Slashdot Mirror
New Congressional Bill Makes DMCA Look Tame
An anonymous reader writes "Representative Lamar Smith is sponsoring the Intellectual Property Protection Act. The new bill is designed to give the Justice Department 'tools to combat IP crime' which which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Among the provisions is lowering the standards for 'willful copyright violation' and increasing the corresponding prison term to 10 years." More information is also available at publicknowledge.org.
I wonder if the Bush Administration realizes what its rhetoric sounds like. Copyright infringement = terrorism? Marijuana = terrorism? This is overtly Orwellian doubletalk. I'm not going so far as to say that we're in a police state, but you can justify stronger IP laws without resorting to blaming it (and everything) for terrorism. It's fucking ridiculous.
Does anybody remember a case that even remotely supports that assertion? Any free-swappping IRA members?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Because when your only choices are between two guys that can be bought and sold so cheaply, that's what you pick. Voter turnout is low for this among other reasons.
During a speech in November, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales endorsed the idea and said at the time that he would send Congress draft legislation. Such changes are necessary because new technology is "encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual-property theft," Gonzales said, adding that proceeds from the illicit businesses are used, "quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities."
What's being suggested is that MP3 downloaders are directly responsible for suicide bombings! We know how rediculous this is but...
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
Because when your only choices are between two guys that can be bought and sold so cheaply, that's what you pick.
Sorry - I find that argument quite irritating.
You have plenty of choice. A vote for a third candidate does not throw your vote away - even if that candidate is not elected, an increase in other party's showing sends a message to the incumbrents.
Voter turnout is low for this among other reasons.
Voter turnout is low because of stupidity & apathy. People need to understand that you do not have to get your party voted in to make a difference
Say you're a libertarian (I'm not), you feel that there is no point voting as your candidate will never get elected, but if the candidates percentage of the vote is 1% one year, then 1.2%, then 3%, etc, the major parties will notice that & attempt to make their policies closer to the libertarian (or whatever) ideal.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
" Permits wiretaps in investigations of copyright crimes, trade secret theft and economic espionage...."
You decide your economy will be 'knowledge' based, rather than making and selling things.
You create a bunch of artificial rights, that concentrate money in the hands of a few companies and remove them from everyone else.
But it doesn't work, your economy becomes uncompetitive, runs up a huge trade deficit. The companies become fat and lazy and the world doesn't buy their shit products.
Your currency can't sustain it and starts to fall.
You have to grab assets, oil! Iraq here we come, oil can save us.
But there isn't enough oil in Iraq and they don't elect the leader you chose for them.
What can you do to make this knowledge based economy work? Try bigger penalties, more spying on the population, 10 years in prison for minor infringement. Force through treaties on trade partners, desparate measures are called for to prevent the USA economy from collapsing the way the Soviet Union did when it spent too much money.
Sorry, where did you get this "information" ?
Anyway, the old "new" constitution is dead in the water right now thanks to French and Dutch voters. ATM the EU is seriously annoying Microsoft over its overly militant use of IP to squash competition, whereas we all know how it worked out in the US.
I wouldn't count the old EU out just right now.
You guys really need to get rid of the winner takes all system and get proportional representation. The vulnerability and failings of two-party democratic systems have become obvious; it's damn cheap to buy two candidates, and the purchasers know they wont have to buy anyone else.
Kill a man, you get 20 years in jail. 'Steal' 20 bucks worth of software, you get 10. People should be made pass an iq test before being admitted into congress or legal services. It is apparent that many of the 'lawmakers' do not have any tint of the sense of 'proportionality'.
Read radical news here
You can. You can resort to blaming it on child pornography instead. Works just as well!
Sorry about that, but this is going too far. Terrorism and child pornography are bad, yes, but attempts to prevent them are not worth the loss of our rights. In the other story about this kind of thing, I forgot who said it, but it went something like this - "Terrorism and Child Porn are the root passwords to the constitution". It's a sad time for the land of the free.
"Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
Not IP , or child porn , lack of prayer or homosexuals . .
WarMongering Idiots on one side and Religious Fundamentalist Psychos on the other cause terrorism
So how about the WMI&RFP restriction Act ?
My Starcraft 2 Blog
I'm sorry, but 1% or 1.2% is not going to make a dent in the conviction of the larger parties. As long as you don't get up to double digits you ARE throwing your vote away. But I don't see anyone waiting 40 years to get there!!
What you need to understand is that voting for either of republicans or the democrats is the REAL waste of a vote.
The two parties are IDENTICAL except for a couple knee-jerk issues that make good sound-bytes but have zero to do with the day to day operation of the government.
I know nobody who is willing to wait that long when things need to change NOW
And by voting for either major party NOW, they guarantee that there will be no significant changes EVER.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Hardly something I'd say would be offensive.
It is patently offensive (no pun intended), if you compare it with the corresponding paragraph in the US constitution:
You note that the US text severly limits scope of intellectual property:- it is limited in time
- it should only be upheld if it helps foster progress
Both safeguards are lacking from the EU constitution. The sentence about Intellectual property is incredibly short and blunt, without any ifs and buts.The IP article in the EU constitution paves the road to perpetual copyrights and software patents.
Most other stipulations in the EU constitution have all kinds of exceptions where the rights granted should not apply. Not so intellectual property (which is not even defined! ... and so could conceivably be redefined in the future to include all kinds of corporate rights of which aren't even yet included into today's nightmares...)
...and introdouce this "justice" system and get it over with. Five years, ten years, death penalty... Seems to me that Congress had watch too much TNG and think that'll make the world happy and crime-free.
First age long prison sentences, then "convicted felon", "sex offender"... I'm sure it won't be long before they invent a "pirate registry" too. I read in the recent discussion about kiddie porn about a woman who had been convicted at 10 for "molesting" her younger siblings and had to stay on the sex offenders' registry until she was 37. I call that "fucked for life", why not put a horrified little ten year old girl in the chair while you're at it.
There's always been a good principle in law enforcement that the penalty should fit the crime. In the US, it seems to me that the current idea is "Ok so we got a million criminals and only catch hundred, but we're going to make up for it by making those hundred pay for it." as if that would make things just. That's not justice, that is simply revenge, even if it's incorporated in law. Because you can't reach those you want to reach, you lash out at those few you can. That still doesn't make it just for those that get away nor for those that get caught.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Err...
Unless I am mistaken, this is not retorical, it is a clear statement that piracy is being used to fund terrorism.
Frankly, someone in the US gov is taking lessons from the el presidente Antonio Bliar's book that any lie is OK provided that it is for the "just cause". Can we see some damn proof of at least one instance when this has happened?
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I think you are deluding yourself if you think the US article has any teeth.
The EU paragraph doesn't say *how* the IP shall be protected, I'll grant you that, however the corresponding paragraph in the US constitution, while nicer on the outside, has been shown in effect to be just empty words.
Software patents in particular in the US have not been shown to foster progress, and copyrights on the other hand have infinite terms for all intents and purposes, so the ifs and buts serve strictly no purpose. If you start quaking in fear because some sentence leaves the door potentially open to some invented evil, soon your only option is to live in a cavern for fear of your own shadow.
Recall that the EU software patents are still illegal. The "offending" broad sentence in the EU constitution is not a blank check to suddenly making them legal and never would have been. The constitution should be a simple text defining broad principles. No one in their right mind would like IP rights not to be protected. The EU constitution says that they shall be, and leaves it to the democratically elected institutions to work out the details. Potentially these can change with time. In my opinion this is how it should be.
I'll remind you that last year these democratically elected EU institutions worked extremely well to defeat a remarkably well orchestrated attempt by lobby groups to impose US-style software patents in Europe. There were enough alert people to cry foul on all the dirty tricks and ATM the lobbyists are licking their wounds. They'll be back, but for the moment I'm not convinced they will necessarily win.
I'll take debate and a functioning democracy anytime over nicely worded sentences in arbitrary constitutions. Supposedly the old USSR constitution was a model of enlightened principles. Look how it turned out. It didn't prevent the gulag.
For the most part I agree that blaming the congressmen for acts of congress is more politically productive, but I would submit that your view that this is separate from the executive's legislative agenda (and rest assured, it has one) is simplistic at best.
Part of what makes the Republican party so scary (besides the wacko puritan crazies that overran it about 25 years ago) is that it boasts a strong party loyalty amongst members of congress in a system that franly doesn't encourage it. Admittedly there are outliers like Ron Paul in the House and Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe in the Senate but they are truly anomalies in an otherwise placid sea of party line voters. Part of that loyalty comes directly from executive strong-arming, particularly threats of not helping to fundraise for reelection (which can be crippling for a congressman). To say that Bush and his team bear no blame for the legislation coming out of their congressional colleage's collective asses is missing the forest for the trees. Especially when Mr. Gonzales is quoted in TFA as relating this legislative agenda to combatting terrorism. He's an executive officer, no doubt about it.
There is something to be said about politicians being bought and paid for, and particularly with legislation like this the largest pressure comes from industry lobbyists, but when you follow the money it also inevitably leads back to party and president (for the ruling party).
Now, ultimately, you are right in that focusing on Bush takes the attention off of some Members of Congress who richly deserve some democratically-imposed term limits, and because the picture is more complicated than you make it out to be, many of them will slip thorugh the cracks looking cleaner than they ought to. And that is a tragedy.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the immigration debate just dismantling this political regime as many MCs find themselves in a damn'd if ya do/dam'd if ya don't situation. It seems like the first time in a while that the republican stranglehold on the politcal consciences of its own MCs is breaking as they look to their own necks first.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Unless I am mistaken, this is not retorical, it is a clear statement that piracy is being used to fund terrorism
So when is oil becoming illegal?
There should be a "-1:Groupthink"
To quote, 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (in reference to copyright infringement).
Attorney General Gonzales was appointed by W. Bush, so it is entirely appropriate attack the Bush administration's doubletalk.
"Terrorism" is the new red scare, where a blanket term applies to anything unpatriotic and antigovernment.
Alberto Gonzales is a terrorist. He, along with congress, the senate, and our president are terrorizing our own people with fear and nonsense.
I suppose they couldnt have said "Intellectual property laws are to protect our children from child pornography and sexual predators", without making folks say "You're a fucking tool Albert"
So logically, its terrorists who are benefiting from copyright infringement.
How many want to bet that The Bush girls have illegal tunes on their ipod, or have used the old napster in their lifetime? How many want to bet that if ever caught, they would not be subject to the same laws that you and i would.
Alberto can go fuck his mother for all i care. This countries just about done.
Vote for a fucking third party candidate dam it!
Here we go. Under current law, Section 1201 of the law generally prohibits distributing or trafficking in any software or hardware that can be used to bypass copy-protection devices. Smith's measure would expand those civil and criminal restrictions. Instead of merely targeting distribution, the new language says nobody may "make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess" such anticircumvention tools if they may be redistributed to someone else. Like debuggers?
This is an interesting observation which both amuses and depresses me. One may wonder how come the elections in the USA normaly end up this way. Also in Europe we are seing the same tendencies (last Italian election Berlusconi vs Prodi).
Tha answer is that if you give a large group of people two very similar choices, like for example in te Pepsi/Coke chalanges, you end up very close to 50/50 ratios. If you let someone choose between eating a pizza and and a rotten rat - the results are way, way higher. So the "choice" we're given is not a real choice, it's more of a farce and an excuse to call the system a democracy. Thare is a nice saying for this in Swedish: "It's like choosing between Plague and Cholera".
What does this tell us then?
<SARCASM> That two-party politics (USA) is 100% improved one-party politics (USSR)!! </SARCASM>
Cheers... :|
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
Actually the problem runs much more deeply than voter apathy. The main reasons why the same old hands keep getting re-elected even when they are clearly selling custom-made laws to their corporate pals are:
...
...
- Gerrymandering - Politicians get to draw the lines of their own electoral districts. It's no surprise then that using information about registered voters they draw the lines in such a way as to maximizing their chances to get re-elected. Latelly they even use computer programs to do that.
- Incumbents have a lote more money to defends their seats than other candidates running for that seat. In the US, the candidate with the biggest advertising campaing is often the winner. This actually creates a perverse incentive for politicians to proposed/approve laws that benefict some companies: the more favours they do when holding office, the bigger the pot they will have when the time comes to defend their seat.
The result was that, in 2004, 95% of incumbents managed to keep their seats. It's hard to believe that only 1 in 20 politicians turned out to not be the best choice to represent their constituency
Honestly, seen from the point of view of someone who lives in a country where politicians get elected via proportional voting (Holland), the political system in the US looks far from being a real democracy. Not only do different votes have different weights (a person voting Democrat in an electoral district with 70% registered Republicans - or vice-versa - has precisely ZERO chance of changing the outcome of the vote) but the whole registered voters thing provides countless oportunities for social manipulation.
I've also lived in a country that not so long ago (32 year ago, tomorrow) went from dictatorship to democracy (Portugal) and were members of parliment are elected via electoral districts. This resulted in the same 2 parties alternating with each other as winner of the elections. After some decades of this the end result was:
a) Both parties have pretty much the same policies. In front of the cameras politicians criticise the other party, but in practice both parties do the same things.
b) There was an increase in career politicians. The kind that go to politics for money and power, not because they want to improve the country.
c) A "political class" was born (politicians actually use this expression). They stopped being representatives of their constituents and instead were pretty much just representing themselfs. This can clearly be seen in a number of laws designed to protect/benefict politicians (and lawyers).
d) An environment of unaccountability has installed itself. Those politicians currently in power do their best to cover the backs of those that were in power before them (as in, for example, burying legal investigations into corruption) because they know that when they change places the other ones will do the same for them. (thanks to the free press, at the moment there's a bit of a backslash against corruption)
e) A lot less people vote nowadays. Unless you're voting for one of the two parties that are always in government, you know that your vote counts for little. Voter turnout is now often below 50%, while in the years after the revolution it was more than 70%.
Still, at least there's no gerrymandering or voter registration: parliement seats actual change, even if mostly it's between the same two persons and latelly some young and inovative parties have been slowly growing, even if, thanks to electoral districts, their representation in the parliement is actually only HALF of what they would get in a proportional representation system
That which is built decays, that which is loved endures.
The United States Constitution is a wonderful document. It struck a careful balance, and made explicit protection against specific fallacies that seem to be cropping up lately ("You have no constitutional right to X..."). The problem is, nobody seems to give a damn. No matter how cleverly worded it was, it won't make a difference if the people don't read it, understand it, and force the government to abide by it.
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
It's been said many times, but it bears repeating:
Child Porn is the root password to the US Constitution.
Terrorism is the alternate password.
Yep.
It sure was introduced by a Congressman. That doesn't mean that the Congressman wrote the bill.
The President cannot introduce legislation himself. It takes a Congressman to do that.
Even though the Congressman introduced the legislation, the legislation was drafted by the Bush administration.
(1) "The 24-page bill is a far-reaching medley of different proposals cobbled together. One would, for instance, create a new federal crime of just trying to commit copyright infringement. Such willful attempts at piracy, even if they fail, could be punished by up to 10 years in prison."
(2) "Jessica Litman, who teaches copyright law at Wayne State University, views the DMCA expansion as more than just a minor change. "If Sony had decided to stand on its rights and either McAfee or Norton Antivirus had tried to remove the rootkit from my hard drive, we'd all be violating this expanded definition," Litman said."
(3) "copyright holders can impound "records documenting the manufacture, sale or receipt of items involved in" infringements"
(4) "boosts criminal penalties for copyright infringement originally created by the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 from five years to 10 years (and 10 years to 20 years for subsequent offenses). The NET Act targets noncommercial piracy including posting copyrighted photos, videos or news articles on a Web site if the value exceeds $1,000"
Well ... this starts to look like the laws in good old England last century. Where paupers could be sentenced to things like banishment to the Colonies (or an extensive jail time) for something like stealing an apple.
ad (1) It does seem a bit over the top punishment-wise.
ad (2) Just what we need! Congress has surely got its ear to the ground on this one.
ad (3) Makes sense ... just think of all those weblogs that ISP's are so loath to give up. Grabbing the weblogs and suing people wholesale on basis of it may yet become an important source of revenue for copyright holders.
ad (4) What are the going rates for manslaughter? And for aggravated assault? And for murder? Repeated copyright violation in excess of 1000$ is apparently the moral equivalent of murder and is rated higher than manslaughter or aggravated assault. Interesting point of view. First the War on Drugs and now this. We're going from strength to strength.
Watch the good old US of A wage War on Crime. Copyright violations are so bad for society that they merit firm jail sentences. Bad news perhaps for teenagers who use p2p software, but the good news is that this might be just what's needed to secure our lead in people jailed per 1000 (see http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries -by-highest-prison-population-rates.html) which is now only threatened by Russia and a few banana republics. We lead the world inthis area (except perhaps for countries that don't release statistics such as North Korea).
Just a thought ... those jails we have are awfully expensive per inmate. Wouldn't it be an idea to give offenders a choice: jail time or a tour of service in Afghanistan or Iraq? To err ... atone for their misdemeanour? Just a thought.
Pretty soon if you're convicted of a IP violation you'll become ineligible for federally backed student loans. Same type of war, different players.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
It's hardly as simple as you would make it out to be, sir.
Ever burn a mix CD for your SO?
PIRATE!
Ever record something off of internet radio or FM?
PIRATE!
Ever time shift a TV program and bypass the commercials?
PIRATE!
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
It's easy to slap on a label and criminalize some basically innocuous behavior to the benefit of those that already have all the benefits (you did know that corporations enjoy more rights and protections than you, Mr. John Q. Public, right?).
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
You don't understand.
Congress makes the laws. Congress is made up of corrupt politicians who get their money from lobbyists (many from the drug-infested, bribery machine that Gingrich & DeLay & Ney et al. tuned on K Street -- the bribery machine was there before them, BTW -- they only tuned it to try to make the bribes all go to Republicans only). Congress is made up of corrupt career politicians who want to get reelected.
It serves their interest to punish newcomers, to encourage no turnover. So they will never want to abandon the current system of seniority that punishes newcomers and keeps power to long-term career seat holders.
It serves their interest to lock out any third party, so they will never want to change the "winner take all" non-representative electoral college.
That is to say, you cannot reform the corrupt Congress by hoping that Congress reforms it.
That might be good, except that most of what this is directed against is the noncommercial copyright infringer. If they targetted this bill towards those making a profit off the works through sale of the material, then maybe I could understand (except that large scale pirating operations that could help terrorists would almost certainly be done overseas...).
The execs are the only ones in a no-lose position. Or at least that was the case before computers and the internet. It's time for a whole new paradigm. But to get there, consumers and artists are going to have to work together... hence the sick beauty of the divide-and-conquer approach. The longer artists and audiences are kept from reaching mutually satisfactory solutions, the longer the media corp execs can line their pockets.
I do not have a signature
It's because America is lazy now. Change requires work, and America is just lazy. It's easier to bitch over coffee how Bush wiretaps then it is to actually do something - even as simple as writing your representatives.
People, as a whole, are sheep. It's the very thing that shows the likes of the Simpsons and Family Guy show - mob mentality rules, people are sheep. The majority usually complains about indescressions for a week, then accept them.
Take the RIAA for instance. There was a huge web backlash when they first filed their 1.7 billion john doe lawsuits. Since then, /. is about the only place that continues to hold hate for the RIAA - everyone else just buys their music, no matter how many 80 year old grandmothers they bankrupt.
Same for public survellance. You're videotaped hundreds of times a day. Initially it was uncomfortable, but now people just ignore and accept it.
To use another Simpsons analogy - take the time Apu was on Homer's lawn looking in the front window and Homer wanted him to leave:
Homer: Will you get off my lawn!?
Apu: Why don't you make me!
Homer: Why!?! Aw... I give up...
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
Go ahead and say it: The past few years we have been dealing with a Totalitarian Regime that aspires to be a dictatorship - and they are winning, mostly (imo) because no one will say it out loud. The fact it's a dictatorship that calls itself "Christian" (instead of "Islamist") doesn't make it any less a dictatorship, and doesn't make it less Wrong.
The "Kingdom of Heaven" ("Kingdom of God"/whatever) may be paradise, but it's still monarchy - not a democracy, or even a Republic - so what do your Christian ideals tell you about Democracy - that it's Evil, or that it's good enough until Jesus gets back?
"The Internet is made of cats."
"New legislation passed into law. Theft rates skyrocket."
"When the police asked a man caught stealing DVDs and CDs from the store, he said the risk was a bargain compared to downloading the same content online. Now he'll only get a fine, a few days in jail, and be on his merry way. If he'd used a computer to do the same thing he'd be financially ruined, spend up to a decade or so in 'pound me in the ass prison', and be marked for life as a felon. To him the choice was simple."
My point is punishments need to fit the crime. This legislation proposes punishments that are grossly excessive, as is the case for many punishments related to computer crimes that were brought forth by the content industries--I'm looking at you RIAA and MPAA. When the punishment of doing physical harm and ACTUAL theft is less risky of making a mere copy of electronic data, the world is in a sorry state of affairs, which is a symptom of the greed and corruption ruining this country.
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
An example of this principle that is often misunderstood in modern times is the Old Testament rule of "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." This phrase is associated with brutality and revenge, but actually it is a limit on the severity of punishments that for its time (and for most times and places since then, unfortunately) was quite merciful. It explicitly rules out the example you give of executing someone for stealing bread, or even for stealing something much more expensive. By this standard, the penalty for "stealing" copyrighted material should be comparable to the value of the material stolen. The law right now is so far beyond that it's scary.
And there are the other objectors who say "Yes, but if the penalty was that minor then it wouldn't be enough of a disincentive to copyright violators" -- but the primary purpose of just laws is not to serve as a disincentive to bad behavior (let alone that more severe punishments doesn't even correlate directly with less crime, as in your example). Even if, by instituting an instant death sentence for copyright violation, we were able to lower copyright violation to 1% of its current levels, this would not be acceptable, because death is not a proportionate punishment for that crime. Similarly, 10 years in prison, though a good deal more lenient than death, is grossly disproportionate to the offense that will yield it.
Does such a punishment deter crime? Not as much as you'd think. But who cares? The point is that it is an immoral punishment. The ends do not justify the means. People should be punished because of the wrongs that they committed, not as an example to scare other people out of misbehaving. People who break laws are still people, not some "criminal" class that becomes subhuman and is therefore unworthy of justice. And "justice" doesn't just mean "bad things happen to people who break laws." It should mean that those who break laws will receive a punishment appropriate to their specific actions, and it is poor sympathy for fellow human beings to ignore what happens to them because "they broke the law, so they had it coming."
Alright, rant over for now... suffice to say... I agree with you ;)
I am the man with no sig!
Authorities
That computer is a hacking tool. Hacking is illegal.
Hacker
No, you're confusing "hacking" with criminal acts. "Hacking" just means that I'm using my computer in a manner not consistent with its original design to solve a problem in an imaginative manner.
Authorities
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Look, sir--some laws are just unenforcable, and we know that everybody's been breaking them for a long time. Hell, I used to, too. That's over now, but we're not locking people up for it yet. The people in the TCPA did the best they could to protect their rights and preserve as much of yours as they could tolerate. After that, legislatures simply let the technology define the rights.
The law has changed: What you're doing falls outside the scope of the TCP System. You could have bought an approved computer. The courts understand that there's really only one reason you didn't. know there's only one reason you didn't. We don't have to prove you did anything else illegal--the presence of the unlicensed computer is a crime, now.
You have a good job. A decent house that you're going to own in twelve more years, good credit, the respect of your peers, and peace of mind. You eat dinner with your kids and your wife. And what's your misery? Your kids are a couple of smart-mouth little shitheads? Great. Think about it. Don't be stupid. That's your worst problem? It's just a computer, fer chrissake. Just pay the fine; it's not going to break you.
Nothing else in the house I should know about, is there? Sign here. It says this computer you're giving me is the only illegal item in your possession. I'll sign as witness. See, it says "under penalty of perjury", and you signed it. I trust you. Look, sir, I'm trying to help you out here. You seem to be a decent guy and folks like you really don't belong in jail. I'll be in the neighborhood following up in about a week--you can ask me any questions then. County dump's public property, by the way. Can't say what came from who or when in there. Yeah--next Saturday. We'll be doing this side of the street in the afternoon.
One more thing--After I leave, I go to Best Buy or Wal-Mart and get yourself a legal computer, register it, and start using it. Use the number on the bottom of the form.
No, seriously. Go buy a decent computer. You're going to need one, and it's not going to put your Visa over the limit. Look, your hard drives get yanked & scanned into the database. Whatever you were using your computer for before---if don't start doing it on a licensed computer, the court assumes--Yeah, you got it.
Terrified hacker
Sorry. Here's the computer. Where do I sign? Can I pay the fine with Visa? No, I don't mind a 3% fee; that's what--only another fifteen bucks?
Three Years Later...
The fully engaged citizen act: Federally mandated taxpayer subsidized minimum internet access for everyone. Partially or fully subsidized (check your tax return to see if you qualify) computers for everyone. They're not very powerful, but they're enough to vote, file your taxes, and pay your fines.
And we really, really expect you to take advantage of this program. Why wouldn't you? It's basically free, and the only way you can vote, renew your drivers' license, apply for an apartment, sign up for electric service. Give all that up? Why? No, seriously, why? Sure, you can opt out of the program, but we'd really like to know why. I'll wait until you get it filled out. Can we go inside an sit down?
No, you misunderstand the word. Privacy is what's violated when the neighbors peek at your daughter in the shower.
A pattern of secretive behaviour, on the other hand, is evidence of a crime. No, of course, not you. You've done nothing wrong at all.
No, you don't qualify for the subsidy. But, hey, lemme see what I can do. Just sign up today, and I'll see you get the latest model--it'll
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick