Slashdot Mirror
Terrorist Link to Copyright Piracy Alleged
xbsd writes "John Stedman, a lieutenant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in charge of IP violations, testified in front of the Senate Homeland Security committee that some associates of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah may be involved in copyright violations. According to CNET's Declean McCullagh: 'Even though Stedman's evidence is circumstantial, his testimony comes as Congress is expected to consider new copyright legislation this year. An invocation of terrorism, the trump card of modern American politics, could ease the passage of the next major expansion of copyright powers'."
Is that a shock? Terrorism is the new buzz word, slap it onto anything you don't like and it's instantly evil.
Hell lets just call Nazis terrorists now. They are pretty much interchangable if you ignore the "short" gap between the end of the second world war and today
I like muppets.
Haven't you heard? Terrorism is the new communism now.
Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
I think this is directed to the people who sell pirated DVDs on the street, not P2P users.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
Yup. Except it's not just the left wing. BOTH parties are authoritarian.
I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans wanted to "get government out of our lives."
i.e. before they had all the power in government.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
My guess is that in two years (or less?), your right to think freely will also be considered a danger as it might be linked to terrorism in some way (as of yet to be discovered)...
You might call this a troll post, but seriously guys (and gals), doesn't anyone in the US Government think rationally anymore? Or is that also somehow an act of terrorism? Sheesh.
Yup. Except it's not just the left wing. BOTH parties are authoritarian.
Too true. How many bills had Bush vetoed?
I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans wanted to "get government out of our lives."
Yeah, they certainly enjoyed the Libertarian line until it came to their term in power.
Do you remember Reagan's acceptance speech?
"...Government *is* the problem"
How soon they forget.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
only outlaws will participate in piracy. So naturally the organised crime groups got involved. It's the same reason crime gangs run the drug trade, it's the same reason the Mafia controlled alcohol distribution in the Prohibition, and abortions before they became legal. Whenever legitimate businesses can't do something that's very much profitable, the illegitimate ones will. Piracy funds terrorism because it is illegal, not the other way around.
I am trolling
Before the Soviet Union collapsed, everything evil was blamed on communists, and any response, no matter how stupid, was deemed acceptible in order to fight communism. And it "worked". The Soviet Union's collapse occured after the US did all sorts of stupid things in the name of fighting communism, therefore the fall of communism *must* have been brought about by America's direct intervention!
Fighting terrorism is no different. And I quote:
Homeland Security is a bigger threat to the American way of life than anything Osama bin Forgotten can come up w/. Feel free to do something about it...
[o]_O
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Socialism," by which you mean some sort of statism, and capitalism are inseparable. The origin of the modern state is indistinguishable from the formation of modern capitalism. Capitalism requires a labor force that can be moved around, made abstract, is not too tied to one way of living or another, has a certain basic education. Capitalism in its modern form requires considerable state infrastructure to create currency, manage trade policy, control monetary policy, provide infrastructure for transportation, to prop the system up when it is about to break (see the airline bail-outs) and the like. The creation of the modern citizenry that owes primary loyalty to a nation-state is completely in line with the creation of a consumer/producer who sells his work in the market place. There is no capitalism without socialism.
You are all socialists in that regard. The question is a matter of a degree, and who gets "serviced" by these government institutions. The government is really a whole network of institutions, and just who those institutions work for is often up for grabs. Many conservatives are quite happy to evoke the idea of "laissez-faire" after they hide or ignore the ways in which the interests of the powerful are being buttressed by the state. When the state provides any services to the not-powerful, though, it gets tarnished as "socialism."
Of course, this is a simplification, but offers a starting point. Next:
Stalin was a socialist. Hitler was a socialist.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The fact that "nazi" comes from "national-socialism" or that Lenin and Stalin claimed to have "embraced and extended" Marx's theories is circumstantial for the end result - everything must start somewhere. You might as well say that Napoleon was a republican, since he begun by serving the French Republic.
Now look up those definitions on your own if you don't trust these, but to spell it out for you: Hitler was the head of a fascist regime in its purest form ('extreme right wing' some would call it). Stalin was the head of an authoritarian regime whose ideology is usually known as Marxism-Leninism (or 'extreme left wing') - some people would say it was not communism, but a perverted form, while others will argue that it was indeed communism - and the logical conclusion of any attempt to follow the theoretical sequence capitalism -> socialism -> communism to its end.
To go back to the original point, in practice there is not a whole lot of difference in form between the two extremes, but you have to bear in mind that socialism means state ownership and in the extreme (communist) case no private property, while fascism means state control, which is a little less. Also, in theory socialism does not advocate an authoritarian government, but it can easily fall into one when pushed. Now, what we have here is neither
For sure, socialists want big governments but they also care a lot about personal liberties. In fact, socialists want a big government so it can protect its citizens' liberties.
Maybe the socialists actually believe, or want to believe, that; but it's simply not true. One of my essential rights is the right to maintain my property and the fruits and rewards of my labor. Socialists do not recognize that principle and believe that it's OK for "society" to take from individuals and redistribute wealth and resources in the name of "fairness" and equality. But no matter what the justification, if my property is stolen from me, it's still stolen. Just naming the thief "government" and calling it "taxation" instead of "robbery" doesn't change anything.
Anyway, all of that aside, rampant socialism just does not work anyway. Look at the former USSR... "from each according to his means, to each according to his need" or whatever, makes a nice sound bite. But in practice this means that the government leader types were "more equal" than the common folks because they had... wait for it.... power. After all, somebody had to be "in charge" to make sure the wealth redistribution stuff was carried out.
But there's the rub... no matter how you justify it, no matter how you try to structure it, if you create an institution that grants certain people power or dominion over others, it will eventually become corrupt as people attempt to manipulate the system for their own benefit. Socialism sounds good on paper, but in practice it leads to totalitarianism just like fascism does.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig