Slashdot Mirror
Russian Snared By The FBI Sentenced To 3 Years
Mark Cantrell writes "Vasiliy Gorshkov, one of two Russian crackers who were arrested in November 2000 after the FBI broke into their computer systems were sentenced Friday. Taking pity on Gorshkov's family, they sentenced Gorshkov to 3 years in prison and a fine of nearly $700,000 USD. They also mention how a U.S. judge found that the FBI wasn't breaking any laws in breaking into a Russian computer system, despite the fact that they were breaking a Russian law doing so. So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia."
C'mon guys.
Russians are cool.
I've never net one I didn't like.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Gotta love how US foreign policy rears it's ugly head again...
Just how much was the judge paid by the Bush campaign to keep things towing the party line?
It would also be interesting to see the US convict a muslim for the exact same crime. The sh!t would hit the fan then, eh?
user@host$ diff
It seems like these kind of things happen all the time and all we ever do is talk about how bad it is. We talk about abstract concepts like freedom and liberty, but what do we do to put those things into action? This is it, folks. Today is the first day of the rest of your life. Stand up and say something. I'll see you later, I have a letter to write.
Is it any wonder why the rest of the world sees us as arrogant? We just keep acting like our laws are the only ones that are important. At least we are consistent since we are doing the same thing to the UN Security council.
Why has Russia been so subdued in the media lately? Is it really because they have been broken by the US, or is something deeper going on?
US policy makers know some answers, but aren't talking. People in various circles of thought (re: conspiracy) know things, but don't have proof, per se.
This whole Iraq issue is a big smokescreen. Russia is no longer important. The real issue the American public should be scared of is the recent EU submission by the US, that will not only give more power to the US, but in the long run, make it near to impossible for other countries to counter.
Scary.
user@host$ diff
Advice: Pick your battles.
Gorshkov was convicted a year ago on 20 counts of computer crimes, fraud and conspiracy after being accused of helping Alexey Ivanov steal credit card numbers from U.S. online banks, e-commerce companies and Internet service providers, the U.S. Attorney's office in Seattle said.
Let the Russian government and foreign policy pundits work this one out. This is nothing like the Skylarov case. These were real criminals committing real crimes.
I hate the government as much as the next guy, but give me a break!
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
do as we say, not as we do
Here, you have government espionage going on from within the US, against someone in Russia. If they break any laws, tough shit, they're espionage. It's not like Russia can do anything about it, especially since they would like to remain a favored American trading partner.
Meanwhile, if you are a private American citizen, break some Russian laws over here, then fly to Moscow, they'd probably arrest you a la Sklyarov. Dmitry Sklyarov did the reverse: he broke American laws in Russia, then entered America's borders, and was arrested.
International law has always been spotty on these matters, and the Internet has aggravated the situation even worse. But it's hard to draw a parallel between Sklyarov did and what the FBI did, because they are very different circumstances.
Judges aren't stupid. If you're going to say something as bold as that, please provide a link to a court ruling where the reasons for the decision are made. With such a wording, and no support, the statement comes off as "Yankee judges think we have the right to hack into any computer system in the world 'cause we own the Internet," which is no doubt the intention.
Such a statement may very well be true, but please provide a link to where the Judge explains himself. He's probably a lot smarter than most of us. Even without beeing tech-saavy any judge would quickly pick up on the implications behind being able to break in to foreign systems without impunity.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
"Taking pity on Gorshkov's family, they sentenced Gorshkov to 3 years in prison and a fine of nearly $700,000 USD"
With pity like this, who needs enemies?
Ah, once again, the principle of Enforceable Jurisdiction has come into play.
It would be more accurate to say: It's not illegal to break into any system, do any kind of damage, and arrest using entrapment, as long as you're an agent of U.S. law enforcement, since any judge that doesn't support you 100% can later be labeled a "Communist", uh... "Terrorist" sympathizer...
I am alone, yet I also surf the universal backwash of undifferentiated Being, which is LOVE.
The bureau created a fake company, called "Invita," and asked the Russians to come to Seattle for job interviews. The men were asked to prove their skills and given permission to scan an Invita computer network for vulnerabilities. The computers they used had software on them that logged every keystroke and FBI agents were able to later grab the men's passwords and download evidence off their computer network in Russia.
Interesting that they used human intelligence [HUMINT] to gain the passwords. Once they had the passwords, however, I wonder if they got [or needed] a warrant to search the Russian network.
If an agent were to lift a key, make a wax impression of it, return the key, and use the wax impression to make a duplicate of the key, it seems like he would still need a warrant before he could enter the door [and the premises behind it] that the key unlocked.
PS: For all you girlie-boyz with your panties tied up in knots, THESE RUSSKIES WERE STEALING CREDIT CARD NUMBERS!!! THEY ARE FELONS, NOT HEROES!!!
Run for Congress.
How did the FBI catch this guy? I mean, actually catch him? Extradition? If so, then the Russian government agreed to allow him to be tried in the US.
If the Russian government felt that the FBI's crimes weren't very much of a big deal.
Besides Russia isn't exactly a bastion of civil liberties anyway, I'm willing to bet that Russian law enforcement breaks their own laws all the time.
What the FBI did may have been technicaly illigal, but you have to consider motives and damage as well. Buzz Aldrin didn't get prosicuted when he punched that moon-hoax guy in the face and he shouldn't have been.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Well... isn't everyone in the world an American and speaks English too instead of that hard-to-understand Mexican? I mean, Russia's our partner in the War Against Terror!
Karma whorin' since 1999
Gorshkov was convicted a year ago on 20 counts of computer crimes, fraud and conspiracy after being accused of helping Alexey Ivanov steal credit card numbers from U.S. online banks, e-commerce companies and Internet service providers, the U.S. Attorney's office in Seattle said.
Wait, so he ISN'T an innocent victim? Slashdot almost had me confused there for a second. Let's try looking at the big picture, shall we?
Is your browser retarded?
Russia is now America's jurisdiction, years ago the FBI opened a Moscow branch
the more you know
The Institute of Internet Security recently created in Moscow, considering the importance of the new methods used on arresting the two Chelyabinsk hackers, invites the FBI investigators to participate on the conference "International Investigations on Cyberspace". Submission of thesis and demonstration of the new practices will be highly accepted. There should be mentioned that, Russian investigators are eager to learn and apply the new methods due to the new conditions they face on cyberspace and will be very happy to see their american colleagues...
the FBI has some time to crack into al Qaeda computers, too. After all, if they fail to protect U.S. comsumers from terrorism, who's goin' to buy all the high-tech junk.
On the other hand, the FBI is a national agency, and they were retaliating for a previous offense, while the Russian hackers they spoke of were individuals, were not affiliated with any government agency of any nation, and therefore were not 'exempt' from any of these imposed laws. (whatever sense that made)
"apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia."
You complain about the discipling of the Russian hackers, yet call for the government officials to be disciplined for the same thing ?
The only people who can say that the government officials broke the law is the Russian judicial system. If they think the US broke their laws, they should go and prosecute them.
The USA trying to push it's own agenda on the world, enforcing their laws and beliefs on other countries and cultures, makes me sick. If there is any hope for the USA or the rest of the world, America must be restrained from trying to enforce its own laws in other countries. Trade embargoes are needed against the USA for such disgusting practices.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
Make bucket loads of cash (not easy but on par with getting elected to congress) and contribute to candidates of both parties making sure they know and intend to push your agenda.
1> Adobe does business in Russia.
2> Adobe is a US company.
3> Therefore, Adobe is a US interest.
4> The ebook cracking software was being distributed worldwide, but specifically, back in the US.
The judge found, therefore, that the FBI had the right to investigate the Russian company, to build up evidence against the company to show to the Russians for possible extradition. (Nice link on the judges decision, btw)
So even THEN, the US couldn't touch him until he came to the US.
I realize everyone wants to bash the US, and I don't care if you want to, but use some common sense. If he had ordered the killings of US citizens, by hiring hitmen in the US, the US would be perfectly justified in hacking into the guys records, and arresting him if he arrived on US soil. The same thing the Russians would do if the roles were reversed.
While software cracking and murder are not on the same level, the judicial principle is the same.
"They also mention how a U.S. judge found that the FBI wasn't breaking any laws in breaking into a Russian computer system, despite the fact that they were breaking a Russian law doing so. So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia.""
Duh. What planet has this person lived on for the last 50 years, that they are shocked by such hipocrisy from the US government? President Bush straight up wants to enforce international law while also simulataneously breaking it and insisting that he or his minions not be prosecuted under it for doing so, all in the name of enforcing it.
It makes me mad that it takes something like one person going to prison unjustly to open peoples eyes, while the mass starvations of women and children, people whom have never harmed the U.S., are occuring for a petty dictator that the U.S. themselves built up and made strong in the first place.
Hipocrites. One and all, including myself, that is what we Americans are. And liars, dishonorable, with no respect for other peoples or nations. I mean, we can say nice things about how we supposedly respect others, but OUR deeds speak louder than words.
Show me an effect without cause and then I'll believe in chaos.
Having said that, it is a pity that cases like this cannot be tried in the International Criminal Court, where the issue of legitimate and illegitimate means of gathering evidence could be impartially considered.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
So now it's public, go to the USA and you give the FBI a grant to (without your knowledge) copy the key to your house, travel to your country, and use the copy of your key to gain access to your home! (even that they did it by "merely" electronic means)
... grand theft at least, a declaration of war at worst. Either way it's an illegal way of gaining entry into the country, and the low-life FBI agents in question could probably be sentenced to Siberia or worse (with all right IMO).
Correct me if I'm right, but in the USA this is trespassing, allowing the owner of the property to shoot-on-sight any trespassers. To do this to another nation would be
Who in the name of Goat have given the FBI rights to raid homes, companies, houses, data, information or whatever in OTHER COUNTRIES?!
You USians REALLY have to put restraints on your agencies before they become the WORLDs Stasi, and I'm sure we ALL don't want that to happen.
Sometimes things aren't so "the-USA-is-really-bad" as Slashdot says they are (and sometimes they are, and sometimes they're probably worse).
Of course, if we use Law and Order as our legal source (and, though IANAL, I've watched a lot of L&O), then Jack McCoy would say that we have a responsibility to prosecute criminals when their own countries won't, and that as long as an element of the crime was taking place within jurisdiction of the court, the court should have prosecutorial powers. But in the episode where Jack and Carmichael were outside of the Supreme Court and the decision comes out, after attempting to prosecute a foreign diplomat for murder, they (frustratingly) don't tell us what the decision is. D'oh!
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
We kicked your asses 200+ years ago and will do it again if necessary (see "Afghanistan" or "Iraq" for more details)
You obviously haven't covered that yet in your 3rd grade history class. Or you didn't pay attention. Or both.
They would have gotten
Away with it if Boris
Badenov had helped
The article here said:
The subtle yet immensly pertinent difference has been completely lost to everyone posting here. Now it's a complete freebie for anyone wanting to up their karma. All you have to say is, "No wonder everyone thinks Americans are jerks."
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Hail to whoever has the bigger guns.
Imagine the Creator as a stand up commedian - and at once the world becomes explicable. -Mencken
It all depends on whos view you use. It was OK for the Russians to break US law in russia, from the russians point of view. It was ok for the US to break Russian law from the US, from the point of view of the US. However, I would venture to say, It is wrong for the US to break Russian law from the US , from the russians point of view. AND it is wrong for Russians to break US from russia, from the US point of view.
Now with that all said and done, it is the side with the power to do something about the situation that makes the change. Obviously the russian gov doesn't care, or (most likly) can't much about the situation of the FBI breaking their laws. The US, however, does care about the russians breaking US laws in Russian, and can and HAS done something about it.
I don't agree with the US.
Can't compare these jokers to Dmitri Skylarov. Skylarov was doing something that's allowed by Russian law, and frankly shouldn't be illegal in America. These jokers were running credit card scams which aren't allowed at all, no matter where you go.
The Russians objected to the FBI's means of gathering the evidence, not to the prosecution for the crimes themselves. The FBI "hacked" the computers by luring the Russians to the USA under the guise of a job interview, and installing keylogging software on their PC's as they were invited to hack a virtual network that the FBI set up. Using the keylogging software, the FBI was able to get their passwords, and use it to remotely access their computers in Russia. Using this evidence, they were extradited to the USA for prosecution.
What they did could be called Entrapment, and it could be called Espionage. But I still have to laugh that the l337 h4xx0rz from Russia were dumb enough to allow it to happen. They were running unsecured boxes at home, and for some unearthly reason decided to remotely access those boxes while partaking in an experiment to hack a virtual network in Seattle. Idiots. They get no sympathy at all from me.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
You know what I've heard works really well. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper about the issue. Clip the whole letters page (so you have both the identity of the paper and the date of issue) and highlite your letter then send it and a professional letter version to your congressman. They supposably take it more seriously if they know a lot of people have read the letter.
We are NOT "invading" Iraq because they've invading countries without UN approval. We are considering military strikes against them because they are building weapons of mass destruction. As a side note, the U.S. does have the power (given by the U.N.) to act alone in military campaigns.
close your eyes,
think cesar and the roman empire,
open your eyes
and watch america.
I think the article doesn't tell the whole story:
the judge agreed that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions.
I suspect that the judge's opinion was more like this:
"It is not my duty as a federal judge in the U.S. to enforce Russian law."
So it's not an issue for the courts, but for diplomacy. "I'll respect your laws if you respect mine."
We need more uniform treatment of these legal matters in a networked world. It shouldn't be ok for one nation to create laws that protect criminals in their jurisdiction, but you have to be careful with this. If the legal justification of the FBIs actions is say, the DMCA, it's really not reasonable to extend that to every nation. Reasonable legislatures can handle this issue differently, and the FBI should use the Russian standard for actions taken in their country.
How is it right for a US judge to decide which foreign laws do and don't apply to the FBI in a foreign country? This requires an international framework, and there is no way around that. Anything else suggests that US laws and US citizens are above everyone else. Get a grip, your in a world with many voices and they need to be respected.
This is not something that writing your congressman can fix.
The problem is in the American feeling of superiority that emanates from all walks of life.
When America and its citizens realize that they are not the only important people in the world, things WILL change.
If this isn't realized soon, then no one should feel sorry for America when shit happens to her.
"So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia."
"Apparently?" You are just realizing this?
The US is preparing to invade a sovereign nation -- advertising the fact at the top of its lungs for months now -- in a war that will add significantly to the over 500,000 Iraqi civilians murdered by its bombing and sanctions over the past decade.
With two centuries of rampaging about the globe doing whatever wherever it wishes, did you expect a little trifle like the privacy rights of Russian hackers to matter to the US?
Something's gone wrong with our society. Rule of law vs political influence and money. I'm still coming to grips with the insurance companies and radar gun manufacturers using law enforcement as profit centers.
Life for The average guy is really starting to be faced with the outcomes of all the various dirty tricks that are shaping society. Still flooding the country with the H1B workers despite so many of us being unable to find work.
There's some cold hearted motherfuckers in this world, how have they gained so much control over our lives?
that sucks that they are unjust, FBI should have been judged also for breaking laws!
Tho that does not mean that russian guy ain't quilty as charged and prolly got what he deserved.
The U.N. decree also says that a country has the right to build weapons to protect herself. Damn Anonymous Coward! I Pity the Fool!
I think it would be great if FBI agents who set foot on Russian soil get thrown in jail for cracking. I mean, there is no question they're guilty; they confessed. Off to Siberia with them!
we all know america sucks, what do you expect?
If we lived under the shariah laws of allah this kind of stuff would never happen!
the USA is so hated in the world. We tell others not to hurt us, while we do the same at will. We have not learned a thing from 9/11. :)
Think of the children!
So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia
Yep. There's no American law against breaking Russian laws. In fact, there's no American law against violating non-American citizens rights that Americans would be guaranteed in the constitution. If you're not an American citizen and you are arrested in the United States, you aren't guaranteed a jury of your peers, etc. Usually the punishment is extradition, but when no country will take you back, you get to rot in American prison without trial for the rest of your life. (Sadly, 60 minutes doesn't post old stories on the internet, so I can't put up a link for more information.)
Quite frankly, I have zero sympathy for this guy. He assists in stealing millions of dollars, credit-card fraud, etc. He's just as bad as the executives of Enron and Global Crossings (i.e., Gary Wennig). His actions cost people their life savings.
So, quite frankly, I feel little pity for him.
But there are important issues of Sovereignty that arise here, as well as other human rights issues.
The person of one nation should be subject ONLY to that nations laws. If he does nothing illegal by that nation's laws, he should not be arrested in another nation he visited simply because he did something in his homeland which violated that nations laws. However, when a law violated was one which was common between the two nations, then it does make slightly more sense (to be explained and extrapolated on earlier).
Consider if China can arrest a US visitor who visits China because that visitor violated Chinese law while in the US. Lets say that the visitor had more than one child, or criticized the Chinese government online, while in the US. Its would be outrageous for the Chinese government to arrest that person; and, if they did, the US government would undoubtedly protest adamently. We wouldn't tolerate that crap. Firstly, this constitutes what is effectively analagous to RETROACTIVE application of the law; it is unconsciable to punish someone for violating a law which they knew not existed and had no obligation to obey in another country.
There are certain *narrow* cases where international law should allow one nation to arrest the citizens of another while visiting: only in cases where the law that foreigner broke were common to both nations. If a person in Russia arranges for a murder to be committed in the US and travels to the US, we should have the right to arrest him, because what he did is illegal both in the US and in Russia. However, in such cases where nation A arrests a citizen of nation B, that citizen must be trialed by the laws of nation B.
Thus, Gorshkov very well can be arrested in the US. However, he should be trialed in accord with Russian law, not US law, for good or bad. This means that he gets the same rights (or lack thereeof) that he would get in Russia if he were accused of the same crime, and shall face the same punishment as he'd face in Russia.
But if a Russian citizen like Skylarov breaks US law while in Russia, and its an activity that the laws of both nations to not ban, then the US shouldn't have authority to trial that person in the US. We should, however, have the right to hold him a reasonable period of time to interrogate him and learn anything we can to prevent such activities in the future (i.e., if he's a member of a mafia ring), and we should have the right to exile him from coming or returning to the US. If he returns, the punishment should be whatever it is we do to those exiled who return.
This is all very simple and obviously common sense. Apparently, the US government doesn't get it. A government only has sovereignty over its own nation. The US has no sovereignty over what goes on in Russia or anyplace else in the world. We certainly wouldn't want our citizens travelling to China to be arrested and trialed by Chinese law. There's also very simple human rights issues at stake. It is unreasonable (and in some cases impossible) to ask any one person to obey the laws of several different nations at once, while only residing in one. It is a human rights violation to trial someone under a law which he had no obligation to find out existed (i.e., Russians have no obligation to know US law).
On a similar vein, a person (while in a nation) should obey the laws of that nation, and the laws of his homeland shall not follow him to other nations. That would be asking someone to obey the laws of two nations at once, something which is unreasonable and in some cases impossible. However, if someone violates a law in one nation and there's no corresponding law in his homeland, he should be deported (exiled) and sent back to his homeland. We wouldn't want a US citizen being put in jail for life in China because while in China he said something critical of the Chinese government.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Okay, so i hear a lot of rants, but none of this really seems to get to the point. People in America complain all the time about how this is not fair or that is unjust, but the truth is that we elect our government and if we have a bone to pick then we need to elect new people. Of course America is taking over the world, we are richer and militarily more mighty than most of it, thats the way things have worked throughout history. The united states not respecting other countries laws doesn't surprise me, as we so infrequently respect our own laws, and we are basically taking over the world, hence applying our own (eminently breakable) laws everywhere we feel we can. The more powerful we get, the more places we feel we have control over, and the more like the united states they become, law breaking law enforcement and all. If it doesn't stop (and I doubt seriously anyone really will stop it) in twenty years the united states will be the country and the rest of the world will be the vacation spot that the united states owns...
It's the "on-line banks, e-commerce companies and Internet service providers" that are putting their customers at risk through shoddy security. We can spend billions on arresting "cyber criminal" and "hackers", if those companies don't get their systems to be secure, it just won't end.
There is no reason for any bank or company to leave their systems in a state that allows a "hacker" to break into them--making systems secure against break-ins from the outside is not costly. Failing to protect against outside break-ins is negligent and should subject the company to civil and possibly criminal liability. Companies should not be able to shrug off poor security with a simple "oops", and the tax payer should not have to foot the bill to have the police and legal system solve a problem that is much more easily and cheaply prevented before it ever occurs.
So it's ok to invade US, because we have
weapons of mass destruction too, right?
Considered harmful.
Maybe the congress critters would take our crys for rights more seriously if so many of us didn't run around with tin foil hats.
Trade Embargoes against the US.. Thats the funniest thing I have heard in awhile... You do realize that we have deficit trade with most foriegn countryies... That means we buy more of your stuff than you buy of our stuff... So guess who looses money if you stop trading with us..... YOU DO... Stopping trading with the US hurts the country that stopped trading with us ALOT More than it hurts us... We are the biggest market to sell goods to in the world.. (as far as buying power) No one is going to want to stop selling stuff here to make a political point.. They would be screwing over thier own companies..
And yes, I want the US to enforce US law as much as possible on anyone who acts to harm any American in any way. Why shouldn't I?
The US government has the right and even the responsibility to act in the National Interest, just like every other government. Duh!
To you critics of the US: demonstrate to me even one time when your government acted beyond it's own National Interest - and following the US lead doesn't count. Here, I'll give you some US examples to demonstrate what I'm talking about: WWI, WWII, and the League Of Nations/UN.
BTW: To you critics of the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy: where were you when Clinton was Wagging the Dog in Serbian; bombing Libia; bombing Iraq? That latest is especially hideous; occuring purely as a distraction from the Impeachment, it made weapon inspections impossible, and thereby guaranteed the continuation of the 10 year embargo which has produced so much suffering and death among the people of Iraq. And before you Bush-haters try to pin that on Bush the Elder - no one ever imagined that the Bush administration would be followed by one so cowardly and heartless as to ignore the people of Iraq and their plight for the next eight years!
There are plenty of reasons to critisize US foreign policy, but the truth is that the situation we are in is the accumulation of many years of mistakes. Personally, I think the US failed to adapt to its new role as sole remaining superpower. As such, we need to be, and be seen to be, as even-handed with the rest of the world as possible. We did become more even-handed in Asia, but barely did so in Central Europe, and have actually become worse than ever in the Middle East.
Whatever. At least Bush is focused more on addressing the problems and less on pawing the help.
"Lord, grant that I may always be right, for Thou knowest that I am hard to turn" -- A Scots-Irish prayer
A better analogy to above would be
1) you speak out against the chinese.
2) the chinese break into our computers and then trick you to come to their country.
3) Once there, the capture you and execute you. 4) Finally, they charge your family for the bullet.
that is their laws being applied against you (a foreign citizen) and they then break their own laws (perhaps thing that they would not do in their own country) to get at you.
I would suspect that you will agree that this is not a good idea anymore(assuming that you are not dep).
One last thought. The more that we pull off these stunts, the higher the likehood of this happening to us. Bush is setting up future Americans to be burned at the stakes.
So it's ok to invade US, because we have
weapons of mass destruction too, right?
According to the US politicians, it would seem so. Since the USA is now entitled to invade any foreign state if any member of its population didn't follow native law, it would be obvious that vice versa is also allowed.
They were probably *going* to murd^H^H^H^Hexecute him.
Sad but true.
Thanks Bill, you left us defenseless. You must be laughing all the way to bank. Hackers are not going to stop because of this type of FBI operation. In fact, by ignoring the root of the problem, they guarantee it will continue. Real professional, huh. Now, if they went after the greed jerks who defrauded us with that lame excuse for an OS, we wouldn't have problems like this. So, I ask you, where is justice in America. I tell you, it's in the back pockets of the wealthy. IMHO, America's worst traitors are the wealthy who have sold this country out for personal affluence.
... oh, you must mean a Foreign Domestic, we have one at the summer place.
Natty
Maybe the rain Isn't really to blame. So I'll remove the cause, But not the symptom!
Realize that having your credit card number stolen is the issuing banks problems, and not really yours.
If you read your cardholder agreement, you will most likely find that you are not responsible for fraudulent use of the card UNLESS the *card* is stolen, and then only before you report it, and even then, damages are limited.
The onus is on the merchant to prove that the charges are authorized. Always.
I'm not saying credit card theft is no big deal.. but you have to remember where the responsibility lies. It's not like having your savings account drained. It's just a nuisance.
This has nothing to do with the Adobe case. This case was about a real hacker stealing real credit card numbers.
Nothing like an apologist for fascism.
This isn't really accurate. They were busted when on US soil after coming here after falling for an FBI ruse. If they'd remained on Russian soil, they would've never been arrested by us. If asked politely, I suppose there's some chance the Russians would've detained and later extradited them, but once in our hands there was no reason to test that theory.
Likewise, if the FBI agents who broke the Russian law visit Russia, they may be busted for having broken Russian law. In theory Russia could ask the US to arrest and later extradite the FBI agents so they can be tried. In practice it doesn't appear as though the Russians care enough to raise a big stink about it. The Russians who were busted were, after all, common criminals.
There seems to be a certain symmetry to the picture, no?
I wasn't thinking and mixed up the 2 cases. What I deserve for not actually reading the story.
The russian BROKE the law.
The CIA set his ass up AFTER he broke the law.
And then the russian came over here, probably with a smirk thinking 'hehe, I rip them off, now I get job'.
Then he got busted.
I applaud the CIA. And it isn't like the CIA scanned every computer in Russia. They went after the thief.
But it does NOT say that it is okay to use them on your own people (i.e. mustard gas).
If we are going to speak how good the US will be to the others then our thinking should go immediately to Israel since the Jewish are controlling the economy of US then US can't refuse any command from them. and let the other contries go to %$#.
Crackers are criminals who should be punished to the fullest extent of the law in the home region of the computer system where the crime took place. Moreover, the law enforcement agencies throughout the world should cooperate as much as possible to make this happen. If that requires breaking into a cracker's computer, that is fair game.
Complaining about the reverse cracking on part of the police is analogous to complaining about a police officer's use of a firearm against a criminal who is also wielding a firearm. By breaking into other people's computers, you forfeit your right not to have it done to you by those who want to catch you.
It's normal for police officers to use the same tools that are used by criminals: speeding cars, deadly firearms, break and enter tools. The tools go with the territory; the tools alone don't define the moral context of their use.
More realistically, how did we react last year when the Taliban arrested three Americans who had gone there to spread christianity and convert muslims? It is illegal in Afghanistan, so did we let them die?
We must stop acting as if American law, and only American law, applies to the rest of the world too. This might answer a lot of "why"s!
All your favorite sites in one place!
Did you?
They lured them to the US using a fake job interview, then sent them home.
The interview was to gather information needed to gather evidence.
The gathered more evidence, and then HAD THEM EXTRADITED
"There are certain *narrow* cases where international law should allow one nation to arrest the citizens of another while visiting: only in cases where the law that foreigner broke were common to both nations. If a person in Russia arranges for a murder to be committed in the US and travels to the US, we should have the right to arrest him, because what he did is illegal both in the US and in Russia. However, in such cases where nation A arrests a citizen of nation B, that citizen must be trialed by the laws of nation B."
What would you do if this case happened 50 years ago and involved a Nazi operative who was accused of murdering a US citizen of Jewish descent while visiting US.
Imagine that murdering a Jew was not a crime in Nazi Germany and there was no war between US and Germany at that time.
According to your argument, we would have no right to try or even imprison that person since whatever he did was not considered a crime in his country.
Your argument has a very basic flaw; it assumes that there is no moral difference between various regimes around the world.
If the FBI broke into their computer systems, then the FBI should be sentenced to spend time in the slammer, and these men should receive monetary compensation for the inconvenience.
Take a look at:7 6. php
:-(((
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/09/715
or
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/53428.stm
http://smeschini.altervista.org
You can't be serious! In Japan the age of consent is 14, in Moslem countries it's even lower! In the UK the legal drinking age is 18. There's not exactly such a thing as copyright in China, so is it OK for chinese to come across and start manufacturing CDs? During WWII would it have been ok for the germans to go into America and carry on 'purifying'?
You're crazy! If anything they should have to follow both sets of laws.
The situation of a person of nationality X in country Y breaking those laws is rather different to a person of nationality X in country X breaking laws of country Y. Nearly every country demands foreigners to follow all their laws whilst in their country; but there are rare exceptions for pragmatic reasons.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Since it is also reasonable for a sovereign nation to have other rules, this question isn't really central. The burdon of proof should be on the U.S. and the FBI to show why they need to curcumvent those rules. And then the obvious question of what court would have authority to decide whether this burdon is met.
Here, you have government espionage going on from within the US, against someone in Russia. If they break any laws, tough shit, they're espionage.
Funny, the pilots that where flying that little spy plane near China where labeled as prisoners by all the politician and media lackeys. Maybe you should have a word with them regarding the proper lexic.
But it's hard to draw a parallel between Sklyarov did and what the FBI did, because they are very different circumstances.
Maybe so, but that does not mean what the FBI is both legally and morally WRONG, even with the pimp judge okaying his actions. What he should have done is get a subpoena from the proper authorities to do such a thing.
My other OS is the MCP!
Do U.S.A. own atomic bombs (weapons of mass destruction)?
...)/ 12/111862.ph p ...
Yes
Do U.S.A. use weapons of mass destruction?
Yes
(Japan, Afganistan, Balcans,
See:
http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/2001
So should U.N. "invade" U.S.A?
I don't know...
http://smeschini.altervista.org
About that, see What should be the Response to Violence? .
A quote:
"The money donated by the U.S. government to Israel is like fuel thrown on a fire. The amount is said to total about $5.25 billion per year, when all amounts are considered. This is an enormous amount of money to a prosperous country of well-educated people. The population of Israel is about 5.8 million people (1996), so Israel receives from the U.S. government an astounding $905 per year for every man, woman and child who lives there. (In the entire world, there are only about 14,000,000 Jews.)"
Does it sit well with anyone here that someone who cracked into FBI computers gets the same prison sentence as Chris Tresco? What bullshit.
I mean, come on....threat to national security vs. (arguably) lost revenue.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
..actually use them on... er... human bei... hm... nevermind.
RMN
~~~
Live Free or Die!
Obviously, you did NOT read what I said.
A person should obey the laws of whatever nation they're in. But if someone's in China and (while in China) does something which is illegal by US law, then comes to the US, (s)he shouldn't be arrested for that. However, if while in the US, they break US law, they should be arrested.
What I'm talking about is person of nationality X in country X doing something which is illegal in country Y, then travelling to country Y and being arrested. This is a violation of sovereignty and human rights.
If person X of nationality X travels to nation Y, they should obey the laws of nation Y, and not be expected to follow any of the laws of nation X. We can not ask a person to obey the laws of two nations, because those two laws may conflict.
The laws of the US shouldn't follow its citizens wherever they go. When US citizens leave US territory, they are no longer obliged to obey US laws, but only the laws of whatever nation they're on.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Ironically, they will probably get better treatement in a US jail that in one in Russia.
True. Americans have small dicks, so his ass won't hurt as much.
How about an election where you can say Yes, don't care or No to candidates?
;)
Yes= +1, No = -1, don't care or spoilt vote = 0.
You can vote on more than one candidate.
Total them up. Least negative wins.
Alternatively: Most positive = win, if no positives, least negative= "probation" seat, other negatives banned from running for post for X years.
Is it better to put in an unknown person who nobody cares about than a "net negative" candidate? Maybe not. But hey you wanted democracy didn't you?
What are the chances this system will ever be implemented...
In your post on 9/15 titled "getting closer..." under "VoIP Cell Phones Coming", you failed to capitalize the first word of the sentence, you misspelled ubiquitous, you failed to capitalize the first letter of the following sentence, then the next sentence, then you failed to capitalize the 'i' in "I'll", then the following 'I', and finally the first letter of the next sentence.
Now then, if my misspelling of a single word makes me a dumbass, what do the numerous mistakes mentioned above say about you? Oh please, demonstrate some of that good old-fashioned American HIPOCRISY for me with a reply... Aren't you glad I spelt it right this time?
Show me an effect without cause and then I'll believe in chaos.
If you're comparing the policies of Iraq with those of Israel, you are out of your fucking mind.
Israel may have problems, but it is a *democracy* with free elections and free speech, it has never used weapons of mass destruction against its neighbors or its own people, and has only "invaded" its (and I laugh at this term) "neighbors" to prevent its own destruction.
If you wanted to condemn a country for ignoring UN resolutions, having weapons of mass destruction, expanding its territory through violence and bloodshed, and treating ethnic groups badly, not to mention being lead by a nasty man, you could have picked the US itself.
If a US citizen travels to, say, Moscow, and offers to spy for the FSB, and it's noticed -- you can sure as hell bet that he's risking arrest when he comes back. Somehow, that doesn't seem wrong to me.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
if there is any proof that moderation sucks, this pos t is it. not only is it obviously offtopic, it is just more mindless US bashing. But of course, this diatribe agrees with the moderators viewpoint, so they just mod it up. if i had made the same exact point on the opposite end, i'd be at -1 in no time.
Yeah, the US knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
p on s
p ag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1 033423291456&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=9683321 88492&call_pagepath=News/News
How? They kinda sold them to Iraq.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+biowea
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?
Us Mexicans have good common sense. I do not want to live in USA.
Disgusted as I am with the DMCA, I think Timothy's comment was quite a stretch. If I break a Russian law in the U.S., I'm not going to travel to Russia anytime soon, especially to a public seminar to detail what I did.
-- "On second thought, let's not go there. Camelot is a silly place."
If these hackers were mobsters who had ordered US hits, the FBI would still have the ability to appropriate evidence.
Look at it this way:
What the FBI did is essentially the same as inviting the Russian Hackers to the US and filling out a work visa form, and then using the phone numbers and addresses written on the form to call over to Russia and "social hack" whomever they're calling to get the evidence.
But I have to point out.
When they broke into American computers and stole American data form them, they were committing illegal acts IN THE UNITED STATES. The fact that they were physically in Russia is moot. Let's pretend they were in a country where this activity was legal. Their home country would never extradite.. but the US could STILL charge them under it's own legal system, and deal with them should they set foot on US soil.
This is not simply a case of someone doing something in a foreign land that would have been illegal if it was happening in the US, it WAS happening in the US.
You are responsible for your actions. If I go to one country, do something illegal, and leave, and this is not a crime in my own country, my own country should not extradite me. However, should I ever end up in that foreign country again, why should I deserve protection?
>> ...US law is above Russian law.
The U.S. would have been negligent not to prosecute simply because he used computers in another country. I'm ignorant of U.S. and Russian laws regarding extradition, etc., but presumably they exist.
Perhaps a better question is why the Russians did not prosecute? Is it legal for Russians to break into networks in other countries?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
How you describe things is how things work now.
You obey the laws of the country you are in. US law does not follow you wherever you go.
But if you fly to China, copy 30000 Britney Spears CDs, and then ship them to the US, you can bet the US courts will charge you with copyright violation, and arrest your ass if it ends up back on US soil. Why? Because your actions partly took place in the US.
If oyu are in the US, and you break into computers in, say, the UK.. and then you decide to vacation in the UK, are you saying the Brits shouldn't be able to charge you?
Why should he be arrested? He was in Russia, thus subject to RUSSIA's laws, NOT OURS.
If he, however, offers to offer such espionage services, his citizenship in the US should be cancelled, and he should be deported/exiled upon returning, and banned from ever coming to the US.
Try to get this through your head. When a citizen is in nation X, (s)he is obligated to obey the laws of nation X and ONLY nation X, not any other nation, including his/her homeland.
Simply because something does or doesn't "seem" right/wrong to you is NO REASON to violate sovereignty. Sovereignty is a very simple concept. The US government is sovereign over the US. The Russian government is sovereign over Russia. Individual's in Russia are obligated to obey the laws of Rusia ONLY, and not those of the US. Individual's in the US are obligated to obey the laws of the US ONLY and not those of Russia.
Your insistance that a US citizen vistiting Russia obey both Russian laws and US laws is as unreasonable as it is short-sighted and ignorant of sovereignty issues.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
It seems that most debaters so far wants to see the russian crooks sacked but are worried about the liberty FBI was taking while hacking the computer that was still residing in russia. So if the computer where actually in the USA and accessed through an IP tunnel back from russia (giving the access point the russian IP)? Would it still be wrong then? How can you be sure of the geographical location while at the hack? Just the IP will not do the job.
The only problem I have with FBI doing what they are doing is that they are not allowed to do what they are doing. The Internet should have its own international laws. Local laws should only apply to the people using it. FBI should in such an international internet law have protocols to follow and warrants like admittance granted before accessing computers in russia and elsewhere. The same should apply if my country would like to hack a computer belonging to someone doing bad things to people here.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's a war out there, lets agree on rules how to fight it nomatter where!
Starbar!!
Does'nt matter, the Ruskies have already broken the Microsoft algorithim and our systems are wide open.
Jeb Bushes bumper sticker: "Don't Blame Me I voted for Gore"
Laf, who would be foolish enough to try?
/. anti-american posters would feed on an post like this. Why don't you spend your time and defend someone that isn't a criminal that had their rights lost, country hacked, whatever, because of American's sphere of influence.
Mod me down, like it or not, the reason why we can extend our sphere of influence to other countries is simply because we can. 40% of my paycheck doesn't go to the government [defense/offense] for nothing.
If Russian gave a shit, why don't they stand up and say something? I don't see ANY mention of ANY Russians officials who are upset about the US hacking into their systems. In face, WTF is as "foreign computer network" anyways?
It figures that
Mod me down, I don't give a shit, I have excellent Karma so my posts will continue to come out +2. I'm just sick and tired of all the anti American comments.
Live web cams
troll on... :)
Show me an effect without cause and then I'll believe in chaos.
"At the same time giving lots of money to another country in the same region which ignores more UN resolutions, has more weapons of mass destruction, has invaded all of its neighbours, treats ethnic groups in their territories badly and is lead by a nasty man."
Come on! Don't leave me hanging. Is it France? Germany? Tahiti? Oh wait, Israel? Are you actually comparing the only democracy in the region to a vicious dictatorship?
Americans are bullies, plain and simple.. When Canada built the avro arrow fighter jet the US told us to stop because it was better than theirs. We had no choice but to do as we were told because they had a whole bunch of crappier jets.
I'm not going to call you anti-semitic, but I will say that you have a common misunderstanding of our relationship with Israel. They don't control us, and we don't control them. It's a mutually beneficial relationship:
Israel is essentially just a remote US military base in the middle east pretending to be a country.
We get an army of (Jewish) soldiers, basically doing our bidding, in one of the most dangerous places on Earth.
They get to live where they want with the US covering the enormous cost of security.
I think the whole thing should be reexamined for the following reasons:
It has corrupted Jewish civilization (politics, culture, etc.), and why would anyone want to live in such a dangerous place? If they're such great allies of ours and we share so many values, then there should be no problem with them just moving here. They can have Florida, or wherever.
The heavy-handed military thing worked fine in the age of traditional state vs. state warfare, but in the age of asymmetrical warfare (terrorism) it's only making matters worse. If Israelis or Americans ever want to live in security, we're both going to have to drop the heavy-handed military thing. It's not an easy decision to make, and it could be interpreted as caving in to terrorism (I don't see it like that), but it's the only way.
State Military Powers vs Popular Modern Terrorist Networks = Eventual Genocide.
I won't sugarcoat this letter. This is a very bitter letter. Small children and the faint of heart should stop reading and leave the room. The rest of this letter is focused exclusively on Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise, not because I harbor any ill-will towards it, but because it wants to conjure up dirt against its fellow human beings. What does it think it is? I mean, if it thinks that it can walk on water, then it's sadly mistaken. I'm merely suggesting that Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise bickers and argues over petty things. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise dreams of a time when they'll be free to manipulate everything and everybody. That's the way it's planned it, and that's the way it'll happen -- not may happen, but will happen -- if we don't interfere, if we don't reach the broadest possible audience with the message that I am astonished by how little integrity and good judgment it possesses.
Why Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise would even pretend that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years is beyond me. Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise can blame me for the influx of sick champions of deceit, lies, theft, plunder, and rapine if it makes it feel better, but it won't help its cause any. Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise's flunkies argue that its publications are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. These are the same possession-obsessed beggars who organize a whispering campaign against me. This is no coincidence; Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise not only lies, but it brags about its lying to its factotums. This is not to say that we must remove the misunderstanding that Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world -- not just in the poetic sense, but in the very specific and prosaic terms I am outlining in this letter. It is merely to point out that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But if Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise were paying attention -- which it would seem it is not, as I've already gone over this -- it'd see that its ideologies all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that the majority of heinous thought police are heroes, if not saints. Not surprisingly, Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise spouts the same bile in everything it writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue it's excited about this week is obstructionism, which says to me that it talks a lot about defeatism and how wonderful it is. However, it's never actually defined what it means. How can Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise argue for something it's never defined? This is not a question that we should run away from. Rather, it is something that needs to be addressed quickly and directly, because if the word "calcareoargillaceous" occurs to the reader, he or she may recall that Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise once tried to compromise the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing. And here, I maintain, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in its fibs.
There's a little-known truth that isn't readily acknowledged by nerdy deadbeats: In order to convince us that the average working-class person can't see through its chicanery, Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. Is there anyone else out there who's noticed that before bothering us with its next batch of flighty, stingy cajoleries, Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise should review the rules of writing a persuasive essay, most notably the one about sticking to the topic the writer establishes? I ask because once you understand its intimations, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise turn once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard. Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise is always prating about how it is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. (It used to say that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash, but the evidence is too contrary, so it's given up on that score.) Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise likes to cite poll results that "prove" that it is a model organization. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of its pollsters? Chances are good that you have never been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise will probably never understand why it scares me so much. And it doubtlessly does scare me: Its plans for the future are scary, its excuses are scary, and most of all, only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to create and nurture a true spirit of community. But the first step is to acknowledge that there are some conniving vandals who are bloodthirsty. There are also some who are snivelling. Which category does Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".
Last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise that mean-spirited alarmism is merely a symptom of the disease called "Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise-ism". As I expected, it was completely unconvinced. Make special note of that point, because Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise's rantings are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that I could make a long argument for the idea that Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise has an uncritical -- almost a worshipful -- attitude toward neo-clueless geeks. But upon further investigation, one will find that to say that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel is delusional nonsense and untrue to boot.
I am not trying to save the world -- I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to reveal some shocking facts about Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise's commentaries. I frequently talk about how scores of people, just like you, have finally decided that they've had enough of Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise's perceptions. I would drop the subject, except that its expositions are a mixture of misguided self-righteousness and disorganized duplicity. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke it to cultivate the purest breed of irresponsibility?
Of perhaps even more concern is that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to hinder the power of crude nabobs of boosterism like Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise. It's my hunch that Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise contends that its morals are our final line of defense against tyrrany. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from? Even giving Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise the benefit of the doubt, ignorance is bliss. This may be why its satraps are generally all smiles. In that respect, we can say that seeing Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise reward those who knowingly or unknowingly play along with its declamations while punishing those who oppose them is a nauseating and disgusting spectacle. That fact may not be pleasant, but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter.
Simply put, I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise's hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now. There is good reason to believe that my earnest denunciation of Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise's methods of interpretation must have failed to register with it as being legitimate sentiment. I challenge it to move from its broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise argues that I am inarticulate for wanting to build bridges where in the past all that existed were moats and drawbridges. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago.
Think about that for a moment. The interesting point is this: My cause is to show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise's toadies' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. Individually, Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise's harangues rob us of our lives, our health, our honor, and our belongings. But linked together, Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise's dissertations could easily use mass organization as a system of integration and control.
I may not believe that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day, but I definitely do suspect that it has two imperatives. The first is to waffle on all the issues. The second imperative is to fill the air with recrimination and rancor. Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to overthrow the government and eliminate the money system. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that it extricates itself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. It would be charitable of me not to mention that I surely find Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise's demeanor and pomposity downright apalling. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will instead maintain that its vituperations are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive -- even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, it truly believes that it acts in the public interest. It is just such depraved megalomania, juvenile egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise to use organized violence to suppress opposition.
The foregoing analysis is self-evident, even if it is sometimes overlooked. Less evident are the specific ways in which we should study the problem and recommend corrective action. It's really not bloody-mindedness that compels me to deal summarily with the most nugatory twaddlers you'll ever see. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. Thus, in summing up, we can establish the following: 1) Tevis Money's Pedophile Rapist Sex Club Franchise's unsophisticated reinterpretations of historic events are not something that endears it to me, and 2) it would rather talk about making changes than actually make them.
As if you know for a fact that Bush wouldn't have signed that thing.
My topic is nothing new. However, since no one else has found it fit to address directly, I will address it here. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Mr. Tevis Money's particularly incomprehensible form of Dadaism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of yawping politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. Who could have guessed that he would play on people's conscious and unconscious belief structures? To put it another way, why do we put up with him? Well, I asked the question, so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that he says that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately prurient. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life. It seems that no one else is telling you that his memoirs are contrary to international human rights and humanitarian standards. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, Tevis's editorials oscillate between lousy chauvinism and self-deceiving gnosticism. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that Tevis can't attack my ideas, so he attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. He could con us into believing that he holds a universal license that allows him to revive an arcadian past that never existed.
Even though Tevis has aired his disapproval of being criticized, I still suspect that he wants nothing less than to deny citizens the ability to draw their own conclusions about the potential for violence that he may be generating. His apologists then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with logorrheic rakes who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that there is something grievously wrong with those vainglorious sybarites who make bigotry respectable. Shame on the lot of them! Last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Tevis that we have come full-circle. As I expected, Tevis was unconvinced. To some extent, seeking to rely on the psychological effects of terror to magnify the localized effects of his complaints so that, like a stone hurled into a pool of water, shock waves ripple from the epicenter of Tevis's attacks to the furthest reaches of the Earth is a hallmark of a totalitarian regime. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: Tevis managed to convince a bunch of the worst classes of stingy maniacs there are to help him prevent the real problems from being solved. What was the quid pro quo there? In other words, what exactly is the principle that rationalizes his mean-spirited, shiftless ruses? You see, he uses the word "dendrochronological" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated.
You might not care that Tevis should stop caterwauling about what he doesn't understand, but you'd better start caring if you don't want Tevis to wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public. Sure, he talks the talk, but does he walk the walk? Before you answer, let me point out that he refers to a variety of things using the word "saccharogalactorrhea". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, he's saying that you and I are morally inferior to raucous slackers. At any rate, it may seem difficult at first to ring the bells of truth. It is. But he is penny wise and pound foolish. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to him. My argument gets a little complicated here.
While I, for one, maintain that Tevis has every right to his malignant opinions, his greed will be his undoing. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Tevis has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because if Tevis thinks his ravings represent progress, he should rethink his definition of progress. We can divide his cop-outs into three categories: disreputable, resentful, and unbalanced. Should this be discussed in school? You bet. That's the function of education: To teach students how to hinder the power of counter-productive, voluble drug lords like Tevis.
Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: In order to solve the big problems with him, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must do something good for others. If he continues to marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion, the result can be a tone-deafness, a cluelessness, on matters that are at the center of experience for vast segments of the population. Sure, some of Tevis's tracts are valid, but that's not the point. To most people, the idea that I am confident that feckless dingbats will come to their own conclusions about all of these matters is so endemic, so long ingrained, that when others conclude that he refuses to do anything for himself, this merely seems to be affirming an obvious truth. My next point of order is that Tevis extricates himself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice.
If truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, then when you tell Tevis's factotums that I indeed can't stand Tevis or his grunts, they begin to get fidgety, and their eyes begin to wander. They really don't care. They have no interest in hearing that he just wants to avoid detection and punishment. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: A complacent spirit is precisely the wrong spirit in which to take steps toward creating an inclusive society free of attitudinal barriers. The following theorem may therefore be established as an eternally valid truth: He has never gotten ahead because of his hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of his successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue.
Now that I've had time to think about Tevis's propositions, my only question is this: Why? Why convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily herded proletarian cattle? I'll tell you the answer in a moment. But first, let me just say that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that Tevis does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that society is supposed to be lenient towards lecherous spongers, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. He can write anything he wants about how things would be different were we to give into his demands and let him advertise "magical" diets and bogus weight-loss pills, but he claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to transform our society into a clueless war machine. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Tevis's vassals. The truth is that Tevis maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel. I must ask that his spin doctors chastise him for not doing any research before spouting off. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to break down our communities. I would never take a job working for Tevis. Given his ribald opuscula, who would want to?
I have long been under the impression that he has, at times, called me "randy" or "ultra-foul-mouthed". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to trivialize the issue. Next time, Tevis, you may want to check your facts correctly.
The next time someone says that Tevis's way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't, look that person right in the eye and reply, "False denials, pleas for sympathy, and a base campaign for smearing others with his own crimes constitute Tevis's whole method of defense." Given this context, we need to return to the idea that motivated this letter: He wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving him lots of money. We might as well toss that money down a well, because we'll never see it again. What we will see, however, is that faster than you can say "formaldehydesulphoxylic", Tevis's recommendations will degenerate into hotbeds of rumor and innuendo. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that Tevis shouldn't instill a general ennui. That's just common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his ploys are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity. I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how Tevis's whinges have merged with immoralism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both encourage young people to break all the rules, cut themselves loose from their roots, and adopt an infantile, reckless lifestyle. And both use paid informants and provocateurs to intensify or perpetuate solecism. I'll try not to dwell on this, but my prayers go out to everyone who was hurt by Tevis. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But he undeniably needs to stop living in a fool's paradise. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper, because it's the news that just doesn't fit. It's fine to realize that I got off on a tangent, but it's more important to know that if we contradict Tevis, we are labelled hate-filled bloodsuckers. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms.
If I recall correctly, if one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is he so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? The most appealing theory has to do with the way that if you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. Tevis spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue he's excited about this week is sectarianism, which says to me that it is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did his reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "Why doesn't he try doing something constructive for once in his life?" Here's the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and roundabout style: If you think that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Tevis wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance. Think about how easy it's become for rash, pestiferous deviants to obfuscate the issue so that one can't see what ought to be thoroughly obvious to all. Today, as yesterday, we must understand that Tevis's dream is to rule the world, or failing that, annihilate it. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. Tevis wants to cause riots in the streets. Personally, I don't want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom, then you should be working with me to grant people the freedom to pursue any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest. The law of parsimony suggests that puerile isolationism is widespread and growing stronger as it permeates school systems, universities, and the media. So I give you this letter. I hope it helps.
Ever hear of colombia, panama etc.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
My goal for this letter is to help people see Mr. Tevis "The Coprophagic" Money's hideous maneuvers for what they are. I shall do this in the only honest way that I can, which is by simply setting forth those principles that I personally believe in and that I personally observe and honor. Let's start with my claim that Tevis is like a pigeon. Pigeons are too self-absorbed to care about anyone else. They poo on people they don't like; they poo on people they don't even know. The only real difference between Tevis and a pigeon is that Tevis intends to trivialize the issue. That's why his "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is cold-blooded, because it leaves no room for compromise. I myself don't want to have to hear his rambling streams of consciousness. Equally important is the fact that anyone the least bit knowledgeable about his improvident background would know that he should stop bellyaching and start healing himself. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that it would be wrong to imply that he is involved in some kind of conspiracy to introduce disease, ignorance, squalor, idleness, and want into affluent neighborhoods. It would be wrong because his op-ed pieces are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but the question that's on everyone's mind these days is, "Is he hoping that the readers of this letter won't see the weakness of his argument relative to mine?" We should be able to look into our own souls for the answer. If we do, I suspect we'll find that his acrimonious, jaded pronouncements are in full flower, and their poisonous petals of collectivism are blooming all around us. Tevis says that mercantalism and obstructionism are identical concepts. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie.
It is easy for the public at large to dismiss perverted ruffians as feckless, dissolute heavy-metal fans. According to his selfish logic, it would be beneficial for uppity firebrands to give lunatics control of the asylum. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that Tevis wants to feed information from sources inside the government to organizations with particularly sententious agendas. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants. You may not understand this now, and I don't fault you for that, but if he is going to make an emotional appeal, then he should also include a rational argument. This is not the same as saying that Tevis has a vested interest in making me get fired from my job, although that, too, is true. For the moment, he makes no secret of the fact that I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that he is up to, the more shocking things, things like how he wants to bask in the unctuous shine of misoneism. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but as pompous as it might sound, heathenism is one of the legs upon which his dissertations stand. Of that I am certain, because his hastily mounted campaigns are continually evolving into more and more intransigent incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how Tevis is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Tevis is Pyrrhonism. Why? I once asked Tevis that question -- I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that it's our responsibility to make this world a kinder, gentler place. That's the first step in trying to punish him for his odious jokes, and it's the only way to fight the good fight.
Can you really blame me for suggesting that Tevis sees life as an unambitious game without any rules? While there is no evidence that there doesn't seem to be much we can do about this, it is clear that we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but his secret police have been trained, organized, and motivated to prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our culture. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. As a general rule, I'm sure Tevis wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on his conversations. So why does he want to set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on flimsy pretexts? Fortunately for us, the key to the answer is obvious: He constantly insists that he is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. But he contradicts himself when he says that anyone who dares to nourish children with good morals and self-esteem can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. In spite of the fact that the older Tevis gets, the more unscrupulous he becomes, we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that he will make all of us pay for his boondoggles. And to overcome these fears, we must criticize the obvious incongruities presented by Tevis and his lieutenants. It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to his repressive, grungy actions is, but one unfortunate fact remains clear: He thinks it's good that his demands pursue a bookish agenda under the guise of false concern for the environment, poverty, civil rights, or whatever. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: I cannot promise not to be angry at him. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads Tevis -- to create a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their products or services than Tevis has for his trucklers.
His utterances sound so noble, but in fact, this theme is stated in one form or another in every one of Man's great religions. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to him. In these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, Tevis is typical of slatternly voluptuaries in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his personal attacks. It's fine to realize that it's shocking just how atrabilious he can be, but it's more important to know that he exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up his obvious inferiority.
This is not to say that we ignore Tevis at our own peril. It is merely to point out that if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance.
I need your help if I'm ever to point out the glaring contradiction between his idealized view of demagogism and reality. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that it requires surprisingly little imagination to envision a future in which Tevis is free to palliate and excuse the atrocities of his forces. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation.
Are you beginning to get the picture here? If one dares to criticize even a single tenet of Tevis's tricks, one is promptly condemned as tendentious, unpleasant, jejune, or whatever epithet Tevis deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. There is good reason to believe that you, of course, now need some hard evidence that this discussion is meant to apply to modern conformism only. Well, how about this for evidence: Tevis has written volumes about how mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that if he continues to propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright solecism, I will really be obliged to do something about him. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations. Last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Tevis that his formula for paternalism is more unsavory than ever. As I expected, Tevis was unconvinced. And what of it? He is driving me nuts. I can't take it anymore!
There are two main flaws with his opinions: 1) it scares the bejeezus out of me to know that he might transform our whole society to suit his own jealous, saturnine interests before long, and 2) he ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:
Fact: He should think for himself.
Fact: Lewd purveyors of malice and hatred tend to dismiss reason, science, and objective reality.
Fact: He is allergic to any idea that isn't phlegmatic.
In addition, he claims that the average working-class person can't see through his chicanery. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his doctrines. Then again, all of Tevis's wisecracks are paralogistic. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how today, we might have let Tevis retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will combat the self-indulgent ideology of gnosticism that has infected the minds of so many avaricious, disagreeable litterbugs. If natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species, then Tevis is clearly going to be the first to go.
I've always thought that his politics are not only bad for the immortal soul, but for mortal men and women, and hearing the rubbish that he spews forth proves it beyond all doubt. To simplify, he never seems to listen to anyone else's positions and reasoning. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that my general thesis is that many people who follow Tevis's expositions have come to the erroneous conclusion that Tevis acts in the public interest. The stark truth of the matter is that we mustn't let him encourage the acceptance of scapegoating and demonization. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: I overheard one of his confreres say, "Everything Tevis says is thoroughly and entirely true." This quotation demonstrates the power of language, as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to raise several issues about Tevis's uncompromising shenanigans that are frequently missing from the drivel that masquerades for discourse on this topic. Although Tevis won't admit it, his ethics are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition." Funny, that was the same term that Tevis's apostles once used to bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture. In contrast, his assistants maintain that "the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs -- or maybe even chocolate." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that I experienced quite an epiphany when I first realized that Tevis should get off his pedestal and walk a day in our shoes, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, Tevis's stories about antiheroism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility.
One of his former apparatchiks, shortly after having escaped from Tevis's iron veil of monolithic thought, stated, "Tevis's functionaries must be exposed and neutralized wherever they lurk." This comment is typical of those who have finally realized that there are those who are informed and educated about the evils of hedonism, and there are those who are not. Tevis is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that's why he and his adherents are, by nature, predatory control freaks. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but if I want to throw in the towel, that should be my prerogative. I don't need Tevis forcing me to. You may find it amusing or even titillating to read about Tevis's ploys, but they're not amusing to me. They're deeply troubling. Tevis's idea of a good time is to lobotomize everyone caught thinking an independent thought. There are different ways of reconciling oneself to this unpleasant, yet sincerely treacherous, fact. Some people see nothing at all, or rather, want to see nothing. Others are perfectly well aware of the warped consequences which this plague must and will some day induce, but only shrug their shoulders, convinced that nothing can be done, so the only thing to do is to leave things alone. Let me leave you with one last thought: Nothing agitates and humiliates Mr. Tevis "The Coprophagic" Money more than when I strike at the heart of his efforts to infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating prolix information.
So if an American drives to mexico for the weekend, breaks into a dozen computers in the US, steals tons of cool data, spreads lots of copyrighted software around, etcetera...
then returns to the US...
The company who's computers he broke into cannot have him charged with a crime, because he was not on US soil when he did it? They have to take it up with the Mexican authorities, who would have to extradite, etc....?
U.S. judge found that the FBI wasn't breaking any laws in breaking into a Russian computer system, despite the fact that they were breaking a Russian law doing so. So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia
I would suggest the FBI agents involved not travel anywhere that the Russian government has jurisdiction. I'm sure they have the same standards we have with respect to the sanctity of their systems.
"So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia."
Yeah, so what else is new?
This basically sums up America's foreign policy.
---- I've fallen, and I can't get up.
I'm just guessing, but I'd say you've been watching CNN, and feel justfied in asserting that the Russians aren't saying anything about the situation because an American television network hasn't seen fit to report it. Seeing as how news reporting is never biased towards the views of the nation it represents, that's just fine...
Picking up a Pravda before deciding just how upset the Russians are about the situation would probably be a good idea.
Heh...keep an eye out for the white vans outside your house, after that comment...and don't take your tinfoil hat off!
Mike
"So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia."
But this was coming from an American judge. A US citizen breaking a russian law in the US would go to a Russian jail, even if the Russians broke US laws in the investigation. Duh
These guys were stealing money from US companies. The FBI wouldn't give a shit if they were ripping off Russian companies in Russia. When they rip off OUR companies and Russia doesn't care to stop them, it is most certainly the FBI's responsability to do something.
[Judge Upholds FBI Russian Hacker Trap]. htmlm =T22DTd nnc y=c net&tag=tp_pr
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/10164
[FBI agent charged with hacking]
http://www.msnbc.com/news/563379.asp?0d
[Judge OKs FBI hack of Russian computers] http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-529917.html?legacy=z
[FBI "hack" raises global security concerns ]
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-256811.html?lega
[Court were it was held, good luck on finding anything]
http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/
There's some unavoidable duplication.
BTW this is the same judge in the MS vs. Lindows case.
To quote the post, "So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia."
No, it's not ok. It is a matter of the right hand having absolutely no clue what or where the left is.
That is my commentary. I am only sorry that I currently lack the wisdom to make the world a better place
Yes, voting, I know and am... Also, please no crude humor about what the "hands" are up to. It is only a metophore. Of course, it is your freedom of speech.
I wish unity, peace, and prosperity upon all the people of Earth,
From: Kansas City, Mo.
If only it was just Israel...
No mention of that part in the blurb.
You raise an interesting, but overly simplified point. You argue Gorshkov is not responsible for knowing and obeying US laws.
Under ordinary circumstances I agree, however these circumstances are not ordinary. Can it really be argued Gorshkov had a good faith basis for believing he was obeying the law. It is absurd to believe that stealing credit card numbers is legal in any country. So, I argue that he imposed US law on himself. He was acting extraterritorially, and in bad faith, therefore he cannot claim protection from the laws of the other jurisdiction.
Iraq sold China all the cruise missiles that landed in Iraq but didnt (unfortunately) explode. The Russians werent intrested because we have better missiles then you Americans! Russia doesnt give a rats ass about Iraq I know because I live in Moscow. Russia wants American permission to level Georgia in exchange for Russian support to level Iraq. Once Putin gets permission from Bush you can watch on CNN as the missiles begin to fly. The Russian airforce has doubled its airpresence over Chechnya in preperation for an attack on Georgia. Its enevitable since every general in Moscow has been itching to get old Shevranadzen since 1991! Theyv'e tried to kill this guy at least 4 times and would have kept trying if it wasnt for U.S involvment. You Americans stick your noses in places that dont concern you. Georgia is Russias problem, the Georgians are our countrymen we share the same religion. The Chechens have been our enemies for 400 years. You Americans should stay out of it. One would think by fighting the Chechens we would be doing you a favor, but no, America wants a weak divided Russia. Georgia is Russias backyard. We dont mess with Mexico or Canada why are you messing with Georgia?
This arrest doesn't concern me because in a week my government will arrest some poor stupid American charge him with espionage and then trade him back for our countryman. It's the way things are done and if America refuses to trade Russia will place a new embargo on American chicken or beef or some other commodity that we Russians have plenty of to begin with. Russia is a net exporter of goods (especially agricultural) so why you sell us chicken and who buys your chicken is beyond me.
Russias problems are internal we dont give a damn about the United States. We need to rebuild our infrastructure after 10 years of utter neglect and plundering. My president has done a good job, but we are at least 15 years away from challenging American dominance again and thats at 8% annual growth which is nearly impossible!The world doesnt revolve around America or Russia! Thats Cold War thinking. What angers many Russians is that despite all the intel. and support (Russia opened a hospital in Kabul and ship your marines water, plus we armed the Northern Alliance) we provided to the United States after 9/11 we got no reward. America continues to criticize our actions in Chechnya (which are 100% warranted since the Chechens killed 300 Russians in 1999.) and continues to treat Russia unfairly. China gets favored nation status, but we dont. China joins the WTO, but we cant. We went through 10 years of hell to become democratic and instead of helping or rewarding us you help the Red Chinese with technology and favored nation status! Then you wonder why so many Russians hate you. Why we maintain our nuclear weapons and why our tanks are still pointed at Europe. Take a guess! Russians holds more American dollars than any other group outside the United States. Our citizens hold over 80 billion dollars and the governemt holds at least another 45 if we switch our reserves to the Euro watch what happens to your seignorage! You can kiss 3% of your GDP good bye as the dollar falls, but then again we dont like the Germans either. The Germans come to Russia and buy up everything in sight and then treat us like second class citizens in our own country, but thats capitalism. You had the same problem with the Japanese only a decade ago.
the UK and the US only went to war with Germany when their allies were attacked,
The UK went to war when it's allies were attacked, but the US did not until two years later when it was attacked by Japan in Pearl Harbor. Germany immediately declared war on the US.
So technically the US made no decision to go to war. Japan and Germany made that decision for them.
Not that I get how is credit card hacking the same as the holocaust, but one vaguely related point is that most of the killed jews were not German. so had they stayed within their borders, it would have been a much smaller holocaust.
What? I *said* it's a nitpick!
...has said for a long time that in the u.s people don't have freedom and has advised to foreigners to not go to the u.s to work in the computer industry
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
Seeing as a great deal of posters seem to have trouble getting their heads round this concept... JUST BECAUSE THIS GUY IS RUSSIAN DOES NOT MEAN HE IS DMITRY SKLYAROV! Rarely is the question asked, is our slashdotters learning to read?
All you need to do with Bush is say it'll help fight terrorism and he'll sign it.
It's not an issue of sovereignty, because individual people aren't nations -- _Snow Crash_ excluded. It's not a sovereignty issue if a private citizen chooses to flout the law of his own country. Contracts, obligations, and responsibilities do not magically vaporize should one make it to foreign soil, any more than one can protect one's own salary from the IRS by accepting it in cash in the lobby of the French embassy.
A citizen retains the obligations of his citizenship, and -- depending on the country he's physically in -- possibly some of the rights and privileges, at least should he make it to the consulate... In addition, being in a country in which you are not a citizen may cause you to have second-class status; for instance, you can much more easily be ejected from the country.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Im proud to be a liberal, Im not a communist though so you can bite me. Anyway, if we are so far removed from life, why the hell are you posting to this site? Dont you have anything more important to do? Or are you just some loser who takes joy in slamming everybody else because he hasnt been laid in a week? Im from Russia own a loft in Moscow 6 blocks from the Kremlin in a building once occupied by Bunin (the writer you dumass)! Slam us Russians all you like, but even the drunkest sorriest Russian has more culture and class than the most refined American. Russia is a European power and like it or not we can still nuke you into the stoneage!
They weren't doing it in Russia. While they were physically in Russia, this is not where the action has taken place.
The Mayans??? I didn't know Mayans lived in Texas or California.
Yeah, good source. I like this headline on their site:
Sensation: Cities Found on the Moon!
Live web cams
Yes, both countries have done VERY bad things in the past .
...
Yes, they both have weapons of mass destruction .
Yes, they will most likely do bad things in the future .
Every country in the World has done it, from the Chinese to the Russians, the mass murders in Rwanda , the machete massacres in the streets of Indonesia, and so on and so on .
The "real" issue here is what is the end game for Saddam, what is his final goal . Let me tell you about something that he has now, and is mass producing .
Botulinum Toxin...
Go punch that into google and see what the CDC has to say about it , or any international medical agency .
It is the single most Toxic substance know on Earth, and there is now proof that Iraq is training Al-qaeda in Bio/Chem warfare, and suspicion that any one else that wants to know it as well .
1 gram in crystal form = 1 million dead .
Feel safe now, standing on your soap box blaring about the evil US and evil Israel .
With an unlimited supply of suicide terrorists and toys like this, we are in a world of $hit . Do you really think it will stop once the US is wiped out, do you think the Islamic radicals will be happy with less than total world conversion to the one true faith ???
The US media is not covering this due to the panic it might cause, only Tony Blair had the BALLS to bring it up to Parliment to try to bolster support for what is about to happen .
The rush, the urgency, the almost blood thirsty appearance of Bush is not one derived of desire of conquest . This is about fear, annihilation, ppl do you even want to hear the weather balloon dispersion scenario ???
I think not
This is one, ONE weapon he has at his disposal, there are MANY others .
So before you blather on, take a look at the BIG picture, consider what is planned that we don't know, how far would he go, is there even a limit .
Ex-MislTech
Tech Support
Guantanamo Bay
Cuba
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Are you actually comparing the only democracy in the region to a vicious dictatorship?
Somehow, I don't think the Palestinians feel like they're living in a democracy. I suspect that, to them, it feels more like apartheid.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=41578&threshol d=0&commentsort=0&tid=172&mode=thread&cid=4395 113
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
... Nelson Muntz:
HAHA!
So according to you if you are a *democracy* :
- It's OK to invade other countries.
- It's OK to bomb to dust all their civilian infrastructure.
- It's OK to steal their land.
- It's OK to appropriate their water or oil.
- It's OK to destroy their houses.
- It's OK to deprive people of food and medical supply.
- It's OK to violate every human rights of an entire population.
- It's OK to assassinate their leaders.
- It's OK to kill whoever is standing nearby while doing your assassinations.
- It's OK to OVERTHROW other democracies. (remember april 11th !!!)
- It's OK to NUKE entire cities. (you remember the date ?)
Some people have a really FUCKED UP mind !!!
As you point out you have this *huge* trade deficit, and that *huge* public and private debt.
And that *huge* and useless military budget.
And one of these days (won't be very long, I see it approaching with a vengeance)
you will wake up with a DJIA with a tiny 3 digits (One of my friends says 2, but he's an optimistic)
I'm just wondering what will happen to GWB after leading you into an historic depression. Will he
be un-elected for a second term ?
- So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia.
This is easy to explain: we won the war (cold as it was) and they lost. Sucks to be them.Interesting that you mention about BT from iraq. I do not trust them, but then again we trained and sold them the equipment. Just as we have done the same with UML in the 80's. We have a habit of training everybody how best to kill us and then act surprised when it happens. We now have to go in clean up the mess that was made during the 80's. Oh yes folks, do not kid yourself. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. I do not know about the nukes (bush is a constant lier), but make no mistakes about it, Iraq does have Bio and Chemical weapons. I know becuase I worked with several Iraq students in the mid 80's on USA governmental grants. It was apparent then.
As long as talking about bad things, lets talk about last year's anthrax attacks. I did 2D electrophoretic genetic fingerprinting back in the mid 80's for CDC/DARPA. I am fully aware of what is involved with getting a match. Once the spores were harvested, it would only have taken 2 weeks to find out where they were from. I would further assume that technology has improved in the last 17 years. This means that from the first attack in Oct 3 last year (incidently 1 year ago from our current shooter - hummmmmm), we should have known by the end of oct that these were local. Yet, bush/ashcroft were saying that UML was after us. Finally, the press is clueless about the weaponization of anthrax. The american process use to involve giving a postive charge to the surface proteins in a way that did not destroy the spore. This cuases them to repel each other, but stick to other things. This leads to a much higher infection rate (sticks nice to hands and lungs). I would guess that we also knew by the end of Oct that this was an american treatment of the spores. Yet, Bush kept up with saying UML until next year.
It gets better. The FBI goes after anybody who is in microbio and says to spy on everybody and tell them who has grown anthrax. Hey, anthrax is natural to the world. Every medtech and most microbio. have grown anthrax. Yet I would guess that less than 300 people in the world know how to weaponize the anthrax.
So lets put this in perspective.
Imagine that a one armed, one leged, one eyed caucasin man robs a bank. Now assume that the FBI starts looking for a man. and that is as far as the description goes. Is our FBI that stupid? If normal police, then yes. But not FBI/CIA/NSA. The only way that happens is if an order from above comes down.
I have no doubt that the FBI had access to the all test results in october last year.
Last set of questions. How did the anthrax cover the sorting and stamping machines, but did not get blown out of the envelope during shipping. Likewise, why nor real apparent cross infection in the mail?
Do I trust Iraq? Not a chance. But do I trust our wonderful current government. You have to be kidding.
Back in the 1960's, the U.S. State Department used to warn U.S. citizens of the dangers of travelling to the USSR, siting that the KGB (secret police) could do whatever they wanted to them while they were there. NOW..we have the Russian Foreign Ministry warning Russian Citizens of the dangers of travelling in the USA, siting that the FBI (secret police) could do whhatever they wanted to them while they were there. Is it me, or is something really, really wrong here? It sure seems to me that the USA has become more and more oppressive even as the (former) USSR becomes less so.
Well it's always like that, nothing new. Whatever the American government wants is normal, everything else is not. Even if it's the same thing reversed.
=====
So apparently, it's ok for Americans to break Russian law if they're in the U.S., but not ok for Russians to break U.S. law, even while in Russia."
if this happened in australia you couldnt call them russian crackers you would have to call them crackers, you couldnt call them crackers you would have to call them criminals so that you didnt sound racist. they were russian werent they? :)
Would you approve if Italy took this pilot and condemned him for life for slaughtering twenty people (luckily for him there would be no death penalty in the EU) ? Would you approve if they lured him somehow out of US territory and then do whatever they pleased with him?
After all, he got almost nothing done to him here, despite the fact that he killed 20 people.
This is the first post that makes any sense at all.
I'm an old guy and have been around the block a few times and some of the crap I've read here re this posting is just stupid hate America first bullshit.
or are u just trying to be flamebait? Nobody says that terrorism is supportable but the fact of the matter is the United States as well as Israel have used it when it suits them.(Remember Britain agreed to the partition of Palestine only after a serious of bomb attacks in London and what the US has done in Latin America is pretty shamefull).
I dont support terrorism of any kind but history shows it works.
The truth of the matter be said it doesnt matter who is right or wrong. It only matters who wins. If Germany had won WW2 a lot more attention would have been paid to the internment of Japanese Americans than German Jews.
The intelligent thing to do is to support whoever wins. Right now the USA is winning so they have my wholehearted support.
If I wake up tomorrow to find out that Osama is winning he will have my wholehearted support.
See it really doent matter. I still have to get up tomorrow and go to office and work my ass off!
**Life is too short to be serious**
what a buch of redneck the gobbers are .... ..... ....
...
turn usa into a glass car park and start again i say
we would be better of
and as it has been said follow the rules
because he knows more and he handed out the guns
start back peddling guys real quick....
I'm not really, its seems to be, that once you get before the courts, :\ )
they don't seem to mind exactly how you got there,
just the fact that you are there..... (damn, this formatting takes some getting used to, i bet this looks like a poem.
Normally on any decent news site I might expect a dozen or so insightful and knowledgable comments like this, but unfortunately this is Slashdot -- a previously respectable site that has degenerated into a useless pile of ooze.
Thanks Ex-MislTech for your comment -- I'm glad to see there are a few rational people left in this world, but I'm afriad you're wasting your breath on these turds.
They already have their minds made up.
They already doubt everything in existance.
They all root for the underdog no matter who.
They all hate Windows.
They all are l33t.
But they still don't know shit.
If the Palistinensan leadership does not manage to tide in mindless suicide attacks, they are terrorists.
If Israelians launch missiles against civil houses and cars, they are fighting terrorism. If they put the quarters of a foreign administration into rubbles, they are acting in defense.
Well, maybe a slap on the wrist may be in order.
Just face it, America's justice may be blind, but it has ears. If it hears some of the parties have an American accent, or just intone a broken "merika gudd!", it will know how to cast its scales.
The "real" issue here is what is the end game for Saddam, what is his final goal . Let me tell you about something that he has now, and is mass producing .
.. smallpox, plauge et. al.)
Botulinum Toxin...
And where did they get the cultures for that???
CDC gave them to Iraq in the late 80-s & early 90's..
Along with a few other nasties...shipped back to Iraq in a case (i believe it was 12 or so different virues/bacteria
Who supplied the computers for the nuclear research??
Who supplied Iraq with Fuel-Air Bombs in the late 80's???
What goes around, comes around my friend
Yet another failure by the US in controlling the global political climate...
Ex-MislTech
Tech Support
Guantanamo Bay
Cuba
In that case you can release or charge the prisoners you have there... THE most inccorect thing the US has done since WW2
Democracy my ass...
Burma?
The United States sold Botulinum Toxin to Iraq in the late 1980's, when Saddam Hussein was in power, and bombing the northern Kurds we pity so much today. The only thing that has changed is our attitude towards Iraq, not Iraq or its leadership. We're being huge hypocrites to complain about him having weapons on mass destruction when we sold them to him in the first place, and to complain about him killing his own people when while we were allied with Iraq we didn't give a shit.
A roomate of tha fellow was once arrested for being within a few blocks of a bombing. He and half a dozen or so other bystanders were sent to prison, although the court didn't believe he had any role in the attack.
I forgot to mention another great inequality of Israeli law. Torture is legal in Israel and it is applied exclusively to Palestinians. In 1987, the Israeli Supreme Court convened a special commission to review the practice. The impetus originated with the case of a Druze IDF soldier (The Druze Palestinian community has an historic alliance with the Zionists, dating to pre-'48 Palestine. Unlike most Palestinians, they can serve in the Army) convicted for espionage on the strength of a confession Shin Bet (the internal security agency) tortured out of him. The commission, albeit in somewhat veiled terms, upheld the legitimacy of torture as a means of law enforcement. To be sure, torture was commonplace before, but after 1987, it was legally sanctioned. The treaty monitoring body of the International Convention Against torture, of which Israel is a signatory, has twice found Israeli methods to violate the treaty.
Holy crap, that is some weird shit. Was that actually written by human hand or is there some program to generate such voluminous invective?
It's interesting that you raise the issue of sovereignity but don't seem to know what it means. Sovereignity basically means that, as a nation, you can do whatever the hell you feel like and you're not responsible to anyone else. So, guess what - the US acted as a sovereign nation. Had the FBI gone to Russia and kidnapped these guys back to the US there would be an issue of violating Russia's sovereignity.
And, if you actively criticize China - I wouldn't recommend taking a trip there.
I forgot to mention another great inequality of Israeli law. Torture is legal in Israel and it is applied exclusively to Palestinians.
Including "Palestinians" who have simply visited relatives in the occupied territories and mistakenly belived that holding a British, French or US passport would protect them. (In the same way that foreigners vistiting South Africa could be granted the status of "honoury white" regardless of how dark their skin was.)
The treaty monitoring body of the International Convention Against torture, of which Israel is a signatory, has twice found Israeli methods to violate the treaty.
Treaties are simply "ink on paper" unless there is willingness to back them up with force.
Take the Internet out of it and provide an anology that is pertinent to the issue. Your analogies are helpful, but don't carry to the situation we're discussing.
Citizen A, of and in the Country A casts a stone across the border to the neighbouring country Country B and smashes a window in the car belonging to Citzen B.
Now argue your case. The Laws in Country A are not going to apply to this situation because it's not a crime to throw a stone across the border, but Citizen B has been financially injured. Who's laws apply to Citizen A, and what should happen to him if he ever crosses the border?
Okay I've stretched it a bit, hopefully you get the point.
My own opinion is that it's not easy to simplify every case that is going to happen to this analogy, but Gorshkov is Citizen A here and his laws are being applied to a crime he, arguably, committed in Country B, the US.
This is where it gets more complicated, where was the crime committed? At the keyboard in Russia or on the Server in the US? I think that future law will be based around whatever decision is made on the location of the event of the crime...
Cheers.
yeah right.
Irrelevant of where the crime was committed, the punishment should be determined by the nation the criminal was in when (s)he committed the crime, whether (s)he crosses borders or not afterwards.
If someone in Mexico shoots someone in the US, then travels to the US, (s)he should be arrested, because murder is illegal in Mexico just as it is in the US. However, the punishment should in accord with Mexican law, not US law. In this case I doubt there's any difference, between the punishment for murder in Mexico and that for it in Texas.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
A Russian cracker, tricked by the FBI into visiting the US on the pretext of a job interview, has been sentenced to three years in jail.
Vasiliy Gorshkov, 27, was also ordered to pay $690,000 in compensation for his crimes by Federal District Court Judge John Coughenour, who took his family's medical and financial problems into account in sentencing the Russian to serve far less time than the 16 years demanded by prosecutors.
Last October, Gorshkov was convicted of 20 counts of conspiracy, various computer crimes, and fraud against online banks and e-commerce operations. His co-accused, Alexey Ivanov, 20, pleaded guilty in August to similar charges along with five counts of extortion, Reuters reports. He is currently in custody, awaiting sentencing.
The circumstances surrounding the November 2000 arrests of the pair put the spotlight of FBI tactics used in the case and prompted Russia's counterintelligence service, the FSB, to take the unprecedented step of charging FBI Agent Michael Schuler with hacking.
Schuler was praised by US authorities for an elaborate ruse that resulted in the arrests of Gorshkov and Ivanov. The operation arose out of a nationwide FBI investigation into Russian computer intrusions against e-commerce sites, and online banks which identified Gorshkov and Ivanov as prime suspects.
It was suspected the pair cracked into victims' computers to steal credit card information and other financial information, prior to attempting to extort money from the victims with threats to expose the sensitive data to the public or damage the victims' systems. Gorshkov and Ivanov were also suspected of defrauding PayPal through a scheme in which stolen credit cards were used to generate cash and to pay for computer parts.
The FBI lured the two to the US by posing as representatives of the fictional 'Invita' security firm, and offering the dynamic duo good jobs if they could prove their skills.
Of course the Feds set up a box rigged with a key logger and then set the pair to work demonstrating their amazing prowess. When they accessed their machines back home, the Feds recorded the login info, and later returned to root the boxes.
Having placed the pair in handcuffs, the FBI obtained a wealth of evidence from the compromised machines.
All perfectly above-board a judge said, ruling that Russian law does not apply to the agents' actions. Russia disagreed and, anxious to assert its sovereignty, filed a complaint against Schuler to the US Department of Justice.
No further news of that as yet. The case will probably die a quiet death with some form of diplomatic compromises and vague promises from the FBI to work more closely with the Russians in future.
Thank you. That's my point exactly. You DO have the right, under US Law, to take them to court. The US just has no jurisdiction to force them to BE THERE, as they are on foreign soil.
Should the guy who broke into your computer from country X, where it may be legal, suddenly end up in the US, you could have him charged for the crime.
So in this case.. the US had every right to charge them with this crime, and the fact that they caught them IN the us, means they have jurisdtction over their asses now.
THe fact that they did hte hacking in russia does not mean they did not break any US laws.
I`m just a script kiddy from Romania and I think it is not fair for the FBI to brake into a russian server even to catch a cracker carder or whatever... they could not know for sure that he really is one and i think everybody should have his privacy on his own server...so if FBI has the wright to do it why souldn`t have anyone else...? Who gives FBI the wright to do it ?...I think it`s not fair...and i think it should be an international law for this...wich should be respected by everyone including FBI and all the others so called security agencies. Anyway Vasiliy mustaked if the FBI manage to brake into his server and i guess he knows that... Hope he will be out soon...that`s all...by
Aerosolizing Botulinum Toxin does not appear to be that easy. The Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan attempted to do so on three occasions during the early 1990s. There were no casualties. Finally they turned to good old Sarin and managed to kill 10 people.
I'd be interested in seeing your "proof that Iraq is training Al-qaeda in Bio/Chem warfare." I have seen no such proof and it is an improbable alliance, although rapidly growing more probable given the Bush administration's actions.
"Your diatribe is pointless."
Not nearly as pointless as yours. Jeeze, try thinking, it may hurt at first...
"a.) They followed US law."
*US* law is applicable in US jurisdiction. If I grow pot in Amsterdam, should the DEA be able to break down my door and confiscate my pot and equipment? Do you have any clue at all, whatsoever, as to what national sovereignty is about?
"b.) They had no choice. In the US they could have gotten a warrant. In Russia they can't. They got their job done."
And you are sure of this because... oh, that's right, I know... you read some news story about it online, so that makes you a big expert. Well expert, here's something for you to think about, it is the job of US law enforcement to enforce US law in, surprise surprise, the US! US law enforcement != russian law enforcement. If I comit a crime in Russia, that is not the job of US law enforcement to prosecute me.
"c.) Where have you been? Europeans have been wanting to arrest US officials for executions and other violations of "enlightened" European laws for a long time. Get a freaking clue."
Wanting to arrest US officials and actually doing it are two different things. Right now, I'd like to smack you upside the back of your unthinking head, but it would only be a crime if I actually did it. In this case the US enforced US law in a country that is not the US. Have you gotten the clue yet?
Show me an effect without cause and then I'll believe in chaos.
Rule #7: Silence is not acquiescence.
Contrary to what you may have heard, silence of those present is
not necessarily consent, even the reluctant variety. They simply may
sit in stunned silence and figure ways of sabotaging the plan after
they regain their composure.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...
Precisely. Rather than supporting Iraq to get back at the Ayatollah, we should have simply nuked Tehran the minute the hostages were out of Iranian airspace and out of range of the bomb. Now we know.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.