, now riddled with bullet holes.

According to Jonas, LAPD and Galpin Ford wanted his clients to pose for a photo opportunity and pay income tax on the truck. The women no longer want the truck after they were told they needed to fill out a 1099 form for the donation, Jonas said Monday.

“You tried to murder the woman, now you’re telling her she can’t have a four-wheel drive, you’re telling her she can’t sell it and you’ve got to be taxed on it?” Jonas said. “How would anyone react to that?”

That’s cold. First the LAPD shoots their truck up because they failed to actually establish the identifies of the occupants and then they demand that the owners of the shot up truck participate in propaganda and pay income tax on the replacement. The officers involved in the shooting should be treated to the cages they like to inflict on the populace.

The New York Times Admits They Can’t be Relied Upon

I think the New York Times did an excellent job admitting that they cannot be relied upon for actual journalism:

In his statement to the military court, Manning said that before he fell in with the antisecrecy guerrillas at WikiLeaks, he tried to deliver his trove of stolen documents to The Washington Post and The New York Times. At The Post, he was put off when a reporter told him that before she could commit to anything she’d have to get a senior editor involved. At The Times, Manning said, he left a message on voice mail but never got a call back. It’s puzzling to me that a skilled techie capable of managing one of the most monumental leaks ever couldn’t figure out how to get an e-mail or phone message to an editor or a reporter at The Times, a feat scores of readers manage every day.

But what if he had? What if he had succeeded in delivering his pilfered documents to The Times? What would be different, for Manning and the rest of us?

First of all, I can say with some confidence that The Times would have done exactly what it did with the archive when it was supplied to us via WikiLeaks: assigned journalists to search for material of genuine public interest, taken pains to omit information that might get troops in the field or innocent informants killed, and published our reports with a flourish. The documents would have made news — big news.

Emphasis mine. In that paragraph the New York Times basically admitted that it would have edited the received documents instead of publishing them in their entirety. As one of my friends in the National Guard said, “As though msm [mainstream media] really knows what kind of info could put troops at risk? Remember how great Geraldo’s grasp of operational security was?” There is no way for journalists to know what information might be a danger to troops in the field or could put the lives of informants at risk. For that matter there is no way for a journalist to know what material would be of genuine public interest. This demonstrates the reason why the old media is suffering. WikiLeaks puts up all the information they receive and people are free to sift through it and decide what is and isn’t of interest to them. In fact this is how the Internet works, everybody puts up what information they want and everybody else can read what interests them.

Organizations such as the New York Times either believe that they know what is best for you or that you’re too stupid to decide what information is of interest to you. If I were in charge of the New York Times I’d make all received information publicly available, while anonymizing sources that didn’t want to be identified, and allow the readers to decide if they want to read the curated story or sift through the raw information themselves.