Slashdot Mirror
What We Know About the FBI's CIPAV Spyware
StonyandCher writes "What is CIPAV? CIPAV stands for 'Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier'; a lengthy term for powerful spyware the Federal Bureau of Investigation can bring to bear on web-based crime. It was used last month in a case where someone was emailing bomb threats regularly to a Washington high school. An affidavit by an FBI agent revealed some of the workings of CIPAV. 'According to the court filing, this is [some of] what the CIPAV collects from the infected computer: IP address, Media Access Control address for the network card, List of open TCP and UDP ports, List of running programs ... Last visited URL. Once that initial inventory is conducted, the CIPAV slips into the background and silently monitors all outbound communication, logging every IP address to which the computer connects, and time and date stamping each.' In a Computerworld article, the author attempts to dissect CIPAV's purpose and raises a number of questions such as: What happens to the data the CIPAV collects? Does the CIPAV capture keystrokes? Can the CIPAV spread on its own to other computers, either purposefully or by accident? Does it erase itself after its job is done?"
Does it run on Linux?
sorry, couldn't help myself.... but seriously..... does it?
What happens when zombied computers are used to email such threats? who gets the blame in that case? How do you distinguish the innocent zombied-user from the trojan or virus? Would being infected constitute defense? If so, how do you prove intent??
So many questions raised by this... I'm sure others can think of many more.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I did read the article, but did not see anything about identification. Other than ensuring there is no spyware running on your machine, anyone have an idea how to detect this particular program?
Just look for the guy with that address!
It most do a trace route/phone home or somthing to actually get a useful address
The core problem is, surprisingly, its correlation with antivirus tools.
Either the feds don't give AV vendors a heads-up when they plan to use a trojan, i.e. they risk being found. Now, this would double as the "hey stoopid, the feds are onto you" warning.
So it's likely they do require AV vendors to avoid finding them. This, in turn, would mean, though, that all a potential virus writer has to do is to get his program to match the fed trojan in behaviour and shape, possibly in signature.
I needn't write more, I guess? Why bother coming up with a rootkit if there are governmental-assisted ways to create undetectable malware?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And all I saw was a whole bunch of "Don't know"s and speculation.
can't we just continue calling this Vista?
If they have this amazing tool for tracking people down, do they still get spam at HQ? If so, why not use this to catch the spammers and make them stop? Is it because they're all beyond jurisdiction now?
stuff |
Don't click on any links sent to you and don't visit any sites sponsored by the FBI.
I guess if the FBI is targeting you and they know that you like kiddie porn, they would set up a kiddie porn site to get a trojan on your machine.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Lets stick it to the man by writing an activation crack!!!
Although that probably won't get us past the FBI update site.
I guess we will have to slipstream until they crack the Hoover Genuine Advantage program.
Do they get a warrant, sneak into your home in the dead of night, and install software on your computer?
Do they mail it to you as a virus, perhaps cleverly disguised as a Nigerian spam scam?
Do they use the back door that Microsoft agreed to put in all their software in return for being granted Most-Favored Monopoly status by the government?
Or something else? "You are a suspected pedophile. To clear your name, please click here to install the FBI's internet spyware on your computer"?
Anyone know?
/* "Specialization is for insects." -Heinlein */
This will be the first time we're glad to hear "Sorry our software doesn't run on MAC's"
haha
What happens to the first person to get a hold of this software and fully analyze it?
5 bucks says they get a visit from big men in serious black suits and then are never seen again.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
There are many programs out there, such as LittleSnitch for Mac, which are rather adamant about making sure you know everything that is phoning home on your computer. Does the CIPAV have a method of circumventing these road blocks or would the FBI be stumped by the same software that is intended to keep computers safe from malicious software? While I could certainly understand them working with larger developers like Symantec and Microsoft to ensure that their anti-spyware and virus protection software dutifully ignores a product like CIPAV, what about machines running protection applications from smaller developers, or even open source protection, like the ClamAV project?
Better yet, if programs like CIPAV become more common as a tool for Federal Investigations, does it become a requirement that said programs allow CIPAV and its successors to do their work?
It's sold to commercial firms so they can advertise to you.
Duh.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Well, if they took out the phone home aspect - other than that it seems to be a fairly useful monitoring tool.
If AV companies do let the FBI version go through unchecked,
what if the virus and worm writers of today get a hold of this and modify it for their own purposes?
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
They spent a log of money on that. Sounds to me like it was actually a "test run" to make sure things work as expected. And now that they know it will work...
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
I demand a Mac OS X port! And a Linux port! The FBI is being unfair! ;)
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
$sudo apt-get remove cipav
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Couldn't find package cipav
Whew, safe!
The television will not be revolutionized.
Wow, people are worried about it spreading itself to other computers, deliberately or accidentally. It seems like the FBI has a bigger problem here: they're giving a spying tool to exactly the kind of people who, in the FBI's opinion, are less trustworthy than the average citizen. They give it to them, in the hopes that the suspected criminal will install it on their own machine instead of someone else's.
Think about this series of events: FBI looks into a kiddie porn / pedophile ring, and tries to trick the suspects into installing this spyware. The pedophiles think, "Oh wow, what do we have here?" and forwards the spyware to the kids. Now the pedophiles are logging the kids' keystrokes (or whatever the hell this software does) and learning what websites the kids visit, so as to make easier contact. Thanks, government.
You shouldn't lose sight of the fact that trojans aren't like other surveillance tools, where the spy does something "to" the spied-upon. With trojans, you have to give the weapon to the person you intend to use it against, and hope that they use it correctly. The Greeks must have been very relieved that the Trojans didn't accept their gift with the words, "Thanks for the bonfire wood; we're gonna have a hell of a party tonight!"
Obviously, the solution to this is for the FBI to print a special hard-to-photocopy manual that goes with CIPAV, and distribute the manual to the suspects. When the suspect boots their computer, display a prompt, "In order to have your network packets directed to fbi.gov, please enter the third word from the fifth line on page 28." Then keep tabs on making sure the suspects don't somehow find a way to copy the manuals and hand them out to their victims. ;-)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Don't use a MS Windows based OS if you want to do stupid stuff. Odds are that these type of government programs are only targeting the large user base of MS Windows. Use Linux, *BSD or Mac OS X and flip the government the birdie! ;-)
General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
Spent on a sophisticated solution for detecting your IP address, and the FBI has integrated THIS into CIPAV.
Some more speculation on installation methods of CIPAV can be found here:
http://blog.misec.net/2007/07/31/3/
Specifically, it looks like the FBI may have several ready-made exploits, each targeting a different OS/web browser combination. An interesting question, then, is what they would do if they encountered a system that is fully patched and running a more secure browser such as Firefox. Does the FBI have access to their own zero-day exploits that they can whip out to install this trojan? If so, is it possible they have their own team of hackers set out to find such exploits?
"Always trust sofware from FBI.gov" is turned on by default in some browsers?
3) there are things the government won't bother to prosecute you for, but will instead send you either to Cuba, ER countries, or any other varieties of violation of due process that haven't made it to the public ken.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
"If you're in the USA, enjoy your stay at the Gitmo Hilton. If you're not, well, you might not be bothered at all"
what is this, humor? does anyone actually believe this represents a fair depiction of how dissent, spying, and enemies of the state are handled by the usa, and *laugh* other governments in the world?
the usa has plenty of problems, don't get me wrong. but if you analyze any other country and the way they handle spying and rights, guess what? the usa doesn't look so bad
does this excuse the usa? no
but what it does mean is that those who use the "you're going to gitmo" angle when criticizing the usa's spy actions just sound ignorant
go ahead and criticize the usa, be my guest. but please try to sound vaguely educated on the subject matter of world governments, rights of citizens, and government abuses and where the usa stands in that spectrum
you don't bring a critical eye on the usa and its bad behavior, which is what the usa deserves. no, instead you just make those who oppose the usa's spy efforts sound like retards
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So long as they convict someone, they don't care.
How about: Which anti-virus/anti-spyware programs detect and remove it?
And which firewalls successfully block it? (Be funny of PeerGuardian takes it out.)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If it was written in-house, it is public domain. It may be protected by secrecy laws, but it has no copyright protection. If it was written by an outside contractor, then it might be copyright to someone else.
This is the third time Slashdot has featured a story on CIPAV, and not one of them has been as thorough as the original story broken by Kevin Poulsen at Wired News. http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/fbi _spyware?currentPage=all Declan McCullagh at News.com simply re-wrote Poulsen's story and introduced errors (slashdotting #1). Heise doesn't write original content (slashdot #2, a clear dupe) and this Computer World article (slashdot #3) looks like a later version of this: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/07/fbi-spywa re-how.html.
How about some Slashdot love for the reporter who broke the story?
Internet Explorer... Duh!
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
CIPAV stands for 'Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier'
No, it stands for "Covert Information Poaching Automated Virus"
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
1) Get a couple of 'virgin' PCs. Get them infected.
2) Make up some plausible identities as various members of the Defense Department.
3) E-Mail back and forth about your plans for the pending military coup. Specifically, how you are going to have to neutralize the FBI.
4) Sit back and watch the fireworks.
Have gnu, will travel.
By the time this came out, they have moved onto something else. Kinda like the military equipment. They were using cordless phones and walkie talkies loooong before they came out on the market for consumers. Dude, it's in the cheese! During a full moon, the cheese radiates an .ANI exploit to surrounding computers and downloads the CIPAV from ebay. Simple as PIE. Or they use that crazy device in a van outside your house to view everything you are doing on the computer. Only on /.
Since when did we ever let little things like evidence or common sense get in the way of a nice bit of conspiracy theorising?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
"Just because the software is partially paid for by the government, it does not necessarily follow that it's a back door. Take off the tinfoil hat."
Sorry, but the tinfoil hat has a backdoor in it. Something to do with letting out steam during the cooking process.
What you said made me think of a (somewhat) related topic. Several people have posted about the possibility of the big AV vendors and such excluding "official" malware from detection signature libraries. Several mechanisms have been suggested, ranging from voluntary participation to being required by secret Homeland Security legislation. I see several potential problems with the idea of the AV crowd secretly ignoring *any* official malware for *any* reason. ..., n ? How quick can you get every US based vendor up to speed and have updates pushed to all of their customers?
1) Even under the threat of Star Chamber "justice", you could never get 100% compliance from the security community.
a) I am NOT a security type, but it seems to me that much of what these surveillance wares do exhibits the exact same behaviors as many existing threats. (In fact, the article suggests they are based on existing and known flaws.) AFAIK; not all threats are detected by the signature of the files involved (Whether it be created, changed or moved). Some are detected purely by behavior. Even if $AV-VENDOR1 *did* create an update that ignores the tool, until ALL of the users (legit and pirate alike) had that update, there is a risk that the so-called "out of date" suite on a targets computer might detect the surveillance-ware based on behavior.
b)OK, so you got $AV-VENDOR1 and $AV-VENDOR2 to play ball with the Feds, what about $AV-VENDOR 3, 4,
c)Not every security company is subject to US law or the FBI's powers of persuasion. What about European companies? (Although that also raises the possibility of Euro AV folk cooperating with Interpol I guess.)
2) To hide something like this would require the involvement of many people scattered all over the place. Sooner or later, someone would spill the beans.
3) How specific is it? from the little I actually read, it sounds like a highly Windows-centric and highly focused tool. TFA mentions the possibility of putting one version after another onto a Myspace site until the target is successfully infected. Are *all* the versions going to be officially invisible as far as the AV crowd is concerned?
It strikes me that there are analogies to make regarding surveillance-ware and malware authors to the closed source vs open source thing. Consider this, the malware threat out there is huge, there are many skilled (and not so skilled) who stand to make a lot of money by owing your machine. Thus there are the black hat "many eyes" scrutinizing code trying to find a new and exploitable flaw compared to comparatively few white hat workers trying to exploit the same code to uphold the law. And even more white and gray hats finding these flaws so they can fix them first. The open source supporters claim that many eyes make for more secure code bases and I agree. But by the same reasoning, more black hats looking for exploits than cops means the black hats will have a better arsenal at their disposal.
For now at least, the security community seems to be holding it's own against the black hats. Without the complicity of the security community, surveillance developers would have a damn hard time coming up with something that the crackers haven't already done and the security guys haven't already fixed. Anyone who is possessed of sufficient clue to do what I consider routine maintenance for computers (updated security suite, properly configured firewall, patched OS) is going to be a tough target for this sort of thing.
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unkowns. That is to say, there are things we know we don't know. But, there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don't know we don't know.
how upset are you about this?
do you have a human conscience on the issues of basic human rights?
or do you just have an american conscience?
the world doesn't revolve around the usa. why do you?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
there is a road to fascism and ignoring human rights. and although some countries are a mile down that road, we're going to scream bloody murder only because the usa has moved a yard down that road
t /02iran.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/world/middleeas
how do you feel about this story this morning?
i mean, do you care about the universal human issue of basic human rights? or does the concept only enter your mind when the usa is involved somehow?
do you have a human conscience? or an american conscience?
the world doesn't revolve around the usa. why do you?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
there is a road to fascism and ignoring human rights. we both understand that. you allude to a slippery slope
t /02iran.html
so when the usa moves a yard down that road, you are going to get your panties in a twist and scream bloody murder
but when other countries are a MILE down that road, we're not going to say one peep
that's my problem with you
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/world/middleeas
just picked that story from this morning, out of many i could have picked over many days and many countries
how do you feel about this story?
i mean, do you care about the universal human issue of basic human rights? or does the concept only enter your mind when the usa is involved somehow?
do you have a human conscience? or an american conscience?
the world doesn't revolve around the usa. why do you?
i have a problem with people who scream bloody murder when the usa infringes rights (and it does, and it needs to be criticized for that)
but i never hear a peep from that crowd when other countries do far, far worse
why is that?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Iran does not make claims that align with your (or my) worldview of human rights.
We do. Constantly. Even while at the same time infringing (or trampling) those rights.
It's called hypocrisy. And we can little afford it in the country that claims (there's that word again) to be the beacon of freedom.
True, occasionally one of these countries makes some claim or other about valuing freedom or about how the US is worse than they are and most of us scoff because of their lack of credibility and move on.
I have a conscience. It's rooted in the principle of free will and self determination. See Immanuel Kant's works for a dry, but good read. What right have I got (or have we as a country got) to interfere in the affairs of a group of people who (mostly) consent to be governed by and agree with their current political situation? Yes it's different from us! While I empathize and wish dearly that more of the world would see our (for the most part) example and want the freedoms we value and often possess, it is slavery to impose it on them against their aggregate will.
Is it conscionable of you to impose your beliefs on a group of people who by and large reject them?
And personally, I do take issue with things that occur in other countries, but I'm somewhat limited in my impact. For instance I avoid Chinese products as often as possible because of their record for killing and enslaving peaceful protesters. (Remember Tiannamen Square? I do. The problem is that few of us do, and our media is so caught up in the sensationalist now that they ignore history, even as it relates to that now.)
Again, I am, as was George Washington and many brighter persons than I or our current leadership in either authoritarian party, opposed to involving ourselves in entangling foreign alliances. That being said, the part of the reasoning for taking out Saddam that I agreed the most with as a *putative* UN action, before we went in without the UN was his ill treatment of large numbers of his people.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
wrap your mind around this concept:
the only morally and intellectually defensible position on human rights is a global one
because we're talking about human rights. not american rights. not iranian rights
so when you criticize one country more than another, and the former does far less abuses than the latter, you don't have a human conscience. your level of criticism must match the level of abuse
otherwise, you have an american conscience: an obsession with america... which is fine, actually. just admit that you don't care about human rights. you only care about rights within your ethnic enclace. you could care less how bad things are elsewhere in the world
in your mind, human rights ends at the rio grande, the rock of gibraltar, the straights of bosporus. what happens beyond that is not your concern. no matter how many are hurt how badly
but if something bad happens within those bounds. my god, we must scream bloody murder
i wish it worked that way. it would make life easier. unfortunately, in today's world of the internet and jet air travel, you can not divide the world and your concern for abuses in it so conveniently. what happens in kandahar matters in downtown manhattan. what happens in riyadh has an effect on barcelona. what happens in canberra makes a difference in bali
this is the new truth of our global world. you need to update what you consider your moral conscience. right now, you don't have one. you have an ethnic, tribally driven obsession with only one part of the world, and you are all to happy to ignore abuses outside of your little enclave
doesn't work that way any more friend
the only morally and intellectually defensible position on human rights is a global one
think about it, and update your words
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
look, that guy is littering
better scream high holy indignation
look, that other guy is stabbing someone
but i can't criticize him, because that guy is a little further away from me
i have a human conscience
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i'm arguing that your time and critical energies are better spent focused on the laggards than focused on the middle or the front of the pack
what is the point of making sure minor human rights are improved in places where human rights are generally sound, and not looking at or criticising places where human rights are regularly and horribly abused
it would be ok if in this world people's critical energies were focused in proportion to the extent of human rights abuses
but we live in a world where a ton of criticism is heaped on places where abuses are moderate or small, and small to scant to no criticism is heaped on places where abuses are huge
doesn't that strike you as wrong?
i mean, we need a HUMAN conscience. not a european conscience, or a japanese conscience, or an american conscience
the only morally and intellectually defensible position on any human rights abuse in this world is a global one, not a local one
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if, in order to win your argument, you have to defend slavery, i think you've lost the argument
i say that slavery should be fought everywhere in the world
this is not arrogant
and this is not american
"Net result: you == those you hate"
yes, i hate slaveholders
this makes me a citizen of the world, and it means i have a human conscience
how about yourself?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you go ahead. go to an area of the world where there is slavery, and tell the slaves: sorry, you can't help them, because it is a cultural difference that you respect that they should remain slaves
then go have a mint julep with the local slaveholders, telling them you are not like those "arrogant americans" who want them punished
nevermind the "arrogant finns" or "arrogant brazilians" or "arrogant ghanians" who might want the slavery stopped? i guess not liking slavery anywhere in the world makes you an american
huh, you learn amazing things on teh intarweb
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
did i misread you?:
please, by all means, tell me how i misread you. tell me, as you now say "I don't support slavery: it is abhorrent to my worldview"
good! i'm glad!
so if a society has slavery, do you criticize it?
and if you criticize that society for having slavery, doesn't that make you, in the way you critice of me, the same as me? by criticizing slavery in another country, doesn't that make you an "arrogant american"?
which is it now honey: criticize that country's slavery, and you're an ugly american. or don't criticize it, thereby making you a hypocrite when you criticize the usa for anything!
because the validity of your criticism should be based on the CONCEPTS, the VALUES, that all people hold, not ethnocentric tribalism: "i criticize you because you're american" versus "i criticize you because you support slavery" see? tribalism versus concepts. one is far superior morally than the other point of view. and you have tribalism as your promairy motivator, not concepts
see in my weird wacky world, murder is wrong. murder is wrong in afghanistan. it is wrong in argentina. it is wrong in japan
but you seem to be telling me that murder is wrong in the usa... but somewhat LESS wrong in say, jordan, because honor killings are a cultural aspect of that place, or in say LESS wrong in papua new guinea, where cannibalism might still be going on in the hinterlands
so we respect cannibalism? because it is the culture of papua new guinea? i have no right to condemn cannibalism there because that makes me an arrogant american? well doesn't that also mean you are condemning someone to death?! (the guy being eaten) which is a GREATER crime than telling papuan new guineans their culture is wrong
see, you see me as imposing american values, say, everyone has to eat mcdonalds, or drive an SUV
why are you so fucking retarded?
this is a hysterical reading of my position
what i am actually saying, from a HUMAN stand point (not an american one, a HUMAN one, a standpoint an indonesian or egyptian would agree with... do you get that?) is that slavery is wrong, for example, EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME
not says me, the american, but says me, the HUMAN BEING
let's bring up another example: cliterectomy
should we tolerate it? or condemn it?
aren't you an ugly imperialist western aggressor if you criticize it?
no, because you aren't doing it in the name of jolly england or the motherland of france
you are criticizing it because it is wrong from a HUMAN point of view
do you understand?
or do you still think your tribal, ethnocentric way of looking at the world is intellectually or morally valid in any way?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I never said I wouldn't criticize slavery, just as you never answered the question contained in the excerpt you quoted.
I do criticize other nations or cultures. I don't advocate invading them to stop behavior I disagree with. Your arguments all along have tended to imply that this was a logical and desirable end to pursue. It's not. Bone up on your readings on "Justifiable War." Hint: there is a huge burden to overcome before initiating a war.
As to HUMAN values, I would contend that there are large subsets of HUMANITY that disagree with you on what those values ought to consist of. I'm not saying that I'm one of those people, but I am saying that if there is disagreement, then there is room for change, and further that changes might be inconsistent with what you or I believe should be the case.
By minimizing those who do or say things you don't like by calling them "tribal, etc." you are at once denying their humanity and denying responsibility for whole tracts of possible bad outcomes of your eventual direct intervention in their affairs.
Jefferson said, and I think it's reasonable, that freedom is not the natural state of humanity. Given that, don't you think we ought to defend the few relative bastions of freedom in the world as zealously as possible so we do not lose the light those nations shine into the rest of the world?
By the way, just because a UN rep from a given country claims to support something (say human rights) doesn't necessarily mean he or his country or culture actually do. It can also mean that he acknowledges that such a worldview is held by the current hegemony. Look for example at your famous UN whose ever changing human rights commission consistently lambasts Israel while ignoring or minimizing abuses committed elsewhere, say Africa or in Muslim nations... hmm... seems like reality isn't living up to your expectations as a world citizen.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
"Given that, don't you think we ought to defend the few relative bastions of freedom in the world as zealously as possible so we do not lose the light those nations shine into the rest of the world?"
the few relative bastions of freedom is called the planet earth
why do you see magic walls at say, the rio grande, across which, in your mind, human beings suddenly become less valuable to fight for?
in my mind, an indian, a brazilian, an american: equal in value, equal in need to have their rights fought for
in your mind: an african is less valuable than an american, a mexican is less valuable than a european. that is a DIRECT result of YOUR way of thinking
you're tribal. you're yesterdays' way of thinking. i am the future. i am a global standard of justice. you are like the french aristocracy before the frnech revolution, or south slave holders before the american civil war: you don't see the future, and you laugh at it as idealism
and you will, of course, hear "american standard of justice" when i say "global standard of justice"
which is of course the ultimate jusgment of how much you just don't fucking get it
why is that? when i say "global standard" why do you hear "american standard"?
so you're telling me an indian or a chinese or an african doesn't understand they have a right not to be a slave? and you call me arrogant? it is a universal standard everyone understands
except the entrenched asshole powers that need to be destroyed
that your point of view defends!
in your mind, human rights can only exist in the usa, in the west
you are obviously tribal, 100%
and you are also ethnocentric at best, and racist at worst
you lose
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/9/5/172111/7190
3
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/12/21/21244/72
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Tinfoil hats are antennas if there are no MK waves, then they just amplify brain frying cellphone & wifi waves.
People with baseball caps don't laugh too hard, those little metal buttons do the same