Slashdot Mirror


Feds Overstate Software Piracy's Link To Terrorism

Lucas123 writes "Attorney General Michael Mukasey claims that terrorists sell pirated software as a way to finance their operations, without presenting a shred of evidence for his case. He's doing it to push through a controversial piece of intellectual property legislation that would increase IP penalties, increase police power, set up a new agency to investigate IP theft, and more. 'Criminal syndicates, and in some cases even terrorist groups, view IP crime as a lucrative business, and see it as a low-risk way to fund other activities,' Mukasey told a crowd at the Tech Museum of Innovation last week."

448 comments

  1. Well duh by Slimee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When has the government ever presented a shred of evidence for any of their radical claims and crusades?

    1. Re:Well duh by nedburns · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The shreds of ships in Pearl Harbor were pretty good evidence that we needed to confront Japan.

    2. Re:Well duh by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Attorney General Michael Mukasey claims that terrorists sell pirated software as a way to finance their operations Who needs to sell pirated software when you can get it for free? And what does the government say to the claims that its secretive services launder money and participate in the illegal drug trade to.. er.. spread freedom and er.. prosperity and.. what's the other one? Democracy, that's right. You launder money and poison my kids, and call everybody a criminal and terrorist, and I get to vote for you - that's sweet. Nawww, not a shred of truth in it Mommy!
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    3. Re:Well duh by Slashdot+Suxxors · · Score: 5, Funny

      Judging from the high quality of his videos, it should be clear to anyone that Osama obviously uses cracked versions of Adobe Final Cut. We don't need the government to tell us that.

    4. Re:Well duh by Jrabbit05 · · Score: 1

      The real point is they've said the terrorists don't want to fund our corporations. Oh snap. IMAGINE THAT FOLKS. Would you buy EXPLODING SAM branded apple pie? :)

    5. Re:Well duh by PachmanP · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No no you have it all wrong. They have all the evidence they need. I think most of us here would agree that piracy does cost corporations some amount of money/profit. Well, you see, Terrorism is defined as "cutting into corporate profit" not this silly notion of killing civilians to make political statements. That's why they're insurgents in Iraq. They're making someone in the military industrial complex wads of cash!

      Did I really just say that? I've been here to long.

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    6. Re:Well duh by Slimee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok let me be more specific, when in this post 9/11 world, has the government presented evidence in its claims and crusades.

    7. Re:Well duh by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1, Troll

      This administration will stop at nothing to make this a police state.

      Republicans, you're getting what you wanted. Hope it works out for you.

    8. Re:Well duh by mrbluze · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The shreds of ships in Pearl Harbor were pretty good evidence that we needed to confront Japan.

      Like the burning of the Reichstag, 9/11 (yeah, Saddam did it and so did you, for all we know), and a hundred other false flags and set-ups.

      "In politics, nothing happens by accident." - Roosevelt

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    9. Re:Well duh by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      *nod* Can we get this story tagged with "damnlies", please?

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    10. Re:Well duh by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      When have they ever NEEDED to present evidence when they can scare the public?

      Most are sheep, and believe the garbage fed to them by the media.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    11. Re:Well duh by webmaster404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Republicans, you're getting what you wanted. Hope it works out for you.

      Its not just republicans, democrats are guilty too. In fact, I would go as far as to say that conservatives (not necessarily republicans) are the lesser of two evils. I don't see the democrats supporting free software any more then republicans. I don't see democrats striking down draconian laws such as the DMCA. Now they have supported some needed things such as the toning-down of the patriot act because 85% of it wasn't needed 6 months after 9/11. The moment some candidate supports true freedom, and not burning the Constitution (That means, true freedom of speech, and also the right to bear arms) So, before you place this blame on the republicans, look at the democrats, they aren't exactly saints either.

      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    12. Re:Well duh by blhack · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who needs to sell pirated software when you can get it for free? Now, most people YOU know would probably know how to get warez for free. Most people I know know how to get warez for free, but most PEOPLE don't.

      DO you think the type of person that requires help moving their computer from one room to another would be able to figure out how to work an FTP client, or what a "tracker" was?

      This is why my sister always asks me for a copy of Photoshop for her birthday. She has no idea how to get it for free online.
      SHHH!!!! Don't tell her I have been secretly slipping her copies of the GIMP all these years.

      Kids, if you like a piece of software...BUY IT!
      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    13. Re:Well duh by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Republicans are the ones who tarnish critics of the expansion of executive power as anti-American and traitorous. The Democrats have generally failed to oppose this tendency adequately, but let us be under no illusions about where the real engine for this growth of policing state power is coming from.

    14. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ha, way to bring up an exact opposite situation, where the majority of people wanted the government to stop appeasing the axis powers and support thier allies who were already at war, while US ship pussy footed about the pacific avoiding the war already raging all alound then between the Japanese and British fleets, the government chicken-shitted out of it until they were forced to act by the Japanese attack.

    15. Re:Well duh by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      This is why my sister always asks me for a copy of Photoshop for her birthday. She has no idea how to get it for free online.
      SHHH!!!! Don't tell her I have been secretly slipping her copies of the GIMP all these years.
      ...

      I have a hard time believing she wouldn't know the difference; even a computer retard can tell that you don't spell Photoshop "GIMP". But if that's true, that's pure hilarity. It's pretty funny just for the idea. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    16. Re:Well duh by bconway · · Score: 0

      Which president signed the DMCA into law?

      --
      Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
    17. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say "we" here, is that an indication that you are willing to take responsibility for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?
      What evidence do I need to present if I would like to kill >200k civilians?

      Oh, I forgot, patriotism is one way only..

    18. Re:Well duh by blhack · · Score: 1

      I have a hard time believing she wouldn't know the difference; even a computer retard can tell that you don't spell Photoshop "GIMP". But if that's true, that's pure hilarity. It's pretty funny just for the idea. :) Well no, shes not stupid. The total lack of the word "photoshop" anywhere in the software is a good indicator.

      It usually just takes a bit of explaining and sitting down with her to show her how things work to get her to use the GIMP instead.

      I usually just get her a sweater or something.
      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    19. Re:Well duh by mrbluze · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now, most people YOU know would probably know how to get warez for free. Most people I know know how to get warez for free, but most PEOPLE don't.

      Actually, on the contrary, most other people get their unpaid-for stuff from work, or borrowing CD's off friends, or they just go to the shop and buy it. Yes, they don't use torrents or FTP or other online tools. OTOH I don't need to pirate any software because everything I do has an open-source tool available for it, be it programming, word processing, finances, drawing, music playback, sound recording, 5-minute games, or educating the kids.

      And if terrorists are making money from selling pirated software, then the 'terrorists' are zit-covered teenagets at swap-meets, or short, smiling, hungry-looking peddlers at down-town asian markets with their crate of CD's selling obviously incorrectly labelled software that they burnt at home.

      But this is redundant because we knew all this well before this thread started.

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    20. Re:Well duh by Stalyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullshit. Every time someone says "the democrats and the republicans are the same" I think back to 2000 when I said something similar.. "Bush or Gore... eh it doesn't really matter, both parties are the same". And boy I don't think I've ever been so wrong about something in all my life.

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    21. Re:Well duh by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The DMCA was bullshit. But it wasn't pushed on the pretext of a war on terror, it was pushed on the pretext of possible economic harm to certain industries. And it didn't result in widespread surveillance, imprisonment without habeas corpus, torture, no-fly lists, fingerprinting at the border (I'm married to a non-US citizen: coming into this country has become a ridiculous hassle). I actually protested - on the streets, with banners and all - Clinton's Kosovo escapades, so don't accuse me of partisanship.

      And which of the parties' presidential candidates is beating the drum of war and playing the security-panic card? I think that would, again, be the Republicans.

    22. Re:Well duh by waveman · · Score: 0

      > The shreds of ships in Pearl Harbor were pretty good evidence that we needed to confront Japan.

      Don't be so naive.

      1. The US had been blockading Japan's access to raw materials for some time. From the Japanese point of view they had little choice but to attack, and to start a fight they knew they would almost certainly lose. The US hierarchy knew this.

      2. The US had broken the Japanese ciphers and knew from them that Japan was planning an attack on Pearl Harbor. This information was not passed on to Hawaii. The previous commander of the Hawaii base had been replaced by a person who was known to be a dolt.

      3. The US needed a pretext to enter the war. A major Japanese attack would be a good pretext and would inflame public opinion as required.

      The US has a long track record of such behavior. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is one example.

    23. Re:Well duh by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most people don't know how to get warez for free, even more people don't know where to buy warez either. Where the fuck do you buy a pirated copy of photoshop?

      Dodgy bloke on the corner? No, he just has shitty DVD's.
      That shifty looking geyser at the pub? Nope, All he has are the latest chart singles's and the last few Now! CDs.
      My mates cousin nobby? Nah, he can chip my Xbox and sell me pirate games, but no Photoshop here.

      I've seen pirated software at computer fairs a long time ago, in the days of dialup, but these days, no chance. The common way for someone who doesn't know where to get it online, is the old CD passed about, you only need 1 nerd to download it, then hte CD can go round dozen of thier mates.

      the only pirate stuff I've ever seen actually sold anytime recently are console games sold to chavs with no PC. I've not seen anyone selling a pirate PC game or software since like 1996. Even back in the days of the Amiga, all the pirate stuff we had was copied off mates, either you bought the real one, or you copied a mate's real one, no-one bought a copy, all the dodgy market stalls sold fuzzy-pictured VHS, never computer games or software.
      Seriously, do you know any shop, market stall, or random bloke at all who would sell you a pirate copy of photoshop, or any other PC software?

    24. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The grass is always greener on the other side. Pretending that Gore wouldn't have done similar things is naive in the face of things Clinton did. Go ahead and believe in the magic pill of replacing the current administration, it's been working out real good for you so far. lamer.

    25. Re:Well duh by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Yes, they do know how to get it for free. What they don't know is how to get it for free from the Internet.

      What inevitably happens is, one of "us" creates a pirated copy, puts the crack on the CD, and gives it to one of "them". They do know how to put the CD in the drive and push the big shiny "copy CD" button (wherever that might be), assuming they even need to go that far -- before you know it, the same CD will have been around several social circles. Yes, social circles -- just a casual "Oh, you need Photoshop? I can get you a copy."

      There was an article about this, but I don't remember where.

      Oh, and by the way, no one has to know what a tracker is. It's as simple as having BitTorrent installed and clicking on a torrent link. That's beyond the reach of some people, I know, but not for long.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    26. Re:Well duh by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Now, most people YOU know would probably know how to get warez for free. Most people I know know how to get warez for free, but most PEOPLE don't.


      Besides it's more convenient to just insert CD in the computer than having to leave the computer turned on for two nights, to THEN burning the CD. This is why a lot of people where I live, prefer to buy my anime fansubs at the local flea market than to download them via bittorrent (if they didn't, there wouldn't be any demand for fansubs-in-dvd).

      Now, about what Mr. Mukasey said, it's overgeneralizing to say that ALL piracy gains are invested in terrorism. While *SOME* criminal groups (i.e. druglords) use piracy to fund themselves (I've seen a few cases on the news here in Mexico), it's plain ridiculous to say that all pirates are linked to the cartels.

    27. Re:Well duh by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which president signed the DMCA into law?

      Which Congress passed the law? Which President was burning his political capital for too many other things to risk a fight with Congress by using his veto?

      Not that I'm saying he didn't support it, I'm saying you do have to look at who passed the law *first* because the veto is not an option most Presidents just wield willy-nilly. Yes, Bush signed USAPATRIOT, but I mostly blame Congress who passed the law without even reading, much less debating, the fucking thing.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    28. Re:Well duh by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Gore was president, we wouldn't be in Iraq. That "grass" is real, and it's fucking green enough for me.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    29. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid motherfucker.

    30. Re:Well duh by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 0, Troll

      Bullshit. Every time someone says "the democrats and the republicans are the same" I think back to 2000 when I said something similar.. "Bush or Gore... eh it doesn't really matter, both parties are the same". And boy I don't think I've ever been so wrong about something in all my life.

      Gore's speech on 9/12/2001:

      Planes are bad, mmkay? Planes cause global warming and destroy buildings, mmkay? We need to walk more, mmkay? And use one of my personal inventions - the Internet! - instead of those face-to-face meetings so much. I'm cereal!
      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    31. Re:Well duh by urIkon · · Score: 1

      YOU use silly capitalization.

    32. Re:Well duh by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Sure - while ignoring the reasons for their attack in the first place. Japan was hellbent on becoming a major industrial power. To do that you need oil. Tojo learned THAT little fact touring the state of Texas in the 1920s. The closest/best oil to Japan was in Indonesia, which was under the bootheel of British Imperialism, and to get there you need to go through the Phillipines which was under the bootheel of American Imperialism. So, the only way to fuel their industrial empire was to get the political impediments out of the way, and that meant either appeasing, lulling, or attacking the USA and UK.

      They settled for something very similar to George Bush's strategy of "Pre-emptive Attack" and attacked a naval base on an island in an illegally stolen territory within the American Regional Empire. Their strike was an obvious contingency, so the valuable ships (spanky new aircraft carriers) were all sent out to sea, leaving behind (mostly) relatively older battleships and cruisers.

      For more facts on this, I would recommend Daniel Yergin's "The Prize".

      You are not insightful. You are more of an ignorant troll.

      RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    33. Re:Well duh by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      The Republicans are the ones who tarnish critics of the expansion of executive power as anti-American and traitorous. I would wager that is only because the democrats have not yet had the executive power to expand. Give it a few years.
    34. Re:Well duh by Jim+in+Buffalo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department." -- Joseph McCarthy, who was never, ever compelled to show anyone the list or provide one shred of evidence to support any of his claims, and who, to this day, enjoys the posthumous support of dumbasses all across America.

      --
      This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
    35. Re:Well duh by Ryan+Mallon · · Score: 5, Informative

      You may not even know if software you are buying is pirated. A few years back a friend lent me a cd folder full of games. All of them had the game logos on the cds, and most of them had full colour booklets with them. I ended up asking my friend how much he had spent on the games in the folder, and replied: hardly anything, they are all pirated. He bought them somewhere in Asia. They take piracy a bit more seriously over there, you don't just get a blank cd with the games name scribbled on it in felt pen, you get a full colour box, authentic looking cd, the works.

      The bigger problem for game companies than people downloading torrents, is illegal factories which are producing pirated versions of games (and other types of software) which can be sold at lost cost, are hard to tell apart from the real deal. Many people who buy these games are unaware that they even have an illegal copy.

    36. Re:Well duh by gweihir · · Score: 1

      When has the government ever presented a shred of evidence for any of their radical claims and crusades?

      It would probably be unwise for them to do so. People may notice that there are habitual liers in power....

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    37. Re:Well duh by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      The WTC fell down didn't it? What more evidence do you need?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    38. Re:Well duh by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be the blue pill?

    39. Re:Well duh by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1
      If you are really convinced that the US purposefully incited the attack and withheld information to ensure that the local commanders were surprised, you might want to check out "At Dawn We Slept" by Gordon Prange. It covers the material you talk about, but with an objective view of the facts obtained from what seems an exhaustive research effort.

      I'm convinced from the read that there was no "conspiracy" to ensure the US was drawn into the war. I do think that was an inevitable eventually regardless of the attack.

      I'm not very familiar with the Golf of Tonkin incident - I have heard before that it was considered a fake that Johnson either embellished or took advantage of for political gain. It wouldn't surprise me.

      I still think it's a stretch to claim that the "US has a long track record of such behavior", which I take to mean inciting wars for imperialist or other aims. I can only think of 3 in the last 150 years (if you count Tonkin):

      1. Border skirmishes leading to the Mexican-American war
      2. Gulf of Tonkin incident leading to Vietnam
      3. 9/11 attacks as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq
      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    40. Re:Well duh by Reziac · · Score: 1

      If I remember my 5th grade civics correctly, Congress can override a Presidential veto as well.

      But your point is valid -- Congress holds the final cards here, so there's really no excuse for being so spineless, either in passing shit without due consideration, or in refusing to be buffaloed by a veto, as the case might be.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    41. Re:Well duh by robertjw · · Score: 1

      I mostly blame Congress who passed the law

      I agree 100%. The President takes the heat for all these fascist goings on because he's an easy target. In reality, it's Democratic Congress that is funding the war in Iraq and passing every other piece of tyrannical legislation that comes along, but no one mentions that.

    42. Re:Well duh by Omestes · · Score: 0

      I don't think he was talking about Afghanistan, which is the only war we're fighting over 9/11. I'm sure Gore would have done the same, I don't think any president would really have had a choice in the matter with the public and congress breathing down his spine.

      Iraq though Gore wouldn't have touched with a 10 foot pole. I rather doubt he would have run a Nixon-esque imperial presidency either. I rather doubt he would have burnt the constitution either because of the CO2 emissions (I kid, he seems sane if the true answer), either.

      It really doesn't matter though, since Bush was our unelected president and not Gore, so anything to the contrary is pointless to discus. Its hard to imagine a much worse president, thus we all can imagine Gore would have been better without stretching the bounds of logic.

      I don't get how enviromentalism is now a character weakness. Only in America.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    43. Re:Well duh by Alcoholic+Synonymous · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Then maybe you need to open you damned eyes and read quite a bit more.

      Maybe you should go back to the 80s when Mr. Gore allowed his wife and her friends in the PMRC to have special senate hearings aimed at *BANNING* or censoring certain artists they deemed too explicit. Mr. Gore was more than willing to let his wife have her moraliztic diatribe at your expense, to attempt to restrict and control your freedom of choice.

      Corporate State or Nanny State, this is what you are voting for.

    44. Re:Well duh by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Both the R's & D's listen mostly to the people financing their campaigns and spending the big bucks on lobbying them. They throw us little people a bone every once in a while to keep us happy. It's all about power and in the USA it's mostly money that defines power.

    45. Re:Well duh by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Remember the Maine.

    46. Re:Well duh by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Who holds the pursestrings here?? Congress!

      Bush may have made a series of stupid mistakes, but Congress didn't need to ENABLE his mistakes by continuing to fund them long after it became evident that we were throwing good money after bad!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    47. Re:Well duh by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What checks Congress at this point? The almost meaningless, yet incredibly powerful phrase "Support the Troops!" Which goes to prove my original point: that critics of the war and its related expansion of domestic policing powers are held captive by accusations of anti-patriotism and treason.

    48. Re:Well duh by denton420 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It makes sense to me.

      If you can make a reasonable, unfounded, and simply ignorant link to terrorists on any basis, it is perfectly alright to circumvent the constitution.

      I think if the constitution needs to be trampled on to stop terrorists, then we are lucky to have this emboldened administration down on all fours playing twister on it.

    49. Re:Well duh by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      Ok let me be more specific, when in this post 9/11 world, has the government presented evidence in its claims and crusades.
      Well:

      1) They presented plenty of evidence for Al Qaeda being behind 9/11.
      2) They presented plenty of evidence for the Taliban harbouring Al Qaeda.
      3) They presented plenty of evidence to show that Iraq had posessed "weapons of mass destruction", and that they had never satisfactorily shown that those weapons were destroyed.
      4) They presented plenty of evidence to show that Iraq had repeatedly violated the ceasefire agreement.

      etc, etc, etc.

      Also, you need to keep in mind that one single solitary government official is not "The Government", no matter how impressive his title may sound.

      But yeah, other than that, they NEVER show any evidence of anything! Bastards!
    50. Re:Well duh by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The long campaign against Nicaragua (dating back all the way to William Walker!); the annexation of Hawaii; the Philippine war; the invasion of Grenada; the fall of Mossadeq; support for Pinochet's coup, the Uruguayan junta, and early support for the Argentine military dictatorship. This is just off the top of my head.

    51. Re:Well duh by travbrad · · Score: 1

      Providing evidence would only embolden the terrorists!

    52. Re:Well duh by Reziac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah... it's all "Think of the Children!" and "Prevent Terrorism!" Why aren't you supporting this bill? You must hate children and support terrorism!!

      So long as politicians can be un-elected by such accusations, the problem will continue. :(

      Maybe we need a new slogan:

      Won't anyone think of the Citizens??!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    53. Re:Well duh by Hemlock+Stones · · Score: 1

      Exactly what radical claims was the government making about the Japanese before Pearl Harbor?

    54. Re:Well duh by Malevolyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What checks Congress at this point? Interesting point, actually. I'd say the system of checks and balances is pretty much moot anymore, considering how much power the judicial system has gotten in the past 10 years. And not to mention private groups (hell, Mr. RIAA) getting nearly the power of a government body, when it comes to controlling citizens. Or trying, anyway.
      --
      Your ad here.
    55. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently it was not obvious to you the point was that the "evidence" was fabricated and the allusion was to when did the have REAL evidence for anything. Get it?

    56. Re:Well duh by Malevolyn · · Score: 1

      You could always grep the source for "The GIMP" and replace it with "Photoshop," then recompile. Just a thought.

      --
      Your ad here.
    57. Re:Well duh by Kenrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not so sure.

      Regime change was the official policy of the Clinton Administration.

      And ya might want to read this. Gore's statements about Iraq in the wake of 9/11. The money shot: "As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table".

      I do think Gore would have been better at forming a broader coalition. Democrats are better at making back-room deals, knowing how the grease the wheels. It comes from their dedication to the culture of bureaucracy.

      The Iraqis have an opportunity to join modern nations with a functioning democracy - they are moving closer to being a modern democracy like Turkey every day. Still a long way away, but clearly a better situation that having Saddam or one of his psychopathic sons in charge, likely for the next half-century.

      But I guess all you care about is your own green grass.

      --
      Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
    58. Re:Well duh by OECD · · Score: 1

      I'd say the system of checks and balances is pretty much moot anymore, considering how much power the judicial system has gotten in the past 10 years. And not to mention private groups (hell, Mr. RIAA) getting nearly the power of a government body, when it comes to controlling citizens.

      Well, that's two. Add in the obvious Executive overreach, and it's a hat trick. And the rest of us are on the losing team.

      I'm tagging this one Mallory,

      --
      One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    59. Re:Well duh by Lehk228 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the republicans run up the worst federal debt ever with a disaster of a war and the consolidation of federal law enforcement into the inept department of homeland security and yet the democrats are dedicated to bureaucracy!?


      pass the cool-aid and the crack when you're done with it man.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    60. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the process is simple.

      1. I dislike something (pirated software, for example)
      2. I invent/create/dream... a link between what I dislike and terrorism ("there is a software piracy's link to terrorism...")
      3. I can use any method to eliminate what I dislike (now, any method is legal)

    61. Re:Well duh by webmaster404 · · Score: 2

      If Gore was receiving the same intelligence reports that Bush had recived about there being WMDs in Iraq, and 9/11 put together we would still be in Iraq. We might be doing better, we might be doing worse, but with the intelligence reports (which by the way were from the FBI that Clinton had in power) that would later turn out to be faulty, what else would you do?

      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    62. Re:Well duh by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Indonesia was actually Dutch, not British.

    63. Re:Well duh by gradster79 · · Score: 1

      So I assume your sister is a terrorist selling this pirated software in order to fund terror? That is what this whole article is about...

    64. Re:Well duh by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Actually, you misunderstood me completely. I'm actually describing the rhetoric that is checking even those elements of Congress that oppose the war: the accusations of lack of patriotism, often mobilized by the executive branch.

      The weak partner in the balance of powers at this point is the legislative.

    65. Re:Well duh by Stalyn · · Score: 1

      I never said Al Gore was perfect. I never defended the PMRC nor agree with it. But to morally equate the actions of the PMRC with the fiasco in Iraq is just plain insanity.

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    66. Re:Well duh by Stalyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The intelligence reports you cite came from an intelligence operation created by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Which was created after the CIA denied any connections between Iraq and 911.

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    67. Re:Well duh by digital19 · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, in the US and probably most of Europe this is the case... but go walk around marketplaces in countries like Nepal, Armenia, Chile and you will find Autocad, Matlab, Maya, for a couple dollars. Nevertheless, it's a long stretch to think that this is funding terrorism.

    68. Re:Well duh by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

      Just wondering... under the GPL, would I be required to publish my version of the source after doing this? Erm, what can I say, I lose sleep over stupid stuff.

      --

      If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

    69. Re:Well duh by dynomitejj · · Score: 0

      Right on. So what if they sell pirated software. They probably sell drugs, break in houses, steal cable tv, make counterfit money, sell fake rolex watches, steal identities too. If the government can stop all of that, then they can shut those terrorists down in no time !

    70. Re:Well duh by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously believe that any such laws would be upheld WITHOUT bush in charge?

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    71. Re:Well duh by marnues · · Score: 1

      Only for your sister (or any one else you give the binary to), and then only if she asks.

    72. Re:Well duh by erc · · Score: 1

      Which is an attack that we were warned about well in advance - and chose to do nothing about.

      --
      -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
    73. Re:Well duh by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      If Gore was receiving the same intelligence reports that Bush had recived about there being WMDs in Iraq, and 9/11 put together we would still be in Iraq.
      Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld cherry picked what they wanted to accept and pressured FBI and CIA agents to exaggerate or even just make shit up. You know, before the second Iraq War *I* fucking knew that Saddam didn't have WMDs and I never get any of these reports. If people in the US would have simply paid attention to what we had been doing in Iraq for the 12 years before the second Iraq War, no one would have believed that crap. There is no way you can bomb a country for 12 years, cripple its military, and make it ridiculously difficult to obtain equipment and expect a viable WMD program to be in the works. And, lo and behold, when we went into Iraq the only WMDs we found were useless old stuff that *we* sold them to fight the Iranians back in the Iran-Iraq War.


      But, I shouldn't be too surprised. Most Americans don't even know where the fuck Iraq is, so how can you expect them to keep up with what is going on?

    74. Re:Well duh by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indonesia was actually Dutch, not British.
      Also, "bootheel" is a bit too strong. Indonesians did not hate the Dutch as much as the lands conquered by Britain tended to hate the British. The Dutch, while still a colonial force, didn't treat the Indonesians dismissively and many Dutch actually rather liked Indonesia and took on a lot of Indonesian customs. Hell, after the first Dutch ship landed in Bali, half the crew refused to leave. Now, of course, they have to deal with those damned Australians :-p
    75. Re:Well duh by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Remember the Maine!

      --
      What?
    76. Re:Well duh by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Regime change was the official policy of the Clinton Administration.

      And ya might want to read this. Gore's statements about Iraq in the wake of 9/11. The money shot: "As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table".


      Oh please. And stopping genocide in Darfur, and wherever it occurs, is the official policy of the U.N. There's a big difference between an official policy of "regime change" and devoting a huge portion of your military to invading. Bush has said the nuclear option is "on the table for" Iran. Is he doing it any time soon? Some money shot, there's no action.

      The only people who were seriously talking about invading Iraq were the high-up neocons, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney. Everyone else in the government apparatus had no reason to invade. Those guys though were talking about invading immediately after 9/11, as if it was the only pretense they needed. Before 9/11, even the Bush administration was giving speeches about how harmless and contained Iraq was. And don't tell me that the intelligence changed, or that other countries agreed they were a threat, because all the key intel to support the war was from before 2001, and the only intel the other countries had to judge was what we showed them, which was only the stuff that sounded good and not what made it sound sketchy. Ask Colin Powell.

      If Gore was president, we would almost certainly be in Afghanistan, but it would never have even occurred to him to randomly change course to fight a secular dictator who was a counterbalance to a certain Islamic Republic in the area you may have heard of and/or wanted to invade, at the expense of our operation to eliminate the ones responsible for 9/11. Who was going to suggest it to him? George Tenet? Richard Clark? Assume nobody from PNAC counts, whose was going to push for Iraq II?

      But as soon Bush started talking about "Axis of Evil", I knew exactly who they were going to invade. Or more like who not -- the ones that were actually dangerous.


      The Iraqis have an opportunity to join modern nations with a functioning democracy - they are moving closer to being a modern democracy like Turkey every day. Still a long way away, but clearly a better situation that having Saddam or one of his psychopathic sons in charge, likely for the next half-century.

      But I guess all you care about is your own green grass.


      What grass do you care about, huh? Have you even been paying attention to this grass? I don't know if you keep up on current events, but two of Iraq's political parties were just at war with each other. They describe a normal day in the city of Basra, after the cease fire was called, as being only sporadic automatic weapons and rocket fire. All these political parties? They're religiously motivated and armed militias. In many of the militia-dominated sections of the country -- which by the way, includes both entire cities and suburbs of Baghdad which by themselves include millions of people, and only exist because the government backed by our troops is not strong enough to assert itself there. In the milita-dominated sections of the country, many of them are enforcing Islamic law, female dress codes. In any case many civilians are dying in the conflicts. You think this is somehow going to magically turn into a nice stable secular democracy like Turkey? Well this "opportunity" you're so happy to give them has yet to appear.

      We gave that same opportunity to the people of Afghanistan, and it has yet to appear there either, and it's been two years longer. Shouldn't we have at least waited until after we proved we could deliver this opportunity before we tried to repeat the process? But no, because we decided to get involved in an even bigger project, Afghanistan was neglected and the Taliban allowed to regroup. Allowed to retake territory, which we have to fight to retake, and they are able to retake again the next year. With, still, the civilians caught

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    77. Re:Well duh by Atario · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mr. Gore allowed his wife and her friends in the PMRC to have special senate hearings
      "Allowed" her to? What was he supposed to do, beat her till she stopped? And was he also supposed to beat the other three founding biddies -- er, members -- of PMRC?

      Also, for the record, they were never advocating "*BANNING*" (bolded, asterisked, all-caps, or otherwise) anything. It was mostly a bunch of silly visibility-reduction tactics (that would, of course, only increase the sales of the targeted albums via heightened cachet...) and, of course, the parental-advisory stickers we see to this day (that the industry adopted before the hearings were even held).

      Believe me, I never had any love for the PMRC, but out-and-out misinformation isn't going to help anything -- except an attempt to smear Al Gore. And that's not at all what you were trying to do...right?
      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    78. Re:Well duh by ACDChook · · Score: 1

      If Gore was president, the military would be busy hunting for ManBearPig instead.

    79. Re:Well duh by schmeckelgruben · · Score: 0, Troll

      Every time someone says "the democrats and the republicans are the same" I think back to 2000 when I said something similar.. "Bush or Gore... eh it doesn't really matter, both parties are the same". And boy I don't think I've ever been so wrong about something in all my life.

      So, you voted for Gore. Don't feel too bad about it, he fooled a lot of people. It's time to stop kicking yourself.

    80. Re:Well duh by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      The reality in this case is the exact opposite of what is being presented.

      Think of the children, a new government agency that will monitor, arrest, prosecute and imprison children for copying a music CD that most parents would think was worthless junk. A new generation of teenagers to flood the prisons and to bloat the profit margins of private corporations that run those prisons.

      The RIAA/MPAA has gone after universities, with this legislation how long before they start pursuing high schools and primary schools, don't think so, just think of the extortion opportunities, pay the out of court settlement or your child will spend the next few years in a juvenile detention facility and have the future jeopardised.

      Parents paying taxes to protect, music and content that attacks their family values and that treats them and the rest of society with contempt. Parents paying taxes to imprison their own children and that will psychologically damage those children for the rest of their lives. Parents paying taxes to support the lifestyles of drunken drugged up minstrels and parasitical publishing executives that prey on children.

      Really there is absolutely not defence for criminalising copyright infringement.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    81. Re:Well duh by schmeckelgruben · · Score: 1

      Which president signed the DMCA into law?

      That would be B.J. Clinton.
      The same president who brought us the Clipper Chip.

    82. Re:Well duh by kisak · · Score: 1

      To sume up, the Republicans have f*cked up, so let's blame the Democrats?!

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    83. Re:Well duh by Nullav · · Score: 1

      Priorities!

      Before we start whining about the corporate cock-suckers (Sorry, I meant to say 'lobbyists'.), let's do something about the thousands of people being shipped out to get killed and kill thousands of others, the current 'Screw this treaty, we have bombs.' policy, and the trainwreck dropped in place of due process. Half-baked copyright laws don't even enter the picture. (Well, the old ones.)
      Then again, maybe I'll be allowed to listen to music while being waterboarded in Gitmo.

      I know this country isn't burning yet, but I'll be damned if it isn't heading there at present. Your sane copyright laws can wait while 'terrorism' is violently ripped from the dictionary and people start to remember that public office isn't a god-given right and should be questioned at all times.

      --
      I just read Slashdot for the articles.
    84. Re:Well duh by spidr_mnky · · Score: 1

      ...Mr. Gore allowed his wife...
      Allowed?
    85. Re:Well duh by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      You can call conservatives, libertarians, social democrats, communists, nazis, etc the solution but it doesn't mean jack when none of them are running for office (or at least standing a chance at winning an election). By now I'm sure that even a "liberal" or "neo-con" (Dems, Reps) with integrity would be better. ANYONE with integrity and the will to actually push for his party's goals instead of his lobbyists' would probably do better.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    86. Re:Well duh by GauteL · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Who holds the pursestrings here?? Congress!

      Bush may have made a series of stupid mistakes, but Congress didn't need to ENABLE his mistakes by continuing to fund them long after it became evident that we were throwing good money after bad! I'm sorry, but they had to do exactly this. Going into the war in the first place was a mistake, just suddenly pulling out would be a disaster.

      And simply reducing funding to the war when it obviously isn't going well would just put many, many more service men in terrible danger as underfunded and under staffed cannon fodder.

      And I'm not even American, I have no particular love for the American soldiers other than a general concern for my fellow man.

      I strongly opposed the war, but now that you are there I can't see any option but for the US to finish what you started.
    87. Re:Well duh by tacocat · · Score: 1

      Well, this is actually great news. The continued use/abuse of people playing the Terrorist Card will have the same net effect as those that keep playing the Race Card or try to allegate that someone is playing the Race Card. It serves to raise a red flag of doubt on the speaker from that point forward. I guess it's a Chicken Little or Crying Wolf thing.

      Here in Detroit we have a really swell mayor who decided to use the N-Word in his televised speech for dramatic effect of his plight after being found allegedly involved in perjury, obstruction of justice and is still under possible investigation for murder except that the police chief hasn't actually acted on any of over 2000 tips. But hey, who's counting.

      The effect was to deliver a message that he is reaching so far for dramatic effect that there really must be something wrong with his defense of his performance. And now he's got far fewer supporters than he did a month ago.

      Eventually, if not here, we will see the same erosion of the T-Word and it's political impact. Of course it will still take a generation to regain our freedoms that so many people admire. Good job Bush, way to really let the terrorist bitch slap the American Dream and you helped.

    88. Re:Well duh by Znork · · Score: 1

      Who needs to sell pirated software when you can get it for free? Not to mention that tougher legislation makes pirated software more lucrative, not less.

      If one really wanted to solve this problem one would simply free up distribution so anyone could sell any IP they wanted, with a simple mandatory royalty/tax percentage going directly to the artists and writers. Prices would fall towards free market equilibrium and the huge discrepancy of 1200% markup from production price would disappear. So would any profitability in piracy (into which you can include the RIAA labels).
    89. Re:Well duh by tacocat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not so cut and dried as that. The economy is in pretty bad shape and in order to prevent a major depression in the US and potentially the world, all the politicians are aware that they have to ensure that the economy has some positive momentum not only for their re-election but for the country as a whole.

      This started long before the House Market fell apart. This started back when China opened it's doors for economic growth. All the transferable bottom income jobs moved out of the US, leaving us with skilled labor, hi-tech, business management, and hair dressers (you can't out-source a haircut just yet.). But we as a nation failed to recognize that most people who is somewhere south of $50,000 a year is in jeopardy of permanently loosing there job same as the telegraph operator. The probability of job loss is inversely proportional to the salary.

      As these jobs left the US, the economy naturally has to decline because there is less work and less salary being generated and so less economic momentum. But most people who lost their jobs didn't advance their capabilities into a new position, they just got another job of the same type. And that left them extremely vulnerable.

      The jobs that remained in the US at the low end of the economic scale either can't be out-sourced (service jobs) or are not competing on a global scale (niche market in US) or in some way local to the US.

      Now we introduce the terrorists and confidence declines. Economic momentum is like collecting Yu-Gi-Oh cards. They are valuable and long as people believe they are. But once confidence dropped there started a ripple effect of companies decreasing their orders and consumers canceling or lessening their non-vital services (hair dressers, manicures, lawn service, computer upgrades).

      And now we starting hitting the housing market because people who expected a raise/advance in career didn't get it and through salary compression they started to lose the ability to fund their loans. And with the ARM coming due, they were wiped out.

      Add to that the fact that most of the people who are losing their homes are not from a generation where 3% growth in a company is considered pretty decent. 1990 to 2001 represents a time of unusual economic growth and when we can no longer sustain 10-50% growth but only 5% it's considered a failure. But from 1900 to 1980 5% would have been considered good to great. The people who were moving into the McMansions had no clue how the world economy has historically operated and made a critical mistake. Personally I think it's their own fault and to bail them out is a crime in itself. But we have to keep the economic momentum.

      With outsourcing, global competition, and the transfer of our lower work forces to other skills, we as a nation will be hard pressed to realize 5% growth over a continuous basis for some years to come.

      And with that, we are very careful of the economic impacts we have with political decisions. Changing the economy by 3% against a nominal growth of 15% is nothing, but now we are risking 3% +/- 3% and that's too close to the edge. It's going to be a very difficult 20 years.

    90. Re:Well duh by will_die · · Score: 1

      Wow you are really out there.
      Now claiming that the USA sold Iraq sarin nerve agent and musard gas for use in a war. Are you also in the group of progressives that say it was the USA, with Iraqs approval, that used chemical agents against the Kurds?

    91. Re:Well duh by mpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When has the government ever presented a shred of evidence for any of their radical claims and crusades?

      The US Government hasn't even yet provided much in the way of credible evidence to backup their 9/11 conspiracy theory. So it would be expecting a lot to expect them to provide any evidence for anything more recent than about 7 years ago.

    92. Re:Well duh by mpe · · Score: 1

      The bigger problem for game companies than people downloading torrents, is illegal factories which are producing pirated versions of games (and other types of software) which can be sold at lost cost, are hard to tell apart from the real deal.

      Especially if both versions are produced on the same production line, even more so if the pirates are prepared to pay the factory more than the regular customer.

    93. Re:Well duh by mpe · · Score: 1

      Now, about what Mr. Mukasey said, it's overgeneralizing to say that ALL piracy gains are invested in terrorism. While *SOME* criminal groups (i.e. druglords) use piracy to fund themselves (I've seen a few cases on the news here in Mexico), it's plain ridiculous to say that all pirates are linked to the cartels.

      It's probably more likely that "legitimate sales" help terrorists far more than any piracy. Since legitimage sales tend to be taxed and many governments appear quite willing to use their taxpayer's money to fund terrorists (along with other undesirables). Even if you could find country where the government has "clean hands" (most are "dirty", except the permenent members of the UN security council which tend to be "very dirty") in this respect to buy your software from you'd then face import duties.

    94. Re:Well duh by mpe · · Score: 1

      When have they ever NEEDED to present evidence when they can scare the public?
      Most are sheep, and believe the garbage fed to them by the media.


      As well as often disbelieving any information from other sources. Regardless of such factors as actual evidence or rational argument.

    95. Re:Well duh by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      We blame Republicans because They have run the country almost completely unimpeded for 6 of the last 7 years

      It is kind of hard to make a case otherwise.

      And I would not go singing the praises of conservatives.... there are almost NO paleo-conservatives left in this country... you know, that group who cared about civil liberties and a tight belt on the budget... gone... replaced by neo-cons and religious nut jobs.

    96. Re:Well duh by Archtech · · Score: 1

      1. The parent asked "when has *the government ever presented*...?" The US government, not a foreign government.

      2. After Pearl Harbor the USA was at war with Japan. (If the Japanese hadn't got their timing wrong, the declaration of war would have taken place a few minutes before the strike, rather than after it). Just to be quite clear about it, there was never any decision by Americans to "confront Japan" any more than there was a decision to "confront Hitler". Both Japan and Germany declared war on the USA, and that is the only reason the USA found itself at war.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    97. Re:Well duh by ti1ion · · Score: 1

      The President has no legal right to make laws. That is left to the Congress. This is why a lackey in Congress always introduces the President's bills. Tell me, who controlled the House and the Senate when Clinton signed the DMCA into law? Do you think, just maybe, that Clinton had to compromise to get some of the things he wanted past (and I mean past, as in, by) the Congress? For the first 6 years of Bush's tenure, who controlled the House and the Senate?

      The Congress has way more constitutional power than it is exercising right now. The Republicans made this dictator of a President. The Republicans also kept Clinton from doing much of anything that he wanted to get done.

    98. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhmm, indonesia under the bootheel of british imperialism? Last time I checked it was a dutch colony for over 300 years.. but never mind that, I'm sure it's way more convenient to have it be controlled by english-speaking folks..

    99. Re:Well duh by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      If I remember my 5th grade civics correctly, Congress can override a Presidential veto as well. With two-thirds of the members voting to override the veto, yes. The DMCA never even went to a formal vote, though. It passed a voice vote in the House and was passed unanimously in the Senate.
    100. Re:Well duh by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Logic dictates the obvious: terrorists sell oil.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    101. Re:Well duh by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      Another card people like to use is the Child Card which is still very effective.

      "We need to require all cars have Tire Pressure monitors. It will help save children's lives."
      "We need to ban all guns. It will save children's lives." (never mind that guns also kill criminals & protect)
      "We must appropriate $1 trillion dollars for food stamps. It's for the children."

      Oftentimes, the best thing to help children is to stop the gov't from interfering with parents' decisions. i.e. Butt out & let parents do their job.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    102. Re:Well duh by Phaedrus420 · · Score: 0

      "Seriously, do you know any shop, market stall, or random bloke at all who would sell you a pirate copy of photoshop, or any other PC software?" I can't say I "know" the guy, but it's pretty common for people to advertise $10-$20 copies of PC Miler at truck stops. There are a couple other options for commercial route planning, but I gather PC Miler doesn't have an online registration. I'm pretty sure the dude ain't a terrorist, though.

      --
      And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good... Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
    103. Re:Well duh by vaporland · · Score: 1

      That's the one with the Apple logo and the Adobe logo on the box?

      --
      Ask Me About... The 80's!
    104. Re:Well duh by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      'Won't anyone think of the Citizens??!' I like that, but I'd prefer: 'Stuff the children!!!' 'Won't anyone think of the Citizens??!' Children are so easy to make that it's not like we're going to run out of them anytime soon.

    105. Re:Well duh by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      And which of the parties' presidential candidates is beating the drum of war and playing the security-panic card? I think that would, again, be the Republicans.

      and which party was voted into power in 2006 to stop them, but failed to live up to their promises?

      Both party's are awful, and the Bush/Clinton dynasty sold America out in the name of 'globalism'. Instead of realizing this, Americans will likely spend the next few recession years arguing about which parties fault it is.

    106. Re:Well duh by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      Gore's statements about Iraq in the wake of 9/11. The money shot: "As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table".
      I'm inclined to think the initial invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, although I refused to take a position on the matter at the time. And I'm inclined to think no one other than a Bush (W. -- his father was a lot better) administration would have tried to skimp so badly on the initial number of troops.

      What I'm sure of, though, is that no one else would be so colossally stupid as to fire the entire bureaucracy and even army of the country as soon as the invasion was done. We could have been mostly finished with this by early 2004 had we only done what basically every successful invasion has ever done, control the occupied country through the existing infrastructure. But instead, we had to make a show of punishing Saddam's people.

    107. Re:Well duh by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
      mea culpa. I was thinking malaysia and got confused. apologies.

      RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    108. Re:Well duh by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      If Gore was president, we wouldn't be in Iraq. That "grass" is real, and it's fucking green enough for me.

      Yeah we'd be in Darfur instead. Which probably wouldn't be as bad, but would still be pretty stupid.

    109. Re:Well duh by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I don't think there IS a way to "finish what we started" in Iraq. Guerilla wars, in terrain that's impossible to take and hold, have that problem -- there's not a defined enemy to fight or a defined line of battle, and you wind up taking the same ground over and over with no way to hold it. The conflict just sortof goes on forever with no end in sight, and meanwhile things get worse for the citizens instead of better, and they come to hate you more than they do their former oppressors.

      We SHOULD have learned that from VietNam. We SHOULD have learned that from the USSR's equally failed campaign in Afghanistan.

      Yes, you have to support your troops in the field no matter what. But if Congress had any balls, they'd have funded a withdrawal, not an escalation.

      And as to the factions in Iraq, sometimes you CAN'T impose a solution. Sometimes they just have to fight it out for themselves, and if you impose peace, the moment your back is turned the combatants go at it with greater zeal than before (post-Communist Yugoslavia is a good example of that!)

      "Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny." -- Lloyd Biggle Jr.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    110. Re:Well duh by bickle · · Score: 1

      [quote]You may not even know if software you are buying is pirated.[/quote] Let's be reasonable - you have a pretty good idea of whether or not it may be pirated. Are you buying it on eBay from an overseas seller? Yeah, pretty good chance. Buying it from a street vendor in Asia? Yeah, pretty good chance. Buying it at a brick & mortar retailer in the U.S.? Probably not. All this worrying and posturing over piracy, and the biggest culprit is China. Yet we just can't wait to suck up to them and try to pry some money from that economic powerhouse.

    111. Re:Well duh by Reziac · · Score: 1

      So I did remember correctly, lo these many decades later :)

      Do voice votes require any sort of record of who voted which way? if not, they're just a way of ducking accountability. "Oh no, I wasn't in the group shouting against your rights!" Well, prove it!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    112. Re:Well duh by Reziac · · Score: 1

      [laughing] Yeah... I like children, but I can't eat a whole one!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    113. Re:Well duh by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Exactly so. There is no excuse for criminalizing a whole generation over what should remain a civil offense. But copyright law has swung so far in favour of the big content owners, there's absolutely no balance anymore, and laws like this proposal just go to demonstrate that. If you're REALLY "thinking of the children" (an evil phrase, but...) you should think of how ordinary kids will be deemed criminals for ordinary kid activities, and how it will affect their lives in the long term.

      Upon reading your comment and refitting my tinfoil hat, I had this further thought:

      When prisons are privately-run, for-profit entities, you've gotta wonder about the incentives and perhaps the lobbying behind bills that increase the numbers of nonviolent, relatively easy-to-maintain prisoners (who've got to be higher profit than difficult, violent prisoners, plus there are a lot more nonviolent offenders available!) Prison lobbies may be a small thing compared to RIAA lobbies, but Congress listens to volume, and two thriving industries make that much more noise than one thriving industry.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    114. Re:Well duh by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      You want to provide some historical basis for this claim? The American people in 1941 were largely opposed to entering the War, with large well-organized groups like America First which had Charles Lindbergh as its spokesman.

      In reality, FDR was committed to supporting Britain as early as 1940, but he knew he wouldn't be able to pass a declaration of war though the isolationist Congress. Lend-Lease was one method of obviating public opposition; FDR knew that eventually some of our ships would be sunk by German subs which might have resulted in another "sinking of the Lusitania" event and generate more public support for the War. As it happens, the Japanese took it upon themselves to bring the US into the war.

      Passing a declaration of war; seems like such a quaint notion these days, doesn't it?

    115. Re:Well duh by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      I'm just suspicious of this rather convenient "oh, both parties are just as bad" cliche that pops up after stories like these. I don't know any serious observers who claim that a Gore or Kerry administration would have gotten us into the predicament.

      The 2006 election was, indeed, a referendum on the war. But it was obvious then that it would be insufficient to end the war, and indeed it is debatable whether we really can unilaterally just pull out. In any case, it is a political non-starter to simply refuse to fund the operation - the venomous charge, "you won't support the troops" makes that gesture impossible in most constituencies.

      Electing Republicans at this point will only reward their behavior. My own politics are a heady and complicated view - I'm not a Democrat per se, and I'm under no illusions about who the Democrats are (crudely, i think Republicans are the party of agrarian/mid-nation elites and Democrats are the party of urban/coastal elites, and then they divvy up the populace as best they can.) But this stink is clearly the making of a bloc of neoconservatives well-entrenched in the Republican party, a bloc that came together during the closing years of the Nixon administration.

    116. Re:Well duh by FrozenFOXX · · Score: 1

      All right, I thought it was just a temporary thing before but now I'm certain. Every single time I hear, "post 9/11 world," I keep thinking, "twilight zone."

      --
      "Just a fox, a whisper."
    117. Re:Well duh by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Do voice votes require any sort of record of who voted which way? if not, they're just a way of ducking accountability. "Oh no, I wasn't in the group shouting against your rights!" Well, prove it! I couldn't find anything about a voting record on the Library of Congress site. Wikipedia's page on "voice vote" says that no record is kept.
    118. Re:Well duh by MrMonroe · · Score: 1

      I think in this case presenting evidence would probably weaken his position. The more confusing and unrelentingly nonsensical the argument is the more likely he will be to get away with it. "The Terrorists are hacking our webs!"

      The real question here is, how could they make any money doing this? Who in the universe pays for pirated software?!?

    119. Re:Well duh by jo42 · · Score: 1

      Yeppers, "Heil Bush!" more and more...

    120. Re:Well duh by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      The timing's vital with that one. Especially if you can fake the sincerity in the lead-up... :)

      Actually I love kids (and not in a creepy way), but I hate the anxiety culture horseshit that the media's forcing on us. Kids need to grow up. Getting hurt and making mistakes is a part of that.

    121. Re:Well duh by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Just as I suspected :(

      The Wikipedia article further says,
      =========
      This tactic is used when the matter in question is either uncontroversial or paradoxically when the matter at hand is quite controversial and participants wish to enjoy "political cover."
      =========

      Suspicious minds think alike :/~

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    122. Re:Well duh by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "I hate the anxiety culture horseshit that the media's forcing on us. Kids need to grow up. Getting hurt and making mistakes is a part of that."

      Exactly! Kids fall off bicycles and out of trees, and next time they're more careful, or learn to ride or climb better. They burn their fingers and learn that stoves can be hot, but they still learn to cook. They flunk a test and figure out that maybe next time they'd better study instead of goofing off. They learn to be *responsible*. Not all at once, but as *THE* fundamental process of growing up.

      And if they become responsible adults, they also learn that not everything is directed at [insert bogeyman here]. Every time you fall off your bike isn't a conspiracy by street maintenance. Every time you fail to sell your product isn't due to someone else robbing you. Every time some lunatic commits an atrocity isn't a sign that we should all hide in our basements and let the nanny gov't take care of us.

      As I write this, it occurs to me that if our nanny state hadn't taken all the self-responsibility out of growing up, we wouldn't even THINK in terms of "terrorists". We'd just kick the ass of whoever tried it, and that would be the end of the matter. Cowering behind the terrorism bogeyman is, in that way, a national failure to grow up and gain personal responsibility.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    123. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are correct to paint the Rs and Ds as two sides of a coin. I personally like McCain, but the skeletons are pounding on the closet doors of all the candidates.

      This may be the first election where I vote a split ticket to try and frustrate the creation or repeal of any further laws. I need a break and some stability from yo-yo-ing policies.

    124. Re:Well duh by BrianGKUAC · · Score: 1

      *queue 350 replies about how great Ron Paul is... er.. would have been.*

      Hate to say it, but the fact that we're still voting, rather than acting, is a very strong indication of why we are sheep. Change will only come when they decide it will. Welcome to slavery. If you want a solution, look up where my sig came from.

      --
      Menus: Linux=function, Windows=vendor, OS X=as little as possible. Makes a statement, don't you think?
    125. Re:Well duh by GungaDan · · Score: 1
      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    126. Re:Well duh by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Nearly every treaty dealing with Native Americans...

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    127. Re:Well duh by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      Seriously, do you know any shop, market stall, or random bloke at all who would sell you a pirate copy of photoshop, or any other PC software?

      I guess you've never been to the Middle East or Turkey then. Walk into a locally-owned store or market and 90% of the stuff will be pirated, and yes you can get Photoshop or any of a number of other high-end softwares. I have a friend who lived in Turkey for five years, and he told me he had trouble finding music CDs that were NOT pirated. He mailed home a huge box FULL of software to his brothers. He sent me a video-CD of Star Wars Episode 1, that would have been indistinguishable on the outside of the case from a commercial product, except that in the place a DVD would have the region code, it had the Mortal Kombat logo.

      Same in the Palestinean Territories, according his brother. You walk into a store and buy pirated music, movies and software right off the shelf.

    128. Re:Well duh by dedalus2000 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about tire pressure monitors and I'm not particularly opposed to gun sales hell I can even see arguments against criminal background checks given the sorry state of the terrorist watch list but what i don't understand is the opposition to trigger locks. opposing trigger locks makes as much sense as opposing safeties. one is intended to make a weapon safe when it's being carried the other is meant to make it safe when it's not. maybe you can explain this to me.

      As far as food stamps go I'd just as soon not live in a country that an economic down turn leads to a generation of mentally under developed adults due to childhood malnutrition. maybe some people want that, stupid people and the uneducated are easier to control, but that's not what I want.

      --
      My keyboads not woking popely.
    129. Re:Well duh by riondluz · · Score: 1

      For all of agore's good works of late, he remains incapable of addressing the pressing issues outside of the context of Capitalism, or it's present incarnation of hyper-consumerism.
      The result is just a transmogrification of one bad approach for another; ala advertisements from GE on how it's 'goin green' or how ADM is turning a new leaf. The context, capitalism can profit from saving the planet, appears to me to be little different from a hospital cost-shifting that $84 plastic tray table the patient eats from.
      I suggest you check out "A really inconvenient truth" by Joel Kovel. Its very illuminating

      --
      resist propaganda
    130. Re:Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Gore was president, we wouldn't be in Iraq.

      This belief is religious. That you use it to back up your views make your views useless. You really need to question yourself a bit more. Or don't, because you probably think you don't need to. But trust me, you really really do. No, really, I'm not joking. Odds are, I'm right about this. You don't think so, but I am. Really. Pretend there is somebody in the world that knows something you don't. Just pretend, then think "maybe they are right". Try it. It might help you out.

    131. Re:Well duh by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      It's not religious, it's based on the facts that the ONLY people pushing for war with Iraq were the neo-cons, and Gore isn't one and doesn't listen to them. Were it not for Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, and Wolfowitz's positions in the administration, Iraq would have never happened. Everyone who wasn't a neocon in the administration was surprised when they started talking about it.

      You want me to trust you? You want to prove that your views aren't useless? You want me to think "maybe they are right", "they" meaning "you" in this case? Okay then, tell me WHO in a Gore Presidency was going to push for an invasion of Iraq. It's wouldn't be the director of the CIA, it wouldn't be the National Security Council. WHO was going to stump for it? You have no idea at all, do you?

      Lots of people know more than me, I know it, and I listen to them and thus become more knowledgeable. That's how you do it.

      But morons who think anybody but the neo-cons would have invaded Iraq after Afghanistan, or who think invading Iraq wasn't a retarded idea to begin with, aren't among them. It's YOU who needs to open your ears and start listening to what knowledgeable people who know far more than you think. You could do worse than to start with Richard Clarke.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    132. Re:Well duh by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      Now, most people YOU know would probably know how to get warez for free. Most people I know know how to get warez for free, but most PEOPLE don't. Well, in my experience, adults certainly don't. Kids might not know exactly how to use bittorrent and all that...but there's enough who do - they then go around burning it to all their friends. You know how it goes - the computer literate guy goes on bittorrent trackers, getting a whole bunch of software, burns it for his mates, who burn it for their mates. Eventually you get a couple who come and say "Where do you get this from?" - or rather, more of a "wer do u get dis from?" - in either case, more people get it. My point is, I haven't met anyone for a long time who goes around *buying* pirated software from shady stores. I mean sure, on their holiday to China, they come back with heaps, but while in Australia, they tend to prefer getting their mates to get it for them. `Jarik
    133. Re:Well duh by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      I'm just suspicious of this rather convenient "oh, both parties are just as bad" cliche that pops up after stories like these. I don't know any serious observers who claim that a Gore or Kerry administration would have gotten us into the predicament.

      I'm a pretty serious observer, and I can tell you that neither you nor I know what Gore or Kerry might have gotten us into. Leadership has been pretty bad since the end of the cold war from both parties. If you think 'the parties are just as bad' is cliche, that's fine, but I really see little difference in the corporate/warfare/nanny state party and the nannystate/corporate/warfare party. They all favor the same shit, just in a different order. It's sad that you need to marginalize my comment as that from an 'non-serious' observer because it does not fit in with your perception of the world.

      If you really don't think they're all playing for the same team, trudge over to opensecrets.org and read who's donating to the different candidates in the presidential race this year. You'll notice that McCain, Clinton, and Obama all receive donations from and are owned by the same companies.

    134. Re:Well duh by Alcoholic+Synonymous · · Score: 1

      Can *you* get a special senate hearing because you personally don't like something?

      But if you were married to a senator who was willing to set that up for you, might be different.

    135. Re:Well duh by OmegaWolf747 · · Score: 1

      One can't believe any of the crap they spew from their rectal orifice. They are bought off by the recording industry!

      --
      I charge forward recklessly, leaving chaos in my wake.
  2. He's not overstating the link by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 0, Funny

    Overstate? I think it's a bit harsh and premature to claim that he's *over*stating the link between piracy and terrorism. I mean, Mukasey's a good guy, really does his homework. You think he's overstating what his evidence can justify? Really? Okay then, see if you can "explain away" the time they caught an IRA (Irish Republican Army) guy selling disks loaded with illegal copies of Windows at a flea market in Belfast in '86?

    Yeah. I think it's time to "think different" about trivializing the connection between software piracy and 9/11.

    1. Re:He's not overstating the link by UncleTogie · · Score: 0

      Okay then, see if you can "explain away" the time they caught an IRA (Irish Republican Army) guy selling disks loaded with illegal copies of Windows at a flea market in Belfast in '86?

      Citation and/or names, please...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    2. Re:He's not overstating the link by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      And would this be the same IRA that used to do most of its fundraising in the US.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    3. Re:He's not overstating the link by budgenator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well people do sell boot-leg software cd's, and some of the people are going to be Muslims, some of the Muslims are going to donated the money, some of which will knowingly or unknowingly support Islamic terrorists it's a given. Now I seriously doubt that funds from selling bootleg software is a significant source of revenue.

      A more serious matter is paid sperm donors! yes some paid sperm donors are similarly Muslims, some of the Muslims are going to donated the money, some of which will knowingly or unknowingly support Islamic terrorists so obviously we have to outlaw masturbation to protect civilization as we know it.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    4. Re:He's not overstating the link by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      some of the Muslims are going to donated the money, some of which will knowingly or unknowingly support Islamic terrorists it's a given

      60+ years ago we would have put all Muslims in the USA in camps like we did with the Japanese for the reason that some money they earn might go to terrorist groups.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  3. "Genuine" Windows Vista... by PlatyPaul · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... Suicide Bomber Edition.

    Putting the "death" back in BSOD.

    --
    Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
    1. Re:"Genuine" Windows Vista... by realkiwi · · Score: 1

      Oh the terror of the thought of even buying "Genuine" Windows Vista!

      --
      realkiwi
  4. No shame by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't believe how shamelessly politicians are using the terrorist bogeyman, and how easily people fall for it. Well, yes I can. But really, what's next? I'd like to say it can't get any more ludicrous than this, but I bet it can.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:No shame by eihab · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd like to say it can't get any more ludicrous than this, but I bet it can From his speech:

      That is not to suggest that we've been standing idly by before now. Yesterday, for example, I met with entertainment industry leaders in Los Angeles, where I participated in a roundtable discussion focused on IP issues and enforcement strategies. Earlier this morning, I had a similar roundtable discussion with leaders from Silicon Valley. Theories about how the "roundtable" discussions went are left as an exercise for your 2 years old...
      --
      If you can't mod them join them.
    2. Re:No shame by Gat0r30y · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It really is quite shameful, I've seen software pirates. They are the dudes on the side streets of Shanghai selling "Genuine Windows Vista" DVD's for a dollar (about 7 RMB). They most certainly are not terrorists.
      And to answer your question, next the government will claim terrorists are raising funds through an elaborate cheese laundering operation. First stealing US Gov. Cheese, then selling it on the black market at fantastic profit margins. Everyone, please turn in your local Dairy Farmer (he's undoubtedly in on the operation)!

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    3. Re:No shame by pwilli · · Score: 1

      Cheese... suddenly the new race for the moon makes a lot more sense.

    4. Re:No shame by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "A Russian mobster selling fake handbags through a middleman in New York may also be selling pirated DVDs in London, counterfeit AIDS medicine in Africa, and child pornography over the internet."

      Did he just imply that the child porn was copy written? The whole speech was on IP laws. And what do mobsters have to do with anything or the russians. Think it might be possible hes trying to link mafia, russians and CP, things people dont like in the states to piracy? Come on, russians maybe but the mob and CP is totally unrelated.

    5. Re:No shame by Digi-John · · Score: 1
      And what do mobsters have to do with anything or the russians.

      Well, it could have something to do with that Russian Mafia thing. Just a hunch.

      --
      Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
    6. Re:No shame by waveman · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have been looking at the evidence over the years and it seems that terrorists are more likely to get funding from making and selling illegal drugs than from marginal activities like copying software.

      The total spend on illegal drugs in the US alone is over $1 trillion!. This money goes to organized crime, gangsters, crooked police and politicians, and to terrorists.

      Have a look at Afghanistan, which is currently supplying a large percentage of the world's heroin trade. The funds are then used to fight the US, NATO and other allies in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

      Just another cost of the "war on drugs". Current US drug policies, which are also forced on the rest of the world, are widely recognized to be counter-productive. And why? The side-effects of heroin are constipation and the risk of overdose. Overdose is a problem caused by erratic potencies, which is a result of illegality.

      However certain people make a lot of money from the war on drugs. Thus the policy does not change.

    7. Re:No shame by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Everyone, please turn in your local Dairy Farmer (he's undoubtedly in on the operation)!

      No, the correct answer is "please turn in your local AK47 dealer". I'm pretty sure terrorists either (a) buy lots of machineguns or (b) sell lots of machine guns and that *that* is more pertinent than any software piracy link that may exist. The fact is, terrorists are going to sell pirated software regardless *because they're terrorists*; notice how similar this is to the point about gun regulation and criminals. Even if software piracy was crushed tomorrow into nothing, terrorists would switch to one of the other millions of *capitalistic* approachs to funding. The only real way to end terrorism funding is to end capitalism..and we've still not figured out a way to stop that.

      So, while I say it in a certain amount of mock jest, the (possibly) best answer to those who won't listen to the truth instead of the big lies is to tell bigger lies, but make the bigger lies something they care about. Tell them, gun sales make up the majority of contributions to terrorists. Then tell them, by supporting this legislation on software piracy, you're voicing your support for much tougher gun regulation. Make the liars the enemy. And, of course, when the side who really wants to have much tougher gun regulation grabs onto your lie and tries to use it, you make up an even bigger lie for the other side to push against their personal pet peeve (like, gun regulation somehow turning into anti-abortion laws or something).

      The most beautiful part of a democracy is, except in some cases, you get the governance you deserve. If those who you choose to govern would rather lie, and you'd rather believe those lies or simply nod your head and follow rather than think critical and support your supposed blood enemy, then you end up with the sort of situation you have today. So, the real question is, do you want to help make an exception? Do you want to lie to counter the lies set forth by others, for the good of the people? Or, is it better to tell the truth with the hope that eventually enough people will care enough to rise up and change the system, be it through a bloody or bloodless revolt? And why the hell does it seem like there's so little debate on this/these question(s)? Is it apathy or contentment that seems to push towards the creation of further, crazier laws?

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    8. Re:No shame by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's because the truth of terrorism being funded by vast amounts of opium from Afganistan being sold as heroin makes them look bad. Huge donations from our Saudi allies is also another thing that is uncomfortable to mention. Pretending the money comes from software piracy is a really bizzare bit of misdirection that in a normal situation would involve an investigation into bribery and/or incompetance. Unfortunately there are people above the law (pardon me Bush) and below the law (anybody suspected of some crimes and increasingly foreign nationals).

    9. Re:No shame by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Depends how you define "terrorist".

      In this case, they're "terrorizing" the software industry. To some people, that's worse than murder, rape, and of course widespread corporate fraud.

      Problem is, those people are in office.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    10. Re:No shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least two flaws in your argument:

      A. The "side streets of Shanghai" is not the only place where pirated materials are sold. Pirated materials are for sale all over the world as well as the Internet (and we have all seen more than our share of "cheap software" spams as evidence of this).

      B. The terrorists could be supplying those selling pirated materials in the "side streets of Shanghai." I wouldn't expect to see your average, turban-wearing, American-killing terrorist selling these materials first-hand, on the streets. Instead, he'll be kickin' back, safely out of harm's way, all while providing monetary aid to his brothers in Jihad against the great Satan infidels.

    11. Re:No shame by swillden · · Score: 1

      I can't believe how shamelessly politicians are using the terrorist bogeyman, and how easily people fall for it. Well, yes I can. But really, what's next? I'd like to say it can't get any more ludicrous than this, but I bet it can.

      My sig seems very appropriate here.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:No shame by jackbird · · Score: 1
      The side-effects of heroin are constipation and the risk of overdose.

      What about the all-consuming addiction?

    13. Re:No shame by budgenator · · Score: 1

      dude you must live under a rock, politicians have always shamelessly used the boogeyman du jour.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    14. Re:No shame by Yurka · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You think you're being facetious, but yes, there is an black market in cheese, and it does have fantastic profit margins. USDA regulations forbid importation of any raw milk cheese not aged for at least 60 days; people who like younger fermented curd really do support smuggling operations of said cheesy comestible from Europe with their $$.

      --
      I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
    15. Re:No shame by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      The most beautiful part of a democracy is, except in some cases, you get the governance you deserve. Bullshit. Who is this "you"? Democracy is a joke. Look around you. Most people are stupid and selfish and cruel and very easily led. The majority of any group is nearly always wrong. Maybe the human race does not 'deserve' to survive. Is that where you would like to see this "democracy", this majority rule, take us?

      A government is like a machine with one purpose: to control. Everything. And it won't stop, ever, until it has won. It can only be stopped by being destroyed utterly through armed revolt. Through war and violence and blood in the streets. But as the government grows in power this becomes increasingly difficult. In the case of the United States it would now be all but impossible. The war machine has grown powerful beyond all imagining. Even a good sized militia would have no chance against that kind of adversary.

      So we are on our way. There are no turns on this road. "Terrorism" will continue to grow as the term grows to include anything not expressly permitted. But what is happening cannot be blamed on any one person. It is a sort of tragedy of the commons, this thing we call 'government'. We create a machine that will always eventually take control and destroy us, destroy everything for its own selfish needs. A vast machine controlled by countless thousands of people who individually have not the slightest chance to determine its course. We never seem to learn from our mistakes. Each time we believe that this time it will be different.
      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    16. Re:No shame by kisak · · Score: 1
      Shouldn't that read:

      I can't believe how shamelessly the current Republican administration are using the terrorist bogeyman, and how easily people fall for it.
      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    17. Re:No shame by jimicus · · Score: 1

      The side-effects of heroin are constipation and the risk of overdose.

      I've lived with a drug addict (OK, it was crack rather than heroin) and I can tell you you missed a few side effects out.

      These include:

      1. Turning into the most god-awful wanker who nobody in their right mind would hire to clean the toilets in the local McDonalds.
      2. Discovering (as a result of 1. above) that you have no money but a burning need for more drugs.
      3. Lying, cheating, stealing and scamming to get money in order to buy more drugs.

      None of these would be resolved by making heroin legal.

    18. Re:No shame by pla · · Score: 1

      This money goes to organized crime, gangsters, crooked police and politicians, and to terrorists.

      BS. Yeah, a few not-very-nice-guys in Central America make money off a few nonsynthetic drugs, but believe it or not, most of the US illegal drug supply counts as home-grown (and I don't just refer to weed, which mostly comes from Canada anyway).

      The only notable exception to that, Afghan opium/heroin, we can thank our own CIA for establishing the trade, and if it funds terrorists, well then I look forward to the Treasury freezing the assets of the entire US government (yeah, riiiiiight - Kettle? There is no kettle. Why do you hate America?).

      Don't tell me drugs or piracy or sex or any of my favorite Christian-pissing-off vices fund terrorism. You want to know what funds terrorism? Uncle Sam does. We arm both sides in local skirmishes, then cry when the two sides make up and come after us. We pay the Taliban not to grow poppies, and cry when they buy guns and come after us (and grow poppies anyway). We Tell Iraqis not to burn "their" oil fields, and give the pumping contracts to exclusively US companies in one of the least fair bidding processes in history (which even other Western oil companies such as BP protested to the WTO about). We maintain almost-peace in Baghdad by having an extremely visible armed presence, and wonder why the kids grow up to join a terrorist organization that didn't exist in their country until it followed us in.

      We manufacture our own enemies, no need to blame any boogeymen for funding.

    19. Re:No shame by cherokee158 · · Score: 1

      Constipation and bad junk are the worst hazards of Heroin abuse you can think of? Really? What about overdoses due to increased tolerance from overuse? What about a physical addiction so powerful people have killed for pocket change to buy their next fix? What about underage women pushed into a habit that they are forced to work the streets to afford? What about AIDS? Homelessness?

      I agree with you that US anti-drug efforts are problematical in many ways, but Heroin is not some benign recreational chemical given a bad rap by enforcement efforts. It is a dangerous drug that enslaves and destroys lives. It is illegal in most of the world because it is widely recognized as such.

    20. Re:No shame by master_p · · Score: 1

      Easy: people that don't have a job are terrorists. People that don't want to enlist to the armed forces are terrorists. People that do not want to see "progress" like cutting down forests and building malls are terrorists. The list is endless, really.

    21. Re:No shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you aware that prohibition drastically inflates the price of drugs, making them many times more valuable than they would be if legal? Why do you think the black market for drugs is so lucrative, providing incentives so great that people are willing to fight and even kill each other for control of the market?

      Think about this -- in some markets, people will actually pay $100 for a quarter ounce of marijuana. We're talking about a weed that more or less grows itself.

      The more funds they pour into the business of prohibition, the more valuable the price of the prohibited product, and the more lucrative the black market. And -- back full circle -- the more funds they "need" to pour into the business of prohibition. What a perfect, never-ending business model, eh?

      If you don't believe how serious this is, then refer to alcohol prohibition of the 20s, and the grossly inflated value of that product which attracted the attention of Al Capone and gave rise to organized crime. It's the exact same thing all over again.

      Of course, nowadays we don't see people killing each other for control of the alcohol market, nor do the bad guys have the slightest incentive to participate in that market. Why not? Because they couldn't possibly compete with a legitimate business.

    22. Re:No shame by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      The most beautiful part of a democracy is, except in some cases, you get the governance you deserve.

      Bullshit. Who is this "you"? Democracy is a joke. Look around you. Most people are stupid and selfish and cruel and very easily led. The majority of any group is nearly always wrong. Maybe the human race does not 'deserve' to survive. Is that where you would like to see this "democracy", this majority rule, take us?

      The "you" is the majority. If the majority of people are "stupid and selfish and cruel and easily led", they suffer as a consequence of this, as they are manipulated into harming themselves in their quest for self-fulfillment. This is beautiful, not because humanity "deserves" it (although one could probably argue that it does, if humanity does indeed act as you describe), but because the system works unto its intentions. Sure, a benevolent dictator could do "better", but would the people really "deserve" that which they receive? What about if it was a tyrant instead? Democracy is the closest system of governance I'm aware of that so closely associates action with receiving accountability for those actions, regardless of how much the people directly choose it.

      A government is like a machine with one purpose: to control. Everything. And it won't stop, ever, until it has won. It can only be stopped by being destroyed utterly through armed revolt. Through war and violence and blood in the streets.

      You're wrong on many fronts. Governments aren't so easy to categorize. While many governments (most?) are devoted to the control of all things, the only thing that moves governments in a democracy towards utter control is a wish by the populace for fascism or its ilk; but not all majorities of people want that. And even when there is a government of tyrany, revolts have repeatedly happened as the ruling class is eventual crushed by its own devices (those who seek power destablize the unity of power, allowing for a power vacuum that otherwise non-powered individuals to interceed; take, for example, the British Empire's history with Parliament).

      But as the government grows in power this becomes increasingly difficult. In the case of the United States it would now be all but impossible. The war machine has grown powerful beyond all imagining. Even a good sized militia would have no chance against that kind of adversary.

      Again, look no further than the British Empire. Of course, the British Empire took literally centuries to change. And few in a democracy who care about keeping their democracy are likely willing to wait around for centuries for the eventual downfall of the latest tyrany, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. After all, the British Empire didn't start out from a strong monarch; it took people *choosing*, through democracies, simple free will, or through the various other pre-empire organizations, to join the kingdoms and then the empire until such point that the kingdoms and the empire refused to allow subjects to leave.

      But, in the end, America sprang up even against the virtually unthinkable odds of revolting against the British. If there comes a time that a war against the US government should be necessary, it is hard to believe that no other democracy (or possibly other government type), fearing for its own existance*, wouldn't support even a seemingly hopeless cause. In any case, I'm not convinced that things are hopeless*.

      So we are on our way. There are no turns on this road. "Terrorism" will continue to grow as the term grows to include anything not expressly permitted. But what is happening cannot be blamed on any one person. It is a sort of tragedy of the commons, this thing we call 'government'. We create a machine that will always eventually take control and destroy us, destroy everything for its own selfish needs. A vast machine controlled by countless thousands of people who

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    23. Re:No shame by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Overdoses? Give people measured doses of pharmaceutical heroin. Killing or hooking for their next fix? If it's legal, a fix costs pennies. Cheap enough to give away. Aids? If it's legal clean needles will be easy to come by. Homelessness? Most alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and prescription opiate addicts have a home, why should heroin be any different?

      I understand heroin is not benign, it's very dangerous. What you have to realize is that making it illegal only makes it more dangerous.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    24. Re:No shame by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Overdoses? Give people measured doses of pharmaceutical heroin. ..and they will take the measured doses, and then go on the street to find more.

      Killing or hooking for their next fix? If it's legal, a fix costs pennies. Cheap enough to give away. ...and then they will take all you have, and then kill someone to get pennies for their next fix. You do realize that we're talking about a drug that will lead people to starve to death if given the choice of one more fix or a meal.

      Aids? If it's legal clean needles will be easy to come by.

      Not for someone that can't hold a job because they're addicted to heroine.

      Homelessness? Most alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and prescription opiate addicts have a home, why should heroin be any different?

      Most? What about those that don't? Would the number that don't be 10 times higher if the drug addiction was 10 times as severe. What if the drug addiction was 100 times as severe? Heroine, like cocaine, should be different because it's effect on brain chemistry is different.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    25. Re:No shame by Hatta · · Score: 1

      ..and they will take the measured doses, and then go on the street to find more.

      You misunderstand. Give them all they want, just make the dosage clear. Overdoses only happen because people don't know how strong their stuff is.

      You do realize that we're talking about a drug that will lead people to starve to death if given the choice of one more fix or a meal.

      Then don't make them make that choice. Heroin maintenance works. Addicts tend to titrate to a level that they are comfortable with, and lead much better lives than if they had to spend all day drug-seeking.

      Not for someone that can't hold a job because they're addicted to heroine.

      Merely being addicted to heroin isn't enough to make you unable to hold a job. Hell, one of the founders of John's Hopkin's had an incredible career as a surgeon while being addicted to morphine.

      Would the number that don't be 10 times higher if the drug addiction was 10 times as severe.

      It's worth pointing out here that by all accounts nicotine is much harder to quit than heroin. Much more physically damaging too. When nicotine is prohibited, you'll see a lot more people having serious problems in their lives because of what they have to do to get their fix. Nicotine and heroin are both incredibly dangerous drugs, prohibition only makes them worse.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    26. Re:No shame by waveman · · Score: 1

      > Constipation and bad junk [resulting in overdoses] are the worst hazards of Heroin abuse you can think of?

      Well, that is what you will find if you go and look it up in a pharmaceutical reference book.

      Clearly opiates are addictive but that is only a problem if safe, inexpensive, legal supplies are not available. What destroys lives is the fact that the drug is illegal and therefore expensive. This means that criminal activities are needed to support the habit.

      AIDS transmission in this case is a result of reusing dirty needles. Have you every wondered why diabetics who inject insulin don't get AIDS? The reason is that they have access to cheap legal supplies of needles. Countries that have instituted needle exchange programs for addicts have more effectively limited the spread of AIDS than those that have not.

      Tim

    27. Re:No shame by waveman · · Score: 1

      > I've lived with a drug addict (OK, it was crack rather than heroin) and I can tell you you missed a few side effects out.

      I was specifically talking about heroin, as you acknowledged. But two out of the three items you mentioned are a result of illegality and the expensive supply. In contrast to crack, alcohol is harmful in many ways but it is cheap enough that you do not need to embark on a life of crime to support alcohol consumption. Alcohol sales are also not funding gangs and organized crime and terrorism, because alcohol is legal.

      Organnzed crime got its hold on the US during prohibition, when alcohol was banned.

      Even for drugs that are seriously harmful, I would argue that a harm minimization approach is more likely to be effective, and will have far fewer effects on society, than prohibition.

      It is easier for under-age children to buy illegal drugs than alcohol. Since when is that a good thing?

      Tim

    28. Re:No shame by waveman · · Score: 1

      > We manufacture our own enemies, no need to blame any boogeymen for funding.

      There is a lot of truth in this. You only have to look at who supported Osama bin Laden when he was a "freedom fighter" against the Russians. That was before he turned against the US and became a "terrorist". I put the terms in quotes because ObL has not changed at all, just the US view of him.

      Similarly have a look at who put Saddam Hussein into power in a coup. I will give you a clue - the color of their flag is red white and blue and it has stars and stripes on it. Who put the Shah of Iran in power in a coup, setting the stage for the subsequent takeover by the mulllahs?

      This does not take away from the fact that $1,000,000,000,000 dollars per year are going into the hands of various types of criminals as a result of the policies of prohibition.

      The fact that you do not want to hear the truth about what your spending on drugs does does not make it any less true. I lived in a country town in Australia where a local politician was murdered by the drug cartels. This was a wake-up call for many people about what that money was doing.

      http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/07/1070732070321.html?from=storyrhs

      As found as I got older that it is very useful to try and separate "what is true" from "what I want to be true" and from "what I am going to do about it".

      Tim

    29. Re:No shame by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I was specifically talking about heroin, as you acknowledged. But two out of the three items you mentioned are a result of illegality and the expensive supply. I'm not sure which two you're referring to.

      But I am fairly sure that even in a society which legalised hard drugs, the cost would be non-zero, and hence the user would require money in order to obtain them.

      However, if (and I concede it's a fairly big assumption) the effects of drugs render the drug addict just as unemployable in a society which allows them as one which condemns them, I wouldn't expect the level of petty crime to change much.

      Now, bear in mind I'm in the UK and shootouts between rival drug gangs are still relatively rare here. However, in a society where such events are more common (and hence so is innocents getting caught in the crossfire), then I can appreciate that there may be some benefit. But I can't see many people signing up to be in the area where it's first trialled.
    30. Re:No shame by waveman · · Score: 1

      > if (and I concede it's a fairly big assumption) the effects of drugs render the drug addict just as unemployable in a society which allows them as one which condemns them, I wouldn't expect the level of petty crime to change much.

      Yes that's what it is - an assumption - and it's a false assumption. There are lots of tobacco and even alcohol addicts who are productive members of society (I know quite a few of them). The inherent harm from heroin is far less than alcohol.

      I'm not sure where you got the idea that shootouts in the street are the only harm from the policies of prohibition. My view is that the huge sums of money that go to criminals and the resulting corruption are the biggest costs. Corruption is something that people try to hide, so it is not "in your face".

      I agree that a lot of people are reluctant to consider alternatives to prohibition. It takes a bit of lateral thinking, and a willingness to get past the initial emotional reactions, to realize that the biggest problem is not the drugs themselves but the fact that they are illegal.

      Here are some of the costs of illegality:

      - Crime (burglaries, muggings) and associated trauma and injuries due to the need to pay high costs for drugs.
      - Higher insurance premiums.
      - Cost of detection, policing and of running prisons (about 40% of people in prison in the US are there for drug related offenses).
      - Cost of being in prison.
      - Inability of people to use illegal drugs for legitimate purposes (eg medical uses of marijuana).
      - Balance of payments problems contributed to by lareg drug imports.
      - Corruption of police, customs officials and politicians.
      - Large sums of money put in the hands of criminals, gangsters, corrupt officials and terrorists.
      - Resources wasted smuggling drugs into the country.
      - Poor quality, adulteration and variable potencies of drugs leading to overdoses and toxicity.
      - Transmission of serious illnesses such as hepatitis and AIDS due to lack of access to sterile needles.
      - Instability and failure of states as seen in several Latin American countries.
      - Massive financial incentives for drug pushers to enlist new users into the use of drugs.

      The common view that drug addicts are morally flawed people who just need to abstain is wrong in my view, in many or most cases. A lot of drug users are self-mediating for various defects in their brain chemistry. For example heroin addicts and also alcoholics tend to have problems with endorphin production or receptors. Cocaine addicts and amphetamine users often have problems with the dopamine systems. Trying to solve a medical problem using a punitive legal approach is an approach that *has* failed.

  5. Perhaps they actually know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the CIA's doing the piracy, perhaps they know how much funds it generates.

  6. Well then by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a good thing sites like thepiratebay.org are making the sale of physical copies of pirated media much less profitable. Get those Torrents running for Uncle Sam!

    --
    ... I'm addicted to placebos
    1. Re:Well then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nice joke. As with most good jokes you actually present a solution to the accused "problem".

      If what he said is true there is a certain way to ensure that the terrorists do not make any money on infringing copyright. And this solution would also ensure that there is never a market for illegal copies of copyrighted works. Piracy (as the music industry is defining it) will destroy the market of the terrorists, and anybody else trying to make money off illegally copying copyright protected works.

      The solution is: Non-commercial private copying of copyrighted works has to be free (ie. allowed for anybody). If anybody can freely copy and distribute copyrighted works, terrorists won't have a chance as there is no market for their illegal copies anywhere the internet is available.

      Of course a "per copy" sale of digital works would be made impossible, and the music industry would have to find other ways of doing business (or die, as many other industries have done due to technological development). But is it really fair that somebody can make money forever (copyright extension will probably happen again soon) off something they have done only once?

    2. Re:Well then by ColombianKid · · Score: 1

      But you dont understand! Thepiratebay is a terrorist plot in on itself! They're trying to cut into the profits of good, honest, hard-working American corporations in order to brake us down from underneath!

    3. Re:Well then by UED++ · · Score: 0

      Farmer John says: Just doing my part for the war and all. Don't mess with my torrents or I'll show you the true meaning of "throttling"! >

  7. Utter lies by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Normally I am very reserved when it comes to political commentary. However, this time I simply cannot help but note that the show has certainly reached a new low, and we should all be ashamed of ourselves.

    It is absolutely despicable that we've become so fat and complacent, that we allow our government to pull these sorts of stunts. Looking at the proposed legislation, one should note that IP infringement might be punished more severely than rape, if these laws are to become real. Actually, we should see the whole thing as a rape... the rape of our Constitution, and every value that made our society ever so slightly better than the regimes we like to fight so much.

    1. Re:Utter lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this time I simply cannot help but note that the show has certainly reached a new low, and we should all be ashamed of ourselves.

      Why should I be ashamed that the Republican president appointed some person with absolutely no regard for the truth to the position of Attorney General, putting him in the top position of the Department of Justice?

      After all, since when has "truth" had anything to do with justice in the United States? As far back as I can remember, Justice has always been about the connections you had and the lawyers you could hire.

    2. Re:Utter lies by TheMeuge · · Score: 2, Informative

      What annoys me about this kind of hippie nonsense is that you single out the United States. You know, last time I checked, it was about the connections you had REGARDLESS of the country.

    3. Re:Utter lies by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Thing is, raping a citizen only harms the citizen. Raping a corporation harms a campaign contributor. Which way do you think your Congresscritter is gonna vote?

      Why do you think campaign financing reform is drastically needed, but will never happen? When the government puts the needs of corporations before the needs of its citizens, it's already way too late. Hope you have your bug-out package and bribe money to get a coyote to pass you through the border...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    4. Re:Utter lies by TheMeuge · · Score: 1

      Through the border where? Into Mexico? Are you going to tell me they have less of a corruption problem?

      At least here we're free to whine about it, with little fear of having our children's ears sent to us as a reminder of who runs the show.

    5. Re:Utter lies by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      yeah, for now.

      --
      ...
    6. Re:Utter lies by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      You should be ashamed cos you sit like a bitch and do nothing about it. You sit and cry about your lost freedom, but you arn't doing anything about it. A pissed of majority can make a differnce, if you all get off your fat lazy asses and stop crying like babies. The USA only exists cos the people got fed up with being bum raped for tax money by king George, tho maybe if George Washington had been a whining little bitch like you we wouldn't have to put up with the US in it's current sorry state.

    7. Re:Utter lies by TheNucleon · · Score: 2, Interesting
      At least here we're free to whine about it, with little fear of having our children's ears sent to us as a reminder of who runs the show.


      For now. The government has already given itself the ability to "disappear" you, with no legal recourse at your disposal. While the spectre of your child's ears handed to you is unspeakably horrible, so is the prospect of your child growing up without a parent because Daddy spoke out and was "extraordinarily rendered".

      --
      My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
    8. Re:Utter lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you single out the United States.

      Oh shit, an American poster on an American site in a thread about an American Attorney General has the absolute audacity to refer to the United States of America! What "hippie nonsense"!

    9. Re:Utter lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hippie nonsense"?! Sorry, Cartman, but I hold my own country to a higher standard than other countries.

    10. Re:Utter lies by Zedekiah · · Score: 1

      I hate to ask the obvious question, but.. why? Does you being born in a country make it better than others?

      --
      What I wouldn't do for the ability to mod "-1, Plain Wrong"
    11. Re:Utter lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not that we've become fat and complacent, its that corruption and abuse of power have become so absolute that "people" don't even know HOW to start fighting it. The people will usually rely on legal avenues for change, however these avenues are easily turned into dead-end alleys with the help of a few grand....

    12. Re:Utter lies by nexuspal · · Score: 1

      "Through the border where? Into Mexico? Are you going to tell me they have less of a corruption problem?"
       
      The irony is, if/when the shit hits the fan here, it very well may be be better to flee to Mexico, where everyone is already at the bottom, than to be here as the entire population falls to 3rd world status... I shudder to think what people will do when they can't find their next meal. At least in Mexico you just slaughter a donkey, or go plant another crop...

      --
      I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure :-P
    13. Re:Utter lies by Alpha77 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I get the feeling this kind of legislation is driven by the way corporations view the world: as a place to make money. In such a simple world view anything that allows you to get more money or make it harder for others to get yours is A Good Thing.

      If everything is valued in terms of money, moral issues tend to slip aside. The question Americans need to ask their legislators is: does this law make our society a better one? People can debate on waht makes society better, but allowing corporations to own the idea space is not an improvement IMHO.

      Like other posters have noted: where's is the evidence? Are people supposed to believe statements like these at face value? Modern politics seem to have lost the accountability that used to be more common. Over here in The Netherlands the ruling parties are blocking a parlementary investigation into what led the Dutch to support the attack on Iraq...

    14. Re:Utter lies by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      The thing is, the casual piracy that occurs in the USA (which this bill will target) is little more than a stray eyelash in the corporations' eyes. If you want actual rape of corporations, try the counterfeit factories across the Pacific. Ironic, given that they invested billions in that region for cheap labor.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    15. Re:Utter lies by Snuhwolf · · Score: 1

      What part of Dick Cheney's recent comment, "So?" do you not understand?

  8. I'll second that by Bananatree3 · · Score: 1

    Behold! When I noticed a response to this I secretly told myself "well it's probably a duh response", knowing just how well known the Fed's scare tactics come with "dem damn turrists". haha! I was correct!

  9. Which is worse, Terrorism, or the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you want to support someone who whats to bomb you out of existence, or someone who wants to sue you out of existence?

    1. Re:Which is worse, Terrorism, or the RIAA by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      It's possible I'd get off on self defense if I shot the bombing one ... so that one.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
  10. Forgive me I am young. by Warll · · Score: 0

    terrorists sell pirated software Sure they may be willing to sell it, but who in their right mind would pay money for it?
  11. I cant wait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they do this. They have no idea what will happen. Riots. Secrecy. If they keep taking my freedoms because of "terrorism" I will help. One used to associate terrorism with explosives and killing. Now associate it with me.

  12. I like buying software from terrorists... by realmolo · · Score: 4, Funny

    My copy of Windows XP doesn't just *crash*, it crashes into *buildings*.

  13. Windows? by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought you were serious until the bit about the IRA in 1986. Windows 3.0 was introduced in 1990. I think Windows 1.0 existed in 1986 but who would go through the trouble to pirate that? It wasn't until Windows 95 that operating systems really had any currency as a commodity (thanks to a ludicrous advertising campaign that changed the computer industry forever); the idea of someone hawking Windows 1.0 alongside illegal VHS tapes is pretty bizarre, to say the least.

    1. Re:Windows? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 2, Informative

      That one may be wrong, but there was an IRA operation busted making copies of PS games back in the 90s, but we all know the number one source by far of IRA money was rich Irish-Americans, who got away with flagrant support for terrorism right under the US government's nose, which, along with all the IRA murderers who hid in the US and weren't extradited, just goes to prove the US government has never really given a shit about fighting terrorism.

    2. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1986 IRA privacy case is true, only it was bootleg cassette tapes, and it was one guy with known IRA connections selling them at a car boot sale. This is the single proven case that was trotted out by the UK equivalent of the MPAA when I challenged the claims in their ads through the Advertising Standards Agency a few years ago. That and some conference just after 9/11, where an FBI guy had stood up and made an unsupported statement that DVD piracy was supporting Al Qaeda, which MPAA claimed (and ASA accepted) proved the link was not just one isolated incident.

    3. Re:Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it so bizarre that I keep my pirated copy of Windows 1.0 right beside my VHS porn? I prefer to refer to it as my "shrine to all things dirty and nasty". You can't buy stuff like that anymore.

  14. Duh by superdana · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They overstate everything's link to terrorism.

    1. Re:Duh by N1ck0 · · Score: 1

      They overstate everything's link to terrorism. Everything can be linked to terrorism!!!??? From this point on I'm doing my patriotic duty as a US Citizen to do absolutely nothing.

    2. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever happened to "never cry wolf"?

      The next time that the US presents "clear evidence" of a nation preparing to attack with WMD's, the world will be even more reluctant to believe what is being told. The next time the US government claims terrorists are doing this or that, people will be more weary. I understand wanting to hop onto the bandwagon and if it works to get what you want, but don't these people have -any- sense of decency and integrity? Do they really think they will get away with this? Sooner or later, the truth will come out. Sooner or later they will have to pay.

      This is just as stupid as big corporations dumping their chemicals in rivers, so they don't have to pay for the cleanup cost. In the short term, it works and you make a profit. In the long term, people will smell something fishy (probably dead fishy) and will start looking. After that, it is only a matter of time until the people who perpetrated the crime will be held responsible. How do they look their loved ones into the eyes, knowing they lied to get what they want and wilfully put other people at risk? How will they sleep at night, knowing full well that the next time the doorbell rings, someone may be coming around to arrest them or at least subpoena them in a case that may cost them much more than what they ever earned. Because that's one thing you gotta love about American courts and jury trials: when a crime is big enough, no fine is too steep.

      I will never understand people like that. Bill Clinton having sex with an intern was nothing compared to getting the US involved in the quagmire that is Iraq. At least Bush sr. was smart enough to leave Saddam alone. No matter how often they say that the "War on Terrorism" is being won, if you look at the casualties in Iraq, just the American casualties are almost as high now as those from 9/11, without including the thousands and thousands of Iraqi casualties, nevermind all the people who were scarred for life, both physically and mentally.

      Every time a politician lies or embellishes, referring to Terrorists in order to get support for some pet piece of legislation, they do a grave injustice to the American people and indeed the world.

    3. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the new game, "6 degree's to Terrorists".
      1. Download Torrent file from Pirate Bay
      2. Pirate Bay is in Europe
      3. Europe is not the U.S., therefore it's close to the Middle-East!
      4. Computer running pirated copy of XP
      5. Torrent is a file share of Visio
      6. VIsio is used to create workflow diagrams for a coordinated the attack on the US.

      OMG, I supported terrorism!!!! Microsoft products can support terrorists! ack! Microsoft is evil. BAN THE INTERNET.

  15. oh, how convenient by vajaradakini · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everything that's illegal and/or generally not approved of by the US government "supports the terrorists".

    Smoke locally grown pot (as most pot in the US is): you're supporting the terrorists!
    Download your music through a peer to peer network: you're supporting the terrorists!
    Pirate your software: you're supporting the terrorists!

    It's the red scare all over again, but with a different enemy, isn't it? "Don't forget to go spend all your money on things you don't need and can't afford. If you don't spend more than you make and support our corporate buddies, you clearly want the terrorists to win."

    --
    what's that now?
    1. Re:oh, how convenient by N1ck0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Everything that's illegal and/or generally not approved of by the US government "supports the terrorists". Pssst... The US Government supports the terrorists too.
    2. Re:oh, how convenient by ZenDragon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Afghanistan IS one of the worlds largest Opium producers... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

    3. Re:oh, how convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shit -- I'm doing all of these things RIGHT NOW! I'd better head to my cave in the mountains before the feds turn up...

    4. Re:oh, how convenient by evanbd · · Score: 2, Informative

      And that's relevant to the parent posts' point how, exactly?

      I know more than one person who will smoke weed, but won't smoke opium because it actually does support terrorists, at least somewhat...

      The fact that you have a personal objection to other people's drug of choice doesn't necessarily mean those people are supporting terrorists. I suppose a straw man argument is better than an outright fabrication, but you're dangerously close to the claims of the A.G.

    5. Re:oh, how convenient by vajaradakini · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know. And buying cocaine puts money into the hands of Columbian drug lords. Neither of these things are related to pot, regardless of what the anti-drug commercials try to say.

      --
      what's that now?
    6. Re:oh, how convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      speaking of which.

      How many millions were paid to the taliban back in the day as part of the war on drugs again?

    7. Re:oh, how convenient by ZenDragon · · Score: 1

      Im simply implying that its not too far fetched for a terrorist group leader/dictator to rely on local drug harvesting for supplemental funding. Were I a terrorist leader in a third world country that was a large producer of narcotics I sure as hell would be taking advantage of the situation. Its simply naive to think that it didn't in some way support Bin Ladins organization.

      Of course I obviously could not back up such an accusation, but read the bottom of that wiki article, there has been documented testimony from known terrorists regarding connections with the drug "lords".

    8. Re:oh, how convenient by ZenDragon · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about Pot or Cocaine for that matter? I was talking about opium and simply pointing out that Afghanistan IS one of the worlds largest producers of opium. I have no problem with weed, I smoke it on occasion myself as a matter of fact.

    9. Re:oh, how convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way...

      These evil talibans were on the verge of eradicating opium production in Afghanistan when the US attacked... Thanks to the USA, the opium trade is alive and kicking and their enormous profits can now be invested in the stock market...

      So you actually support terrorists when you consume heroin.... State terrorism that is...

    10. Re:oh, how convenient by ZenDragon · · Score: 1

      They were weeding out the ones that wouldn't pay up! ;)

    11. Re:oh, how convenient by Moop11 · · Score: 1

      So does smoking pot make me a terrorist? I kind of forgot what I was just reading.

    12. Re:oh, how convenient by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      The OP was talking about pot.

      And if you haven't seen the anti-drug commercials they do mention marijuana as a product that is somehow connected to terrorism.

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    13. Re:oh, how convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but only since the fall of the Taliban, who actually kept opium production at nearly nothing by executing anyone caught farming it.
      I don't have a source handy, but I saw it on National Geographic Channel

    14. Re:oh, how convenient by dbIII · · Score: 1

      they do mention marijuana as a product that is somehow connected to terrorism.

      How on earth did they rope that together and head in that direction? They had the wrong warnings years ago. "This is your brain on advertising" would be more appropriate now.

    15. Re:oh, how convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Everything that's illegal and/or generally not approved of by the US government "supports the terrorists".

      OK! Now let's outlaw gas-guzzling cars and trucks, since those vehicles cause so much oil money to flow to terrorist regimes in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia.

      ...

      Well? (*taps foot *) What's taking so long, Mr. President?

    16. Re:oh, how convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What's funny is the Taliban had actually cracked down on opium farmers and shipments from Afghanistan were at an all-time low prior to the US War on Terror. Although there is a report (which is cited in the aforementioned article) that speculates the ban on the poppy by the Taliban was to raise the price of Heroin on the world market, it was issued long after the invasion of Afghanistan and has been linked to a post-9/11 operation to discredit the Taliban. Other sources have noted the reason for the Taliban crackdown were to influence the UN and strengthen their seat on the General Assembly.

      Whatever the motivation behind the ban, the facts are at the time of the US invasion of Afghanistan the amount of heroin coming from the country was the lowest it had been in recent history and after the invasion it is at an all-time high. As a heroin addict currently on methadone maintenance, I will say if it were as plentiful 8 years ago as it is now I would have had no need to get on methadone as it is easier and cheaper to get now than it has been in the 15 years since I began using (to say nothing of the hoops MMT patients have to go through thanks to government regulations that make it easier for many people to continue using rather than seek treatment). Given how many heroin addicts were created in Vietnam, I worry about how many more addicted service members we will see coming back from this war where it is so much more plentiful.

      - one nation, under surveillance

    17. Re:oh, how convenient by evanbd · · Score: 1

      You didn't read my comment, did you?

      Marijuana is not opium. The majority of marijuana in the US is locally grown. Terrorist connections to opium have zero relevance to marijuana. They are not the same drug, and they are not the same market. Responding to comments about marijuana by presenting evidence about opium makes you look either clueless or highly disingenuous.

    18. Re:oh, how convenient by vajaradakini · · Score: 1

      When did anti-drug groups start caring about the truth?

      If they actually educated kids about drugs instead of claiming that pot is as bad as heroin or that they'll wind up completely unmotivated and sit on the couch all day doing nothing or that they'll immediately want to run out and buy some crack if they smoke so much as one joint then there would probably be fewer people doing drugs that are actually bad for you (i.e. heroin) because they might actually believe what they were told about such drugs as kids.

      --
      what's that now?
    19. Re:oh, how convenient by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Its simply naive to think that it didn't in some way support Bin Ladins organization. Ignoring the difference between pakalolo and poppies for the moment, I'd have to say it is extremely naive to think that the policies of the US government and the DEA which amount to taxpayer-funded price-supports on heroin have not significantly contributed to bin Laden's organization.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    20. Re:oh, how convenient by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      you know why anti-drug advertising is great? because without it you couldn't smoke a bowl while wearing a DARE hoodie (with sewn in stash pocket)

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    21. Re:oh, how convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I think the problem is a matter of definition. I (and probably most of the sane people) define a terrorist as a non-state sponsored person or group engaged in violent or fear inducing tactics to promote a political or social agenda. So by that definition, most of America can be considered a terrorist if you're a neo-con whackjob like the current admin. We're scaring them! We want to make things better and different than they are right now! We want cultural and political and economic change! We are attacking their very way of life! Now, the violent bit is really stretching things at least as far as Americans are concerned. Other than blowing up the occasional abortion clinic (done by said right wing wackos anyway), there isn't a whole lot of domestic terrorism that I've ever heard of. Murder is usually not terrorism. Stalking an ex-girlfriend is not terrorism. Downloading mp3s of crappy music is DEFINITELY not terrorism. Doesn't mean they aren't bad (or that they are), but we all should use the correct terms to allow for a more enlightened conversation.

      One other minor but significant pet peeve of mine: By definition, you can only be at war with a state entity (country) and by definition terrorists cannot be state sponsored (or they are considered a soldier), so it is therefore impossible to ever have a "war on terrorism" because they could never show up! :) The Taliban were not terrorists. They were very bad people who happened to control a country and decided the US needed a good smack down. Since they no longer have a country to call their own we can now refer to them as terrorists, but we can no longer be at war with them. We'll just have to attack them without any fancy name for it. Similarly, Al Queda (sp?) will likely never be at war with the US because they have no country of their own. Doesn't mean they can't do nasty things, but get your facts straight.

    22. Re:oh, how convenient by ZenDragon · · Score: 1

      Im aware of that... I was responding to this comment: "Everything that's illegal and/or generally not approved of by the US government "supports the terrorists"." ... not his comments on marijuana. Pardon me for not quoting that in my origonal comment.

  16. Oh no I'm confused!! by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But I just got done learning that Open Source is terrorism. Now we are told that terrorists pirate commercial software? Why would they do that if they have free alternatives? Help! I don't know who to hate!!

    1. Re:Oh no I'm confused!! by BrianGKUAC · · Score: 1

      Didn't you read Orwell's guidebook? We're supposed to forget that terrorists ever used open source software. Terrorists pirate commercial software. They always have. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

      --
      Menus: Linux=function, Windows=vendor, OS X=as little as possible. Makes a statement, don't you think?
  17. A new law will do it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because as we all know, harsher penalties has stopped these terrorists in the past. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan and the shining success it has been to outlaw certain organisations. Stopped them right in their tracks. And then theres the death penalty for 1st degree murder. Since that's in place in some states, you don't see people murdering eachothe.....Oh, wait.......

  18. HAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First off someone in the bush adminastration being in a place of innovation... Does not compute! Just like Weapons of mass destruction and everything else that is said by the Rtards in charge.
    PIRACY FUNDS THE TERRORISTS!
    Coming from the people that acaully pay factions in IRAQ not to shoot at each other and americans...

  19. Pot, Kettle by dave562 · · Score: 1

    Last I checked the government uses terrorism (search and seizure laws) to finance their law enforcement operations. Hell, the CIA slings drugs to finance their operations too. I'm so sick and tired of this terrorism crap. All of this legislation is trying to address the symptoms of the problem and nobody wants to get to the root of it.

    1. Re:Pot, Kettle by riondluz · · Score: 1

      the same way the State uses citations and fines to fund it's policing of its citizens!
      Funny story about how Dallas installed 62 cameras to monitor traffic (er. people)
      only to find they worked so well that funding to maintain them dried up. So they
      turned off 1/4 of them thinking ppl wouldnt know which ones.
      Kinda like plywood cutouts of police cars to stop speeding.

      --
      resist propaganda
  20. Other new legislation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been found that terrorists also like to eat breakfast. Clearly, we need new laws outlawing breakfast forever.

  21. Tired of all this 'terrorism' rhetoric. by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1

    I swear, if I see the word 'terrorism' again I'll scream. Perhaps it is because I am outwith the USA and not properly indoctirnated, but 'the home of the brave' seems to be afraid of shadows these days, at least at a government level. Do the USA citizens really go along with all this?

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Tired of all this 'terrorism' rhetoric. by N1ck0 · · Score: 1

      Please note the concept of the 'Land of the Free' and the 'Home Of the Brave' are restricted intellectual property of the United States Government, and by not properly licensing these terms you are helping the terrorists.

      Looking for change? The US Government is looking for future leaders willing to plan their country's next revolution. Sign up now for free arms, training, and financing.*

      *Financing contingent on the United States labeling of you as a terrorist after 20-30 year training period.

    2. Re:Tired of all this 'terrorism' rhetoric. by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps it is because I am outwith the USA and not properly indoctirnated, but 'the home of the brave' seems to be afraid of shadows these days, at least at a government level. Do the USA citizens really go along with all this?

      No, the government really isn't afraid of terrorists, but making sure the citizens are allows them to expand their budgets, clamp down harder on John Q Citizen's movements and basic Constitutionally-recognised freedoms, and allows it to ignore international conventions to the point where the US has already been declared an outlaw nation. Geedubya has already told us the 'War on Terror' will last over a hundred years. That's 100 years of increased taxation, failing economy, and increased repression strictly for the gain of the politicians and their corporate masters. Our money is nearly worthless now, and it's just going to get worse as the government keeps pouring money down the Iraq/Iran/Middle East rathole. Welcome to our wonderful 21st Century, and don't forget to pray.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    3. Re:Tired of all this 'terrorism' rhetoric. by sycomonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Our money is not anywhere close to worthless. The dollar has been dropping, yes, but we hardly have the hyperinflation that actually results in worthless currency. The Duetchmark in the 1920's was worthless. The dollar is just dropping a bit compared to other currencies. It's hardly ideal, but it could be much worse.

      --
      --The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
    4. Re:Tired of all this 'terrorism' rhetoric. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I say this very seriously and sadly:

      america cannot stand 100 more years of this.

      I'm not even sure we can weather 20 more years of this bullshit fear-mongering.

      pressure, heat, fixed size container, time. you figure it out ;(

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:Tired of all this 'terrorism' rhetoric. by Reziac · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, dunno about you, but MY purchasing power has plummeted in the past few months like I've never seen before, and I struggled my small business through the Carter years, so I'm not new at this. In just the past year my costs have gone up 40% while my sales have dropped to 1/5th of normal -- and in total effect, this *functionally* differs not at all from the dollar being worth only half what it was a year ago.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:Tired of all this 'terrorism' rhetoric. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      The dollar has been dropping, yes, but we hardly have the hyperinflation that actually results in worthless currency. The Duetchmark in the 1920's was worthless. The dollar is just dropping a bit compared to other currencies.

      The Deutschmark was never worthless. It just diluted at an accelerating rate - eventually getting to the point that checkout counters listened to the radio to get the current adjustment and people fought for places in line so they could buy food before the next step.

      You think it's dropped now? Just wait until the IRS starts mailing out those "economic stimulus payments": Printed paper diluting the value of every dollar-denominated asset, to fool people into spending the value of the money they'd decided to save (like in their retirement accounts).

      Or perhaps the value of somebody ELSE's savings, since the payments aren't necessarily in proportion to the payee's holdings - thus resulting in some wealth-transfer as well.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    7. Re:Tired of all this 'terrorism' rhetoric. by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      Dropping???

      When the Euro came out, it was at par with the US dollar. It later dropped to about 70 cents US to the Euro. Right now, as I write this, the dollar is at 1.56 to the Euro (per XE.com). The Canadian dollar, aka the 'loony', was about 68 cents US for ages, being tied to the Pound Sterling. Today, it's 1.02 US to the loony, and the Pound Sterling has climbed from $1.05 to the pound in '85 to $1.98 to the pound today. Most of this movement has been in the last 4 or 5 years.

      Had the US dollar retained value, none of the conversion rates would have fluctuated more than maybe 5% according to my economically inclined friends, not lost half its value against the two other major world currencies. And those fluctuations would even out even closer in time. The US economy is taking a dive. Wake up.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    8. Re:Tired of all this 'terrorism' rhetoric. by sycomonkey · · Score: 1

      I never said the economy wasn't taking a dive. But it's only just now become a borderline recession. The early 1990's was worse. They 80's were MUCH worse. All of this started in August, and for all we know the whole thing could turn around next week (not likely, but possible.) But the past few months have sucked. It's entirely expected in the current environment that the fed will allow inflation in exchange for economic stimulus. That is, in essence, why the Fed exists in the first place, because the value of a currency is best kept flexible to adapt to changing conditions. This is why modern economies don't use the gold standard.

      Also, a declining dollar, while in total undesirable, does have some limited benefits. Our exports are skyrocketing, tourism is up, and such. This has dampened the downturn considerably.

      Regardless, the worst thing for an economy is unpredictable inflation. And that we are not experiencing. As long as everyone has a general idea of the inflation rate, they can compensate. (real interest = nominal interest - inflation rate). The only ones that lose are banks. The stock market is doing pretty well considering how very unprofitable it is to be a bank right now.

      I think people are, in general, being overly pessimistic, which is ironically very dangerous for the economy...

      --
      --The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
    9. Re:Tired of all this 'terrorism' rhetoric. by riondluz · · Score: 1

      that dollar bill sitting in your wallet is worth exactly .04 cents
      There have been plenty of documentaries of late exposing the charade that has
      been perpetuated on US citizens by the Fed, the sovereigns and wall street
      regarding the looting of our treasury by the hands of privateers.
      And what, pray tell, are they up to now? Why, printing ever more money
      to bail out the bankers and institutional investors.
      We've, citizens, have been duped into perceiving that that dollar bill is the
      actual money, rather than just a 'representation' of money. I suspect that
      we're also going to be in serious sticker shock when the bills comes due for the
      Feds excesses.
      I, like anyone, watched the market skyrocket over last summer, amidst war, foreclosure,
      and a looming recession. What did Bernanke (sp?) say to the public in the Fall?
      "Hey we're great, good to go". Kinda reminiscent of what the CEO of BS said 36 hours
      before the fall.
      IMHO, they should all be run out of town

      --
      resist propaganda
  22. Haha by QJimbo · · Score: 1

    The way governments use the "threat" of terrorism is becoming quite a joke.

  23. They are a little bit right by blhack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They're throwing the word "terrorism" around a bit too much here, but at least a BIG part of the movie bootlegging scene is rooted in Russian Organized crime. Telecine machines are really expensive and, believe it or not, bootlegging movies can be very profitable.

    No, i'm not talking about grabbing the latest RLS off of Usenet, or racing it across FTPs. I'm talking about large scale DVD pressing facilities that are selling to the guy who is, in turn, selling to people on the street corner. Groups get to release high quality stuff, the Mob gets their source for a DVD. Its very simple.

    Or did you all really think that guys were risking serious jail time and throwing down thousands on Telecine machines because it was "fun"?

    Now, i don't know much about the warez scene, but I would imagine that its a very similar situation.

    Organized crime != terrorism. But a lot of the really large scale operations are certainly not being run by a rogue group of 16 year olds.

    --
    NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    1. Re:They are a little bit right by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      a BIG part of the movie bootlegging scene is rooted in Russian Organized crime

      That explains why the movie I watched on the bus in Malaysia recently was War of the Worlds with Russian subtitles and dubbed back into english.

      Its a good thing I had seen it before because the dialog made no sense at all.

    2. Re:They are a little bit right by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

      Russian mob != terrorism. Say that Russian mobs in Russia make money pirating movies and go after the russian mob. Don't use terrorism as an excuse to impose restrictive laws drafted by profit-oriented corporations on americans. It's ugly.

      Warez scene is vastly non-profit and done for fun, bragging rights and a prime share of the pirated data. I wouldn't compare it to the russian mob or chinese triads. Lots of teens too... :)

    3. Re:They are a little bit right by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to debate whether or not what you said was true - nor am I going to debate the prevalence of such bootlegs in the Western market.

      What I will debate, however, is the wording of the laws which get written to enforce this.

      If the aim is to put the organised gangs who are producing thousands of copies of the latest Hollywood blockbuster out of business, why do the laws get not get worded that way? "Posession of a pirated movie" : fine of up to $200. "Posession of pirated movies with intent to supply" (intent being a reasonable assumption if you're caught with over, say, 20 pirated movies all on separate DVDs and they're all in the back of a van or a warehouse rather than the DVD rack in your lounge) : fine of up to $500,000 and prison time.

    4. Re:They are a little bit right by SparkleMotion88 · · Score: 1

      Organized crime != terrorism
      This story just helps to confirm what I have been feeling for the last several years: that I don't even know what the word "terrorism" means.
    5. Re:They are a little bit right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read the article he pointed too? He is saying the open source movement resembles a terrorist organization he is not saying they are one. Read the article first then make judgments.

    6. Re:They are a little bit right by Shar-Kali-Sharri · · Score: 1

      In Syria you can buy everything imaginable which can be copied unto a DVD. Movies, games, and yes software - professional programs of all ilks. The thing is that it isn't actually privacy or illegal, since Syria is not a member of the WTO. So everyone can get heavy doses of 'culture' in the sense of video and games, and everyone can become very very adept at e.g. photoshop (the best handlers of photoshop I have seen in my life were syrians).

      --
      In Soviet Russia my signature is reading YOU
  24. Republican Legacy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would like to thank the millions of people who voted for Bush twice (in no more than two elections), and for Congressional Republicans for something like seven or more times, for making our country both safer and freer, and operated with more integrity, just like y'all said it would be.

    But I can't, because that would be a lie.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Republican Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you're at it, thank yourself for not preventing it.

    2. Re:Republican Legacy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I've even driven to other states to register voters, driven them to the polls, and driven Republicans away from the polls to the wrong side of town.

      Hey, I did what I could, but 60M+ Republicans can't be wrong, right?

      So, what have you done to be so smug?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Republican Legacy by riondluz · · Score: 1

      Or you could look for a bright side and thank them for helping us all see just how borked the System really is and giving us something to talk and act on for the next 2-3 election cycles:)

      --
      resist propaganda
    4. Re:Republican Legacy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to thank them for borking the system. It was obviously borked before they signed that Contract On America with our blood, or cheered in Bush for "changing the tone" (to fingernails across a blackboard). If you couldn't tell it was borked after Nixon's Watergate/Vietnam, or after Reagan/Bush's Iran/Contra, you were an essential part of the borking.

      I'm grateful to the people who created, accepted and perpetuated the Constitution for a couple hundred years or so. Because at least from them we've got the directions of what we should be doing to run a borkfree system. All ironically at odds with what Robert Bork himself has been doing to bork the system through that entire duration.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Republican Legacy by riondluz · · Score: 1

      OK, you got me there. I suspect we're bird-of-a-feather and feel the same way. I've been railing against the System since forever (@least it feels that way of late)
      .
      What i meant was just as you point out: that its been borked for over 40 years, if not since the onset of the industrial 'revolution' in the late
      1800's. I just think it took things getting as bad as they are to get enough people to finally recognize it; to see how co-opted they became thru the belief that the Elites' interests were theirs as well (sorta like the evangels believing in republican jingoisms' on "family values")

      Where it goes from here is anybody's guess, but i wouldn't rule out martial law and totalitarianism just yet.

      --
      resist propaganda
    6. Re:Republican Legacy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I think the American system is borked mainly by creating artificial citizens as corporations, then elevating them to first class status above second class humans. It was fairly recent, a scam in 1886 that a railroad monopoly's monopoly newspaper fraudulently reported creating those "persons" despite the underlying court decision doing no such thing. Fixing that basic injustice would go a long way towards deborking the system.

      Political parties are too institutionalized with privileges and immunities. If they, like their patron corporations, were reduced to second class status behind humans, the deborking processes would be a lot less obstructed all the time.

      Some other backwards institutions like respecting religion establishments ("churches") more than nonreligion establishments (and nonestablishments), rather than the prescribed "no respect" would also go a long way towards deborking our system. Reversing those perverse doctrines would probably follow as their institutions were no longer propped up with artificial privileges and immunities as corporations and patrons of corporate political parties.

      Americans have shown that we (most of us, anyway) kneel before the "shock doctrine". We gave up our military integrity, and so much connected to it, under the shock of the 9/11/2001 attacks. If we have an economic shock like what mismanaging our current descent into recession and unsupportable debt will produce, we will give up everything else.

      But if we make it through the next year without losing much more of our ability to govern and manage our country, we might emerge stronger. We could eliminate a lot of the debts and disabilities we now face with just some radical legal revisions throwing out the rot we grew the past 7-13 years. We'd be able to cope that way: Americans work hard, stick together and produce a lot, more than anyone else on Earth. But if we fail, and aren't on the mend by this time next year, I expect we will stay economically shocked indefinitely, and produce the greatest shock of all, global environmental collapse, within 10-20 years.

      Then it's permanent Mad Max time, and we should just rename the planet to "Planet Bork".

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Republican Legacy by riondluz · · Score: 1

      For your viewing enjoyment (i hope) - an earlier post of mine to a different thread, which reinforces your points on the 'personhood' of corporations and more:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=509958&cid=22965344

      I hope you dont mind if i co-opt your coinage of
      "deborking the system" - it has a nice ring to it!

      --
      resist propaganda
    8. Re:Republican Legacy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Please say "deborking the system" whenever you want: I was just using your "system is borked" idiom, anyway.

      I'm down with your Surprise Party programme. I'd like to see Americans organize ourselves a lot more into a lot more small political parties that don't claim exclusive monopolies on its members or its candidates. Each with an explictly specified platform, which then endorse any candidate their membership agrees also represents its platform. Cross-endorsements.

      There's a huge vacuum of political organization and membership that the two high-handed parties now leave, because neither can bother to do much at the level of the individual, from the top down. When they actually do go from bottom up, it's a revolution in power, because that redefines the party all the way up to the top. So they don't do it often, because which powerful incumbent wants to be redefined all the time? However, there is a big demand in America for affiliation at that level, especially if it isn't very demanding. Which is nearly the entire appeal of the current vogue of political blogs. So once there's common software that's not just a blog, but a community system that's an actual political party with casual membership but aggregation into actual political activity, there will be a surge of power from the bottom. It happens every time: in the early 1800s it was town newspapers, in the early 1900s it was unions, and now the early 2000s can see blogs become actual formal political power centers. And the major parties will live and die by that power dynamic, once established.

      Surprise!

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:Republican Legacy by cwtrex · · Score: 1

      Well if the democrats had put up someone besides Gore or Kerry, I would have voted for the other guy. But Bush was, in my opinion, better then the other two. Gore is still going on about Global warming when after all the spouting he's done about it, you'd think he's learn that it's global climate change, not necessarily warming. You think he would have been a good president? I disagree. Kerry a billionaire who can't make up his own mind representing us? I think not. And while voting for Bush wasn't the best decision, we don't exactly have a great voting system do we? I can't vote for who I really like because we all know that there are really only two parties who get the votes.

      In any case, I think it's going to happen again. I don't think Clinton or Obama are good for presidency. I was hoping for Bill Richardson, but he didn't get any of the votes. On the Republican side, I was hoping for Mike Huckabee, but people think he's too religious and would have killed science in the classrooms. They also apparently didn't think tax reform was important. :-\

      So looks like I'll be voting for McCain. Do I think he's the best candidate? No, but it's Republicans vs Democrates like always and I simply don't like who ended up being the Democrats choice.

      Sure I could "throw away" my vote on an unlikely candidate to voice my opinion, but I'd rather vote on someone that makes me feel like my vote counted.

      So while you may not thank me for voting in Bush twice, I don't thank the democrats for giving even crappier competition.

    10. Re:Republican Legacy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Nah, you're just a Republican looking for excuses to keep voting for these terrible presidents who do us so wrong.

      I mean, all you've got on Gore is that he says "Global Warming" sometimes, even though he of course says "Climate Change" all the time, too? Lots of people know the problem as "Global Warming", and rather than confuse them or waste time splitting hairs, Gore is actually getting them to do something. You voted for the guy who's wasted 7 years while the climate is changing, making it worse and denying it.

      Kerry "can't make up his mind"?

      Reverend Mike "Young Earth Creationist" Huckabee was your last, best hope? The crooked Arkansas governor who forced the gift laws there to change so he could keep his haul when he left office (to name just one un-Christian corruption)?

      And now you're voting for McCain, when you could be voting for Obama.

      Riiight. You have a lot of blood on your hands. Maybe what you told me you need to fool yourself. But you don't fool me, or anyone else who looks closely. You and 60M+ other Republicans like you are interested only in excuses to vote for the people who have done in this country. It's your fault even more than it is Bush's, because there are more of you, and Bush has no choice but to be Bush. You had a choice, and you blew it on the worst president in history. Twice.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    11. Re:Republican Legacy by cwtrex · · Score: 1

      Well I noticed you didn't say anything about the one democrat I mentioned. Yeah you're obviously not biased at all...

    12. Re:Republican Legacy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Because Richardson's immaterial, because he didn't stand a chance. He was also the Clinton Energy Secretary who set up our energy economy after the Cold War to leave us in such a terrible position that we're getting raped now since the oil barons (who you voted for twice) have been running us into the ground. Richardson is a good demonstration that most political success can be had by just showing up and getting access, if you're not a total incompetent.

      But hey, since you figured I'd let alone the irrelevant Democrat you mentioned, I must always embrace all Democrats. Thanks for confirming your political sense, as if you hadn't already made its worthlessness perfectly clear.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    13. Re:Republican Legacy by cwtrex · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm concerned, the only appeal Obama has is his desire to withdrawal us from Iraq. But his negatives outway any benefit he may have in my opinion. The media thinks he's on the same level as Bush as far as experience in politics is concerned, which isn't too comforting as I think that was and is one of Bush's Achilles heels. His opinions dealing with weapons are not too appealing (he's against concealed weapons entirely and if a burglar steals your weapon and uses it against someone else, you should be liable in Obama's opinion). I disagree with Obama's effort on the current tax system as well; I fully believe it will be wasted effort. A form of the proposed Fair Tax is where we need to head. Fair Tax isn't perfect, but a consumer tax just makes more sense to me then trying to fix our current system. (Also, perhaps part of this is why Sweden is getting their push on their banks which I also don't agree with.)

      There is more as to why I don't agree with Obama, but you haven't exactly given me a detailed answer explaining yourself as to why you prefer him over all of the others. All you have offered to me is insults.

      Now find me a candidate that supports the Fair Tax, wants not only to fix our education system but promote science in the classrooms, support more government spending on DARPA competitions and NASA funding as well as other government science initiatives, promotes stem cell research instead of restricting it, offers a tougher immigration policy, thinks Iraq is a waste of time as well as forcing US policies on other countries, supports nuclear power and other non-coal and non-gas energy, wants to make US government more efficient and to start paying off the national debt, and while doing all this leans more towards the consumer than the corporations and you'll find my presidential candidate.

      I also have a side interest of having prisoners who have been proven guilty of malicious intent murder with dna and several witnesses being used for medical research instead of the death sentence, but that's not on the forefront of anyone's mind so I suppose it's too much of a dream to hope for.

  25. Piracy by unforkable · · Score: 1

    If he only knows the price of pirated software in third world countries (generally just a few cents more than the price of blank media) he would think twice before making such alarming claims. I can't wait to see him in UN security council showing a burned Vista CD in his hand, and illustrations of trucks "burning" CDs in the desert. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html [whitehouse.gov]

  26. TROLL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WOW. You guys REALLY need to recalibrate your sarcasm detectors...

    What's the term for that now? Sarcasm-dar? Sar-dar? Sardaukar?

  27. Oh, the irony! by doti · · Score: 1


    They talk about preventing information sharing at the "Tech Museum of Innovation".

    --
    factor 966971: 966971
    1. Re:Oh, the irony! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "Tech Museum of Innovation".

      Isn't a museum somewhere that you preserve samples of stuff that no longer exists in the world at large??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  28. If it were true... by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

    ...wouldn't the better reply be to *legalize* copyright "piracy", to use basic economics to drive their profit margins to zero?

  29. But it is needed!!! by JavaStreet · · Score: 1

    Don't forget, 55 saves lives AND stops terrorism.
    (I don't really know how, but I'm sure it does somehow.)

  30. Does this mean it's okay to buy drugs again? by Dopamine,+Redacted · · Score: 1

    I'll happily stop trying to use pirated Vista and go with Ubuntu....

    I just want to know: Does this mean that they stopped funding terrorism with my pot money?

    1. Re:Does this mean it's okay to buy drugs again? by Gat0r30y · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that they stopped funding terrorism with my pot money? It was never pot, but Afghanistan has returned as the #1 producer of Heroin (there was a brief period right after we invaded when i guess the poppy's took a vacation or something). So now instead of funding terrorism with that black tar, you can fund the American Reconstruction effort? Oh my, I've confused myself.
      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    2. Re:Does this mean it's okay to buy drugs again? by Bane1998 · · Score: 1

      Government blaming terrorism gets just as old and tired as slashdot zealots proclaiming Linux is the end all and be all to the world's problems. Seriously... Pick any article on slashdot, no matter how unrelated, and some fool will go on about the miracle powers of Linux to fix it. Oh well, you made your 'I'm hip and cool' post that even made my pixels cringe at having to display that nonsense yet again.

  31. Tag: noshit by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

    Wowie. The government has overstated nearly EVERYthing's 'link' to terrorism (think liquids on planes)

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  32. Bush's Feds Gut Intel Oversight Powers by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, Mukasey's partner in crime Mike McConnell (the head of all US intel powers) is out there lying to shut down any constraints on Bush's powers to spy on us.

    Feel safer?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  33. A new link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this is the new link to terrorism like the whole Saddam and Al Qaida link?

  34. some piracy come form not having the right CALs... by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    some piracy come form not having the right CALs and other hard to work out terms.

    Also not have a attorney on hard to read each eula's can lead to piracy.

  35. let's make sure, OK? by nguy · · Score: 1

    As experience shows, many terrorists also earn a living as taxi drivers, waiters, cooks, and accountants. I think we should put stiff penalties on people practicing those professions as well, just to be safe.

  36. Wait, excuse moi? by aztektum · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How the hell does that answer his question? Pretty big difference between "Holy fuck we're being bombed by the Japanese!" and "Terrorists abroad are selling pirated, copyrighted material. Better clamp down with draconian laws back home!"

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
    1. Re:Wait, excuse moi? by Reziac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And considering that the vast majority of pirated software being SOLD is sold in China and various third-world countries, explain to me how laws covering U.S. soil and U.S. citizens would have the slightest impact, even IF sales of pirated software funded terrorists??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Wait, excuse moi? by Malevolyn · · Score: 1

      And who actually buys pirated software in the US, anyway?

      --
      Your ad here.
    3. Re:Wait, excuse moi? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      A trivial point. After all, the billions and billions that the software industry "loses" due to piracy have to go *somewhere* -- and terrorists can make as good of use of this phantom money as anyone else!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:Wait, excuse moi? by Malevolyn · · Score: 1

      Well, it technically doesn't HAVE to go somewhere. It could just as easily not go anywhere. That is to say it could just as easily not leave the consumers' wallets.

      --
      Your ad here.
    5. Re:Wait, excuse moi? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      There, ya see? We consumers could make equally good use of these phantom billions -- why waste them on terrorists? Or for that matter, on software. ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:Wait, excuse moi? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Well, it technically doesn't HAVE to go somewhere. It could just as easily not go anywhere. That is to say it could just as easily not leave the consumers' wallets.

      In truth most of these "loses" are complete fiction. To be otherwise you'd actually need to find out something like the real number of "lost sales" (many people currently using "pirated" anything would otherwise do without, thus were never "potential customers" in the first place) then use an amount of money actually related to the profit on a typical sale.
      Maybe the reason they don't is that actually getting the sums right, which is rather harder than plucking random numbers out of thin air, would cost more than their probable losses. Indeed it might make far more sense to find a way to make their product more attractive to people who currently pirate, but could be persuaded to buy. IMHO the vast majority of people who pirate are not actually "potential customers" in the first place. Possibly to the point where attempts to make things harder to copy or persuing people who pirate are actually a waste of money. The latter may explain the inflated claims, that being the only way suing lots of people isn't going to make a loss.

    7. Re:Wait, excuse moi? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Exactly my (sarcastic) point a couple posts upstream. It's all phantom money until someone actually BUYS something.

      WordPerfect Corp did it right, back when -- they even provided free tech support to pirated copies, under the theory that if you're using WP you're NOT using something else, and when you DO buy, you'll go with the product you know and that has made you feel loved. They didn't call it losses; they called it free samples. And it worked -- everyone I knew who had an illicit copy of 5.1 BOUGHT 6.x. Funny thing, WP didn't start *seriously* losing marketshare until they halted that support policy, thus removing pirates' incentive to stick with WP when they upgraded.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  37. Is this new? by psychicsword · · Score: 1

    Piracy statisics and claims have been commonly botched overstated or flat out wrong in the past.

  38. Warning, buzzword overload ! by DrYak · · Score: 4, Funny

    They just forgot to find a way to somewhat also cram the "child pornography" keyword together with "terrorist" and "pirate".

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Warning, buzzword overload ! by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Don't worry, I'm sure that next week they'll release a statement that the evil IP pirates are using their ill gotten gains to buy nasty Linux servers which they use to further their evil organizations by renting websites to child pornographers and terrorists!


      But seriously, am I the only one who is getting tired of the obvious whoring of our rights to the multinational corporations? At least in the old days they would TRY to keep the suspension of disbelief going. Now they are as bad as 80's pro wrestling. What we need is a CNN style news feed at the bottom when asshats like this guy talk with a running message-"This person was bought from you by-" along with the list of asses he is kissing. Just another excuse to protect record profits while screwing any chance we had of keeping anything close to fair use or not having a police state. But this is my 02c, feel free to drink the koolaid if you can stomach it.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Warning, buzzword overload ! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      They just forgot to find a way to somewhat also cram the "child pornography" keyword together with "terrorist" and "pirate".

      Fellow Americans, we must pass this law swiftly so that law enforcement has the tools it needs to protect us from Terrorist Pornography Child Pirates!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  39. If they REALLY want to go after terrorists ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they REALLY want to go after internet sources of funding for terrorists they should start with the spam / phishing /identity theft gangs.

    That's, what? Hundreds of billions a year in direct theft and extortion of people's and companies' hard-earned cash, plus more multibillions in anti-malware products, damage to data, equipment, and network infrastructure, costs to overbuild the net to handle the bogus traffic, lost revenue due to DDoSing, etc. Not to mention the ongoing construction and debugging of a technology that can be used for even more nefarious purposes - including espionage and sabotage.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:If they REALLY want to go after terrorists ... by gronofer · · Score: 1

      If they REALLY want to go after internet sources of funding for terrorists they should start with the spam / phishing /identity theft gangs.

      I suspect the spam/phishing/identity theft industry has better uses for it's money than sponsoring terrorism. Women, drugs, fast cars and boats, whatever.

      I'm not even convinced that terrorism would require access to a large amount of money. For all we know, somebody could finance terrorism by working at McDonalds. Doesn't this mean that McDonalds should face the crackdown too, just to be on the safe side?

  40. Evidence enough to scare me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well they are certainly presenting evidence enough to scare the willies out of me.

    By now, I am now thoroughly scared of the current American administration.
    It is obvious that they no longer feel subtlety is necessary to get what they want.

    It should scare the willies out of you too.

    1. Re:Evidence enough to scare me by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      The current administration is no worse then the previous, or next.

      We have reached the point of critical mass on the way to becoming a police state. It really wont matter who is in office, as the system has its own momentum.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  41. wait!! People *PAY* for pirated software????? by daveb · · Score: 1

    sorry - I'm just stunned that someone would do that.

    1. Re:wait!! People *PAY* for pirated software????? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Yep. That's the "????" step just before "Profit!".

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  42. Journalism by rickmus · · Score: 0, Troll

    The, umm, 'journalist' makes assumptions too since the Attorney didn't present any evidence, it must therefore be a lie. I would consider this unethical in the field of journalism. But then again, this is SlashDot, the home of assumptions and using 0.001% to mean 'everyone'.

  43. This isn't the only lie Mukasey's told by ClamIAm · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wow, the Bush Administration has picked some real winners for that ol' Attorney General position. I really hoped they would replace Gonzales with someone who has a little more integrity. Unfortunately for the nation, it seems they're more interested in lapdogs who will parrot the Administration's version of reality, no matter the cost.

    Moving on to Mukasey specifically, this little fib isn't the only time he's tried to distort reality. Just a few days ago, he stated there had been "a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."

    The interesting thing about this comment is that it's impossible to know whether it's true. This supposed call was not referred to after 9/11, nor during the 9/11 Commission hearings, nor at any other time until last Thursday.

    However, even if we give them the benefit of the doubt, his arguments that draw on this statement are lies. This is because he made this comment in support of increased surveillance, and also to support the despicable circumvention of the justice system with regard to telecom companies.

    The lie is that "we knew about this call but we weren't able to do anything because only with this new, super-powered law can we do that". The surveillance laws at the time he says this call took place absolutely allowed the government to listen in on it. They didn't even need a warrant, as even under the older FISA law, warrants were not needed for calls that comes into the US from outside it.

    He lied again when he voiced support for putting telecom companies above the law. Even though Mukasey was a federal judge, he claimed that the telco lawsuits would let the whole world know how our intelligence organizations operate.

    Fellow Slashdotters, I hope you join me in saying: what the fuck?! We can't continue to let these clowns get away with shit like this. I admit I've been as lazy as most "concerned citizens" in the US seem to be lately, but seriously, I cannot allow my democracy to be flushed down the toilet by a bunch of arrogant fucks who think they can get away with whatever they want.

    1. Re:This isn't the only lie Mukasey's told by dbIII · · Score: 1

      George has the weird problem where he will only appoint personal friends to important positions which can have the drawback of him getting deeper into his own little world (eg. Magabe in an extreme case) because he can get in the situation where he doesn't hear anything he doesn't want to hear. It also severely limits the choices and means people that wouldn't remotely have a chance to get the "heck of a job" or even nominated to the supreme court with no judicial experience have roles in society far beyond their ability. There was even a vacancy for the ambassitor to Australia for 3 years so that one of Bush's friends could get the job - it's positively Feudal.

  44. Newsspeak by N1ck0 · · Score: 1

    This post is to advise all citizens that the following terms are now synonymous with Terrorism:

    Open Source
    Free Software
    Piracy
    Science
    Global Warming
    Civil Rights
    Crime
    Theft
    Freedom
    (Study of) Words ending in -ology

    Thinking about or using these terms without referencing their link to terrorism is considered a Thoughtcrime

    This post is to advise all citizens that the following terms are now synonymous with being Patriotic:
    Lawsuit
    Intellectual Property
    Patents
    Commercial
    Censorship

    Thinking about or using these terms without referencing their link to the positive effect on our society is concidered a Thoughtcrime.

    Thank you have a nice day.

    1. Re:Newsspeak by mink · · Score: 1

      "(Study of) Words ending in -ology"

      Well that sorts out Scient-ology.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  45. I call bullshit by z80kid · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I call bullshit

    Yeah, the current administration is guilty of that crap.

    What about the last administration and it's wagging the dog wars in Somalia and Kosovo - where there was NO US interest at all let alone oil interests? When groups opposed to the administration suddenly found themselves audited by the IRS? Where hundreds of FBI files on political opponents turned up in the White House (can you say Nixon?)

    The parent poster was right. The democrats will violate your rights just as quick as the Republicans. They will just feed you a story you can swallow, instead of one the Republicans can swallow.

    1. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      The democrats will violate your rights just as quick as the Republicans.

      This may be true but you have to admit the Republicans are a lot better at it.

    2. Re:I call bullshit by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The democrats will violate your rights just as quick as the Republicans.

      This may be true but you have to admit the Republicans are a lot better at it.

      Don't be so sure. If compare, say, Nixon vs. Clinton, or Bush vs. FDR, you would have to conclude that at least Democrats are better at getting away with it.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    3. Re:I call bullshit by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Like I said above, I protested against Clinton's military adventures. But none of the things you describe amount to the pervasive expansion of federal police power under the Republicans - from the creation of a "Department of Homeland Security" (my God, what an Orwellian phrase) to the defense of torture, extraordinary renditions, no-fly lists, etc. By creating institutions like DHS, these changes are built into the government, rather than being rogue operations of otherwise reasonable organizations.

      This isn't even really a left/right thing (well, the right as an actual cultural force, if not as the political expression of conservatism, is closer to the cultural of nationalist values and bellicosity, but..) It's what the Republicans have chosen to exploit for political capital. I attribute it to Rove's neo-conservatism, not to the historical Republican party. But them's still the facts on the ground. (And Rove, Rumsfeld, etc all share origins in the Nixon administration's realignment of the Republican party.)

    4. Re:I call bullshit by greg_barton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What about the last administration and it's wagging the dog wars in Somalia and Kosovo

      Somalia and Kosovo?

      Somalia and Kosovo?

      After the last seven years, all you have to say is fucking Somalia and Kosovo?

      Yeah, all administrations wag the dog.

      The Bush administration wagged the whole fucking planet.

      Please.
    5. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They will just feed you a story you can swallow, instead of one the Republicans can swallow.

      After the last seven years, all you have to say is fucking Somalia and Kosovo?

      The post didn't defend Bush. It said Clinton nailed you too.

      And in response, you throw out a comparative statement to defend Clinton over Bush.

      Better wipe. You got a little splooge on your face you didn't swallow yet.

    6. Re:I call bullshit by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bullshit is right.

      People "pirate" software to get it for free!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    7. Re:I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I attribute it to Rove's neo-conservatism, not to the historical Republican party.

      I thought it was Gingrich's neo-conservatism. No wait. Before that it was Rush's neo-conservatism.

      I'm confused. Who's wearing the armband and mustache this week?

    8. Re:I call bullshit by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gingrich is kind of a weirdo hybrid and not really a major player. Rush is a circus sideshow who makes a cheap buck by stirring up the cheap seats.

      You really know nothing about the conservative movement you think you are part of.

    9. Re:I call bullshit by 0111+1110 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      from the creation of a "Department of Homeland Security" (my God, what an Orwellian phrase) to the defense of torture, extraordinary renditions, no-fly lists, etc. I'm an anarcho-libertarian and would like to see most politicians dead. I kid you not. So I don't have a horse in this race. I think the whole democrat-republican dual party system is a sick joke. But even I have to admit that Bush Jr., Mr. Monkeyman, has done an unusual amount of damage to our "way of life", more than Osama Bin Laden could ever dream of doing. It is just sad. I won't mind seeing the republicans take a breather in the next election. Well as long as we don't end up with Hilary, who I find extremely annoying and repulsive. And could we please get a president who doesn't look and act like a monkey and who has at least the slightest hint of charisma? Most of our presidents have all the personality of a dried turd. Why can't we just inherit the ex-prime ministers of England? Most of them have 10 times the charisma of our last 4 presidents put together.
      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    10. Re:I call bullshit by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Calm down little buddy... the Bush Administration didn't wag shit. Those who consented to be ruled, those who willingly paid taxes and didn't even complain, those who registered to vote, those who joined the military and any and all others who helped are ALL complicit. We're all guilty of this, even the victims are guilty of it to some degree. To say otherwise is to have a naive outlook on things.

      True, ALL governments are merely thugs who passed power down to their buddies (Clinton and Bush the elder vacation together, when they're not on TV)... but the peons who uphold said governments seem to think that a whole bunch of FALLIBLE MORTALS can rule over a bunch of FALLIBLE MORTALS who seemingly are more fallible and cannot be trusted to run their own lives.

      You people amuse me beyond any measure. All who clamor government is necessary seem to think that governments provide justice, peace, honesty or some other measure of virtue. They must've missed the courts that rarely side with the truth, courts that rule against their own laws (even that so called "law of the land") courts that require you to have massive cash flow to even keep up with the case, nevermind actually win... am I missing anything?

      And you all PAY for this, vote for this, and have even come under the impression that these thugs have your best interests in mind.

      Wow. Just... wow.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    11. Re:I call bullshit by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      What about the last administration and it's wagging the dog wars in Somalia and Kosovo Hmm, so I'm guessing that you think that, had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbor, that the US should've remained an impartial 3rd party during WW2? I believe that the US had a responsibility to protect the ethnic minorities from ethnic cleansing, especially considering the US's responsibilities as the (in practice) "head" of NATO.

      Clinton used ethnic cleansing as his argument for getting involved in Kosovo.

      Bush used "Saddam has WMD's; we know where they are!" which turned in to "Saddam had the capacity/capability to create WMD's" which turned in to "Saddam was a bad guy!" Moreover, Bush created the closest thing to a self-fulfilling prophecy when he talked about Iraq's (although he specifically said Saddam instead of Iraq) ties with Al-Qaeda.

      I agree with Barton; Clinton & Bush Jr. are clearly one and the same.
    12. Re:I call bullshit by erc · · Score: 1

      -better at
      +blatant about

      --
      -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
    13. Re:I call bullshit by greg_barton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You people amuse me...

      ...you all PAY for this...

      Wow. Just... wow.

      You speak as if you're above us all. You talk like the elite claim to disdain.

      Sanctimonious prick.
    14. Re:I call bullshit by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      And you all PAY for this [...] Not me, I boycott American products as far as possible. No american car, no american wine/beer/booze, and so on.

      Unfortunately computer chips ...

      I am not the only one, though there are far too few of us.
    15. Re:I call bullshit by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      And Rove, Rumsfeld, etc all share origins in the Nixon administration's realignment of the Republican party.

      Absolutely. We are in the 40th year of the Nixon presidency. The only real difference is that now they can do what Nixon did in broad daylight with no fear of any repercussions. His legacy will live on for quite some time. "Four more years"... at least.

      --
      What?
    16. Re:I call bullshit by flyingsquid · · Score: 1
      What about the last administration and it's wagging the dog wars in Somalia and Kosovo - where there was NO US interest at all let alone oil interests?

      Get your facts straight, dumbass. It was George H. W. Bush who got the United States involved in Somalia, not the Clinton administration. Take two seconds to check your facts on Wikipedia before you post next time, will you?

    17. Re:I call bullshit by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately computer chips ... Computer chips are made in China.
    18. Re:I call bullshit by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      "Department of Homeland Security" (my God, what an Orwellian phrase)

      It's pretty much what the soviet secret services for catching dissidents were called (KGB = Commitee for State Security, Stasi = Ministry for State Security).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    19. Re:I call bullshit by GauteL · · Score: 1

      "What about the last administration and it's wagging the dog wars in Somalia and Kosovo - where there was NO US interest at all let alone oil interests?"

      So if there had been oil interest, that would have made it better?
      At least the Kosovo war was well supported by the US allies. The Afghanistan war was pretty well supported, and the Iraq war was strongly opposed by many, many close allies of the US.

      And even though Kosovo was a NATO and not a UN action, the UN helped pick up the pieces afterwards.

      Even though there was some annoyed mumblings from Russia (as a traditional ally of Serbia), the Kosovo war was uncontroversial in comparison to Iraq.

      Yes, it clearly wasn't as black and white as "Serbia evil, everyone else good", but overall stability seemed to improve in Europe after it.

      I find it rather hard to compare Kosovo with Iraq at present.

    20. Re:I call bullshit by master_p · · Score: 1

      Kosovo does not have oil, but it has gold, lignite, cobalt, cadmium, zinc, silver, nickel, bauxite, magnesite, in very large quantities:

      http://www.kosovo-mining.org/kosovoweb/en/mining/minerals.html

      It's still a war about resources, just like pretty much all wars on Earth were about resources.

    21. Re:I call bullshit by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      You people amuse me beyond any measure...
      And you all PAY for this, vote for this, and have even come under the impression that these thugs have your best interests in mind... I, for one, welcome our new alien overlord.
    22. Re:I call bullshit by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm..

      "and it's wagging the dog wars in Somalia and Kosovo - where there was NO US interest at all let alone oil interests?"

      Well you have pointed out your view of the world with I must say is a very business oriented one. The Democratic view of 'US Interest' as is generally the veiw of non-conservatives is more people, human rights, freedoms, oriented. In Somalia and Kosovo there were gross human rights violations going on, can you say Genocide, rape, etc (at least where Slobodan Milosevi

      Wiki entry:

      "The Hague war crimes tribunal charged Milosevi with crimes against humanity, violating the laws or customs of war, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and genocide for his role during the wars in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87

      as to Somolia:

      "The resulting famine caused the United Nations Security Council in 1992 to authorize the limited peacekeeping operation United Nations Operation in Somalia I (UNOSOM I). UNOSOM's use of force was limited to self-defence and it was soon disregarded by the warring factions. In reaction to the continued violence and the humanitarian disaster, the United States organised a military coalition with the purpose of creating a secure environment in southern Somalia for the conduct of humanitarian operations. This coalition, (Unified Task Force or UNITAF) entered Somalia in December 1992 on Operation Restore Hope and was successful in restoring order and alleviating the famine. In May 1993, most of the United States troops withdrew and UNITAF was replaced by the United Nations Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II)."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

      That was fostered by a humanitarian disaster and part of a United Nations operation to prevent that disaster.

      Now attacking a country on a trumped up pretext for Oil, now that is what this country wants its international presence to be. Very conservative business oriented of you.

      If you were really a conservative then you would let the market do what it does, not invade helpless countries (like Iraq had a prayers chance, and no WMD's either).

      We should try to stop fights and disasters not cause them. This administration has taken us down a greedy dark friendless road. Only one that you can enjoy in the safety of your gated community.

    23. Re:I call bullshit by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      Nope, just looking at myself years ago.

      I can laugh at or with you. I'm beyond hating you or anyone else who buys into this. All I'd be hating is myself so many years back. We all grow up... but we're all at different points in this story as well. There are others who are ahead of me, by far. I don't hate them either.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    24. Re:I call bullshit by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you know the path, and you know that I'm behind you, and you know the way ahead.

      Plainly.

      It's self evident, no?

    25. Re:I call bullshit by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      Kind of. Actually I don't know the way ahead. I can guess. I'm just having fun with it... plenty of people hating their lives, hating other people. I've done my share of hating. Didn't make the food taste better, the shit smell better or life feel any better. So I got tired of being angry at everything and everyone.

      Not that I wouldn't kick someone's ass if they jumped me... but that is merely my becoming a consequence to their actions. I won't go hunting down some assholes and taking them down just because I'm under the impressions that "the bad guys must lose" because neither bad, nor good, have any purpose other than to give each other something to do. So being neutral gives me the lovely option to just live my life and not fight either of the two morons unless they try to fight me... and then there are those lovely options, like manipulating the polar opposites to kill each other and to leave me be...

      Oh the possibilities. Life is grand, isn't it?

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    26. Re:I call bullshit by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Done with hating, on to feelings of smug nihilistic superiority?

      I suppose it's a start.

    27. Re:I call bullshit by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      Nah, not nihilistic... but it seems you certainly seem to exude that air. Are you feeling a bit more smug than I, perhaps?

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    28. Re:I call bullshit by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      I was wondering when you'd get to the "I know what you are, but what am I" argument.

      And how can it not be nihilism to talk of manipulating people into killing each other?

    29. Re:I call bullshit by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      If good and evil try to get me to fight against one or the other, I would sooner get them to kill each other so they'll have something to do and leave me out of their idiocy. That you didn't read that from my lines makes me think that perhaps I should have been specific. Pity I was expecting more insight from someone as smug as you.

      And no, I DON'T know what I am. I'm still in the process of knowing myself. I appreciate your sarcasm and smug humor, though.

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    30. Re:I call bullshit by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

      Not that "good" and "evil" really need much reason to fight each other to the death. So long as each thinks it is good, and the other is evil, they won't even need me to "manipulate" them as you said. I'm more referring to saying "look I'm busy, but there he is, your forever foe!"

      I've very little interest in fighting other people's battles. Judging by your sarcasm, I'm willing to believe you're not one to endure pain on someone else's behalf either, eh?

      --
      " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    31. Re:I call bullshit by jeephistorian · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic.

      How are Nixon and Clinton comparable? Clinton lied about an affair he had while Nixon lied about spying on the other party in an election!!!

      What did FDR do that even remotely compares to leading America into a worthless, pointless war in the process increasing the threat to our people? I'm really befuddled by your comparison.

      Now a better comparison would be Bush to well perhaps Lyndon Johnson. He declined to run again, Bush didn't.

      --
      Huh?
    32. Re:I call bullshit by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1
      Well we were talking about violating your rights. Yes, Nixon was spying on the other party, but so was Clinton. They had FBI files of all their political opponents sitting in a room in the white house. Vince Foster was one of many that died under mysterious circumstances, and [someone] removed files from his office after he was dead. There are many other accusations, as well as lying under oath (regardless of the reasons for it). He also presided over the killing of women and children in Waco, and enacted numerous executive orders (that is, without congressional approval) that were clear violations of the Constitution. The point I was making was that he got away with all that - no resignation or successful impeachment.

      FDR destroyed more citizens rights than any other president. For one thing, he created the most powerful armed bureaucracy in the history of the world (the IRS). The "new deal" legislation took a lot of power from the states, and the people. He interred Japanese immigrants in concentration camps during WWII, as well as creating an "Office of Censorship" to control speech during the war. When the court started telling him that his programs violated the constitution, he packed the court with supporters to ensure his legislation was upheld. He probably contributed more to destroying the principles of the Constitution than any other president.

      Far from being held accountable for violating his oath and his trust under the Constitution, he was hailed as a hero.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    33. Re:I call bullshit by jeephistorian · · Score: 1

      So did Lincoln. Lincoln also violated many constitutional rights to preserve the Union. FDR may have violated rights, but to preserve the US. Nothing that Bush has done in anyway has helped to protect us. Quite to the contrary.

      What evidence beyond very partisan websites do you have that the Clintons were involved in murder. That is a very big accusation. I wouldn't call the crap storm he went through "getting away with it" when the current president can "get away" with sacrificing over 4000 of our best in a war with no clear justification while at the same time engendering hate and ill will against America across the globe. Bush has literally and provable gotten away with mass murder.

      --
      Huh?
    34. Re:I call bullshit by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Bush has literally and provable gotten away with mass murder.

      I think it would be easier to argue that about Johnson (or even Lincoln). Almost 60,000 died in Vietnam, all predicated on an attack in the Tonkin Gulf that is now believed to have never happened at all.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
  46. They're breaking the law! Quick - pass more laws! by JSBiff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't get it. How will passing more laws change that criminals will resort to crime to make easy money? Aside from the fact the government didn't present evidence that it's occuring, *even if it is*, how will these new laws make any difference? It's kind of analogous to laws against gun ownership. Even if you pass a law against gun possession/buying/selling, criminals will still obtain the guns, and will still have a black market in guns. I mean, the terrorists are *gasp* making money off the opium trade in Afghanistan, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out they're making money off of gun running / arms sales. I'm not saying they are, but the point is, just because you criminalize something doesn't make it stop happening to any significant extent. Often it just makes the illegal conduct even *more* lucrative.

    I've noticed a trend in modern politics that the answer to problems with people breaking the law is to pass more laws. Instead of, you know, trying to enforce the laws we already have. Of course, the new laws never seem to hit their nominal 'target' but instead hit other targets. In this case, isn't *selling* pirated copyrighted materials already a *criminal* offense? I was always understanding that individual, not-for-profit copying was a civil matter, while commercial piracy was a criminal matter. Is that not the case?

    More great 'leadership' from our do-nothing government.

  47. The title is rather misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If they aren't presenting a shred of evidence (and in this case, they definitely need to), then they aren't overstating anything. They're downright creating (well, fabricating) a connection. Saying that they're overstating the problem

    1. Acknowledges that the problem exists, which it may well not.
    2. Furthers the lie, because now all people will begin to believe that there is a connection, and its just a question of how strong the connection is.

    And thats the beauty of it (at least from the DOJs side). Despite there being absolutely no factual evidence for this at all, even skeptic sites will only attack the lack of evidence and not the claim itself. Thus, the lie DOES become fact.

  48. HAR HAR HAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This coming from the people who gutted Evolution for intelligent design...
    Clearly they know what they are talking about... /sarcasm

  49. Terrorists manipulate senators to pass bad laws by vik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, the situation in the US would be much improved if someone had the balls to clearly state terrorism manipulates senators so they pass laws that only create the impression of security. Terrorists then create so many false positives that they can hide with impunity. What was it? 1 in 300 Americans is suspected of terrorist links?

    As a bonus, fixing this would get the background reasoning for senate decisions investigated and put out in the open where it should be.

    Vik :v)

  50. Sony's defense by Jodaxia · · Score: 1

    Bin Laden sent us that software that we totally pirated. We swear.

    --
    crowbar??
  51. Quick summary by Digi-John · · Score: 0, Redundant

    A quick summary for everyone too busy to read the comments on this and every other "Politician says X":
    1. Republicans are really bad
    2. George Bush is a war criminal
    3. MAFIAA (that never gets old)
    4. The US is the only corrupt country, ever
    5. Run to Canada, land of freedom and all the ganja you can smoke
    6. Did we mention how bad Republicans are? Let me do it again. And again. And again.
    7. People are sheep but we Slashdotters see through it ALL.
    8. Obama will bring hope. His plan for victory in Iraq is Hope. He will reduce poverty with the power of Hope.
    9. Ron Paul '12

    --
    Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
  52. Uhh... by Trintech · · Score: 3, Interesting

    More strict IP laws in the US will keep terrorists that are in other countries from selling pirated software? I don't get it. Unless they are trying to say that US citizens are the ones buying most of this pirated software, it doesn't really even make sense.

    1. Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It simply doesn't make sense.

  53. You look at piracy from the wrong perspective ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    You are looking at piracy from the wrong perspective. It is not what percentage of the street vendors selling CDs for $1 are supporting terrorism, it is what percentage of terrorist funding comes from selling CDs, DVDs, VHSs, etc? How many pirates are supporting terrorists is irrelevant, the only relevant issue is how much of terrorist funding can be disrupted by a piracy crackdown.

  54. Tell us another story, Mike. by PPH · · Score: 1

    Iraq has WMD.
    We're spying on you for your own good.
    We've got al Qaida on the run.

    The current administration may as well be telling us that pigs can fly. Their credibility can't go any lower.

    The only response Mukasey deserves is a good ROTFL by Congress.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  55. good use of money by dingleberrie · · Score: 1

    If I were a terrorist, I'd just buy myself some senators and tell them to make everyone scared so that they push through legislation and, separately, spend themselves into a hole. It's working a lot better than bombing.

  56. A simple solution by sjames · · Score: 1

    We cannot afford to wait another second. We have to hit these freedom hating terrorists in the pocket AT ALL COSTS. Our very existance is at stake!

    Copyright is providing terrorists everywhere with the tools they need to destroy democracy. I call for an immediate end of all copyrights! We must cut the terrorist's profit centers off NOW!

    Simply upping enforcement and penelties will HELP THE TERRORISTS by driving their small time competition into lesser crimes like armed robbery.

  57. Re:oh, how ironic by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its simply naive to think that it didn't in some way support Bin Ladins organization.

    Of course, though the whole reason you got the response is you were replying to a post that only mention MJ -- and MJ has been specifically target as somehow funding terrorism -- with what was essentially a non sequitor about opium.

    But since we're on the subject, there's two funny parts about this opium in Afghanistan thing:
    1) While they were actively trying to stomp it out while in power, now that they're trying to fund an insurgency, the Taliban is absolutely A-Ok with growing and selling opium.
    2) The Northern Alliance et. al., aka the warlords we pretend are the "good guys" in Afghanistan, funded their operations from opium sales both while the Taliban was in power, but especially now that the country is in chaos and they're the "good guys" so there's a lot less pressure to stop.

    So actually, if you buy opium, you have at least a 50% chance of supporting our side in Afghanistan. Delicious irony.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  58. Oil by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's where terrorists get their money. And/or drugs depending on which terrorists we're talking about. Why in the hell would you sell pirated CDs for a profit of what a dollar per disc when you can just a) wait for a rich sympathizer to give you money or b) run protection for a drug trafficker for untold millions.

    In other news Timothy McVeigh sold bumper stickers and so the Feds have launched a task force to crack down on bumper sticker trademark slogan piracy.

  59. Re: Yammer, Yammer, Yammer. by Dopamine,+Redacted · · Score: 1

    I hope that's not an LCD screen you use. Cringing the pixels on an LCD screen can't be good for it.

  60. then for commodity needs, use open source software by Locutus · · Score: 1

    oh, wait a minute, they probably think that open source software is anti business so that ain't gonna fly. I guess they are better off just constantly telling lies and creating new laws to pen every one in except their large business buddies.

    It seems every day is April Fools day in the US.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  61. Yah, pirate terrorists, my taxes pay this pr***..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll buy that for a dollar, Sony.UK is a terrorist organization with ties to the RIAA working in a combined effort to errode US educational system in effect rendering national IQ to be less than 80 (typical bean counter level, so we can all get jobs with DHS) by way of financially incapacitating students that can't really afford to buy music in the first place... However, I'd wager that shady US dollars manipulated by politicians pays better for the terrorists...

  62. soft on terrorism by austinhook · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now,I wouldn't mind if the government could be convinced that terrorists are responsible for spam. True or not, I'd love to see them distract themselves with trying to solve it.

  63. You forgot the word "Yet" by twitter · · Score: 0, Interesting

    The DMCA may not have been pushed to fight "terrorism" but it was a bad law and it's successor and enforcer is being justified by "terrorism". The spirit of the DMCA is that you can't help your neighbor even if you know how. That's much worse for society than economic loss by any given industry. People will work for a living no mater what industries live or die. The kinds of things the DMCA prevents are things that would enrich all of us far more than the protected obsolete businesses the DMCA protects. The DMCA is a violation of your rights, fucking tyranny, and that must always be enforced brutally. All of the other reductions of your rights follow from the first - you can't give up a little of your liberty.

    There is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats now. They both represent the same interests and are both corrupt. It will be good to remove the Republicans to disrupt well worn channels of corruption but Democrats do not promise fundamental change and they will not deliver it. Both of them will send us to war in Iraq and both of them will continue the crazy attack on your liberty. Nader an other third parties offer some hope but he will be powerless without a well built and successfully elected party.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:You forgot the word "Yet" by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think you have to look why many principled conservatives are now supporting Obama: people like Andrew Bacevich, Lew Rockwell, and Douglas Kmiec. I really believe that only a neo-conservative administration - and except for Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, all the neocons are Republican and the majority of Republicans are neo-con - would have gotten us into Iraq.

      Douglas Kmiec's basis for supporting Obama is an interesting one, as well, because it seems he is one of the few people who actually has been listening to what Obama has been saying and watching what he has been doing. Obama is a Democrat who tells the underclass to stop relying on the state, being particularly critical of the culture of dependence that has harmed the African American poor over the past several decades. This doesn't make Obama a conservative. He's not. But then, who is? Certainly not McCain.

    2. Re:You forgot the word "Yet" by Atrox+Canis · · Score: 1

      It's amazing what passes for conservative these days. Bernie Goldberg said it best when he described the environment surrounding the leaders of CBS news some years ago. I'll paraphrase here... If everyone you know is of a liberal bent, with some of your peers being more liberal and some of them being less so, you can soon delude yourself into thinking you are a moderate. The same principle applies regardless of your social or political persuasion. If you only listen to Fox News you may find yourself thinking that all other news agencies are liberal. If you only listen to MSNBC, you make the mistake of classifying CNN as conservative. I know, I've heard myself say it. Bottom line for me is that I have for some time felt that a major portion of organized software piracy is a vehicle for revenue generation for organized crime. Regardless of the criminal intent of these organizations, be it terrorism or drugs, I'm happy that someone is taking a look at it. This problem didn't start in the last 8 years and damn sure won't go away if Obama or Clinton take the reins. That is to say that the problem is blind to political considerations and the solution must be as well.

      --
      Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
  64. Re:Gotta correct that bold part by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You've got a good grip on the situation, so I have to fix one factual error:

    They didn't even need a warrant, as even under the older FISA law, warrants were not needed for calls that comes into the US from outside it.

    Yes they were. FISA explicitly spells out when a warrant is not required, and it is only when it is believed that no "U.S. Person" is a party to the call. A "U.S. person" basically means a U.S. citizen no matter where they are, or a non-citizen who is legally within the U.S. So that means any call with one end in the U.S. (where it isn't known the party in the u.s. is here illegally), or even a call that takes place entirely in a foreign country that includes a U.S. citizen, requires a warrant.

    However that said, the argument that they needed a new law is BS because here is what they could have done perfectly legally: Tap the call in question immediately, and then any time within the next three days showed up before the FISA court to ask for a retro-active warrant. And as FISA's record clearly shows, if they had any reason at all to believe the call was suspect, FISA would have granted the warrant.

    In other words, and this is important because it applies to all the recent surveilance too: The only reason not to get a warrant is if they had no reason at all to believe that the call is of any interest, not one tiny scrap of hearsay to suggest that it's a terrorist call. It means that as far as they knew, it was no different than the billions of other calls made daily.

    So remember, whenever they say they need a new law to let them listen in on certain phone calls, that law would ONLY allow them the new power to listen to calls that are, as far as they could possibly tell, COMPLETELY INNOCENT.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  65. Combine this with the illegal hyperlinks by elucido · · Score: 1


    Now, Piracy+Terrorist+Illegal Hyperlinks = ?

    Illegal Hyperlinks

    Anonymous

    I'm not smart enough to connect the dots, if there are any dots to connect, but I figured I'd post these links and let you connect the dots or at least discuss the dots.

  66. It seems clear, it's about power. by elucido · · Score: 5, Interesting


    This looks to me, to be a move by the current head of the fbi to either attack the internet, or control it.

    First we saw wikileaks get shut down by the courts, something completely unheard of, but it happened.

    Then we see the story of the illegal hyperlinks and fbi stings.

    Now we have the story of the fbi claiming that the terrorists are also software pirates.

    I'm waiting for them to say the terrorists run linux and post on Slashdot. Also combine this with the battle over network neutrality.

    Can someone piece together the big picture? Am I seeing a conspiracy where there is no conspiracy? Is this just about the fbi trying to increase it's power? Is this part of a strategy to attack the net? What exactly is going on?

    1. Re:It seems clear, it's about power. by LaskoVortex · · Score: 1

      Can someone piece together the big picture?

      You are watching the inexorable march of fascism--it won't stop as long as people breathe. Get used to it. And no, boycotting American beer won't help.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
  67. To sum up the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Pirates and Terrorists and Hackers! Oh my!

  68. history repeats by e-scetic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been saying for a while now that it's only a matter of time before the term "criminal" was used interchangeably with "terrorist".

    Historically, certain forms of government have successfully employed this trick - you just need a massively stupid population and that's certainly what we've got here. The difference, I guess, is that historically certain unnamed governments have invaded other countries on false pretenses and set out to rule the world...oh, wait...

  69. Uhm, okay. by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    Someone ought to tell this guy that no one actually pays for warez. ;o

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  70. sneak-and-peek by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Informative

    today I had a non-fun experience with my landlord (I rent).

    for the last 2 yrs or so, they have been sending out letters saying there is an 'annual apartment inspection' and that I have to let the landlord in.

    the thing is, I've read as much as I can about calif civil codes and there is NO provision for 'annual inspections'. hmmmmm.

    so today when the maintenance guy came by (he was 'checking' every single apartment for god knows what) I told him NO!. I refuse.

    I then asked what they were looking for and he blew me off saying that since I won't let him in, I won't get to know! sheesh!

    a few yrs ago there was an 'idea' by asscroft (may extreme shit be upon him) to create something called TIPS:

    http://www.havenworks.com/gov/operation-tips/

    and today during a web search, I came across this link:

    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/brimmer1.html

    which also pointed to this TIPS thing.

    I'm curious, any other /.ers find that the place you are renting from is NOW, suddenly, starting to do 'inspections' ?

    clearly this is a sneak-n-peek but just not done directly by cops. they get our own citizens to rat on each other.

    the TIPS thing was supposed to be cancelled in 2002 or so. you don't really believe it was cancelled do you? it just went more underground.

    I mention this because the current administration is running a-foul of the law of the land and he's trying to write his own 'king' ticket. they know that by getting citizens to spy on each other, that will keep the climate of fear alive.

    anyway, hopefully hearing about TIPS and the 'annual apartment inspections' (that are quite illegal by my reading of section 1954 of the calif civil code. any lawyers here want to comment on that?) will get you clued in and aware of what is really going on in our country.

    if the apartment manager wants to 'see your place' they should have an URGENT and real reason and not just to 'check for code violations'.

    the story they used on me was they wanted to 'check outlets, the carpet, the balcony, general condition and plumbing around the apartment'. sure sounds like a FISHING EXPEDITION to me. what do you think?

    I told them no and they wrote 'refused' on my form. how much you want to bet this ends up in some DC filing cabinet next to my name?

    wonderful country we now have, here ;(

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:sneak-and-peek by Reziac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know where you are, but Palmdale, California, has a relatively-new mandatory rental property inspection process in place. The idea is to root out slumlords by discovering substandard rentals... but what do you bet it's more often used to "inspect" premises where a warrant can't (yet) be reasonably acquired? Remember once any gov't official is in the door, he can write you up for ANYTHING, and that writeup CAN be the basis for a search warrant and police raid. Even something as trivial as a cracked electrical switchplate will do.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:sneak-and-peek by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I noticed this from your link: ...the mere concept in the state of California is a violation of state civil code. The law clearly states that "There is no general right in California to carry out routine inspections of the rental unit except that a waterbed or smoke detector installation may be inspected."

      Since IIRC California state code requires that all rental units have at least one smoke detector, it follows that there is actually nothing in this statute that prevents "routine inspections"; indeed, quite the reverse.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:sneak-and-peek by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      the smoke detector seems to be a 'famous' loophole.

      I wonder how frequent is mandatory? they came and changed the battery and checked it less than a year ago; probably more like 6mos.

      its in the hallway that is only 1 or 2 steps from the main door. so, given that, if I -had- to let them into my place (again, I'm the renter), I would guess that I would only be required to give them access to the smoke/fire detector and not much more of my place than that?

      and what's this about checking power outlets and jumping on the balcony. that sounds fishy to me. I have lived in this complex for well over 10 years (sad, I know; but that's another thread altogether) and only in the last 1-2 years have they started getting into everyone's apartment via this or that reason. very frivolous (like this one) reasons. if I had just moved in, I would not have known; but as I said I've been here longer than even the current management has (or the last one, or even the one before). I know what's 'normal' and I'm telling you (all) - this is just NOT normal!

      anyone else noticing this? please speak up! I'm in calif - but I bet its not at all a state-specific thing.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:sneak-and-peek by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      noticed this from your link: ...the mere concept in the state of California is a violation of state civil code.

      this (very short and simple) bit seems to be what applies:

      http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/1954.html


      (a) A landlord may enter the dwelling unit only in the following cases:

      (1) In case of emergency.

      (2) To make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workers, or contractors or to make an inspection pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 1950.5.

      (3) When the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.

      (4) Pursuant to court order.

      (b) Except in cases of emergency or when the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises, entry may not be made during other than normal business hours unless the tenant consents to an entry during other than normal business hours at the time of entry.

      (c) The landlord may not abuse the right of access or use it to harass the tenant.

      (d) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (e), or as provided in paragraph (2) or (3), the landlord shall give the tenant reasonable notice in writing of his or her intent to enter and enter only during normal business hours. The notice shall include the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry. The notice may be personally delivered to the tenant, left with someone of a suitable age and discretion at the premises, or, left on, near, or under the usual entry door of the premises in a manner in which a reasonable person would discover the notice. Twenty-four hours shall be presumed to be reasonable notice in absence of evidence to the contrary. The notice may be mailed to the tenant. Mailing of the notice at least six days prior to an intended entry is presumed reasonable notice in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

      (2) If the purpose of the entry is to exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, the notice may be given orally, in person or by telephone, if the landlord or his or her agent has notified the tenant in writing within 120 days of the oral notice that the property is for sale and that the landlord or agent may contact the tenant orally for the purpose described above. Twenty-four hours is presumed reasonable notice in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The notice shall include the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry. At the time of entry, the landlord or agent shall leave written evidence of the entry inside the unit.

      (3) The tenant and the landlord may agree orally to an entry to make agreed repairs or supply agreed services. The agreement shall include the date and approximate time of the entry, which shall be within one week of the agreement. In this case, the landlord is not required to provide the tenant a written notice.

      (e) No notice of entry is required under this section:

      (1) To respond to an emergency.

      (2) If the tenant is present and consents to the entry at the time of entry.

      (3) After the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the unit.


      that wasn't a lot - even for a layman like my self to read. I have no legal background (I'm a software guy) but it seems to me that unless there's something urgent (like a broken pipe or something of that magnitude) they do NOT have the right to tell you that they are 'inspecting' your place. the public areas, yeah, I think they can inspect the hell out of the walkways and elevators and washer/dryer rooms (oh, PLEASE inspect them. we've been asking you to for years!). but I draw the line when it comes to my own space. my apartment, even though its rented, is STILL mine to use and live in and there's this phrase called quiet enjoyment that is fancy lawyer talk for your right to live in your place and not be hassled for some bullshit phishing expedition.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:sneak-and-peek by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you are now scaring me ;(

      (seriously).

      I'm in norcal. bay area.

      I don't like the sound of this intimidation game (of theirs).

      I'm protesting because I think its a bad precedent to ALLOW these unauthorized phishing expeditions. and if that is enough to get me 'in trouble' then I think we all have a lot to worry about, in the long run.

      again, this seems to be a very new thing - the last year or two, only. before that, I think I had a good 10 years or more (in the same place) of undisturbed 'quiet enjoyment' (even though I didn't know that's what I was doing with my time, lol).

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:sneak-and-peek by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Thank the war on drugs; it's spawned no end of such highly questionable and outright unconstitutional procedures.

      Animal Control also uses it -- there's a case going on in Littleton CO right now where the upshot is that the guy's house is being condemned for minor code violations, secondary to his being over the limit for numbers of dogs (show dogs, not a collection of mutts). Due to new statutes on animal care in the SFBay area (the city now dictates what are "approved" diets and bedding, I shit you not) that area is at specific risk, since anyone can report you for "abuse", leading to a visit from not just animal control, but also the police. And do you think they'll go away empty-handed once they're in the door??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:sneak-and-peek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm not familiar with California law but in my state it is quite common for landlords to conduct an annual inspection of the premises. My brother is a landlord. He routinely inspects his own properties. He needs to keep them well maintained so they don't lose value. He also needs to know if a tenant is causing significant damage to the property and if so, evict them; or not renew their contract at any rate. He can also be held responsible for the tenant's use of the home. If the tenants are selling drugs or running a meth lab the state can seize the home. There is actually a law that requires all landlord-tenant contracts to include a clause barring the use of drugs on the property.

      If I may be quite frank. Your are sounding extremely paranoid. Settle down. The new management at your apartment complex probably has a long-standing policy to conduct annual inspections of all their property. They are concerned about their own investment. Good tenants are far and few between. A vacancy is a huge financial loss, especially if the landlord has a mortgage on the property. They're not looking for a reason to throw you in jail and lose a paying tenant.

    8. Re:sneak-and-peek by riondluz · · Score: 1

      Now, combine your warranted suspicions with a google search
      on "DHS FBI infragard" AKA "how DHS is using a select group of loyal
      priv'd businessesmen to spy on citizens thru a local chapter near you".

      "The FBI retained InfraGard as an FBI sponsored program, and will work with DHS in support of its CIP mission, facilitate InfraGard's continuing role in CIP ...
      www.infragard.net/about.php?mn=1&sm=1-0
      Feb 7, 2008 ... The FBI Deputizes Business. by Matthew Rothschild ... In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. ...
      www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/07/6918/
      "Feb 7, 2008 ... "InfraGard is not readily accessible to the general public. Its communications with the FBI and Homeland Security are beyond the reach of ...
      blog.progressivedem.com/2008/02/07/us-citizens-under-surveilence-by-infraguard.aspx -

      It appears infragard has been around for years, but
      I first became aware of this recently via:
      http://www.7dvt.com/2008/nerds-wire

      Everyone involved tries to make it sound patriotic and tame, but when you collate the stories on KP, IP, NSA, etc.. it begins to look pretty black.

      s/sneek-n-peek/freaky-deak/g and you may want to move to some private idaho

      --
      resist propaganda
    9. Re:sneak-and-peek by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      thanks for the insights and links!

      I never knew this INFRA GUARD shit existed.

      a private class of 'american' citizens (actually, traitors, the way I see it). created under cloak of exclusion.

      if this really is true, then 50's mccarthy era was just a PRACTICE RUN for what we are seeing now.

      can you say 'blacklist'? sure. I knew you could.

      sigh ;(

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    10. Re:sneak-and-peek by riondluz · · Score: 1

      I get the impression that altho it's been around for a number of years now,its secretive nature is only recently getting exposure.
      You "could" mod my post up so to increase its 'eyeball' factor. But more important, and i wish i wrote it down when i heard it; earlier this week i read somewhere that the DHS/FBI is sharing its wiretap info (on us) with the businesses community @large. Combine that w/programs like TIPs and soon we'll all be turning on one another as per the master plan:(

      --
      resist propaganda
    11. Re:sneak-and-peek by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I would mod it up if I had points and also wasn't IN the thread...

      I agree, more visibility on this needs to be reported.

      in fact, I have just called the aclu (really) and am asking for their help in interpreting EXACTLY what is going on here.

      I told the guy at the san francisco aclu hotline about 'TIPS' and that 'guard' thing. he didn't know about EITHER one - never even heard of that.

      so I wonder if even the aclu is going to be any use to me, here. but I'll try. and I'm telling everyone I know (just in case I'm taken on a 'long unannounced trip' for some reason) what exactly is going on and why I'm trying to bring attention to this ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL 'citizen spy rings'.

      I'm just a little guy in this fight and I have no power at all other than my feeling of what is Right and what is Wrong. I may burn out in this fight. I hope I don't, but sometimes, some things ARE worth fighting for!

      don't say that NO americans are fighting this. I'm at least trying, fwiw. wish me luck...

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    12. Re:sneak-and-peek by riondluz · · Score: 1

      Well, TIPS caught my attention on a prior /. post
      CONTENT="FBI Demands Logs From Radical Website"

        REL="author" HREF="//yro.slashdot.org/search.pl?op=stories&author=36799"

      Which contained a link to
      http://www.citizencorps.gov/about.shtm

      And, FWIW, /. also had this thread awhile back:
      National "Dragnet" Connecting at State, Local Level
      on a 'national data x-change" tho i'd seen it elsewhere.
        http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/07/0138253
      http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=08/03/07/0138253

      So, datamining, sharing the information, encouraging wholesale spying on the angry
      unwashed, not the stuff of conspiracy theory, but happening in real-time. And, i'd bet, that most of the people who know about it and dissent are bound by law (yea, right) or national security impositions to have them effectively gagged.

      Listen, keep fighting the good fight! You've apparently passed thru the 'bubble of no return':)

      I remember someone asking me at a demonstration in D.C. "how do you know when to get involved?"
      My answer was when it becomes compelling enough that cannot be ignored. When one cannot stop themselves from getting their feet wet and jumping into the fray.

      We're all 'little guys' here. And ppl who man hotlines may not be well informed.
      Instead of thinking how the ACLU can assist you consider how you can assist them.

      Now that you've gotten self-involved you've taken the 1st big step. Kudos

      --
      resist propaganda
    13. Re:sneak-and-peek by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      Instead of thinking how the ACLU can assist you consider how you can assist them.

      I'm TRYING!

      they need data. they need to follow up. I'm trying to be a data source for them; but I'm still waiting for them to call me back!

      I did get the impression that the guy I talked to on the phone (aclu) didn't think it was a big deal, "why don't you just let them in, then?"

      sorry - bzzzzt - not the response I was hoping for from a FREEDOM FIGHTING group (supposedly).

      but I'll keep trying. at least I informed the phone jockey about 2 new things: the TIPS program and the 'gards' stuff. he never heard of either one. that, itself, alarms me.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    14. Re:sneak-and-peek by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      update:

      the aclu basically told me 'hire a lawyer; have a nice day'

      ie, they blew me off.

      so they were of NO use to me. I tried to convince them that I would work WITH them and help them in any way I could.

      they didn't care. ;(

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  71. Oy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    fucking tyranny

    For a moment there I thought you said "tranny". Sorry.

  72. Well, look at the connections by elucido · · Score: 1


    You have this FBI Posts Fake Hyperlinks To Trap Downloaders of Illegal Porn

    And this Feds lie about link between software piracy and terrorism

    And this Wikileaks shut down

    And this Anonymous

    And this Net Neutrality Blasted by MPAA Bosses

    And this (note, this may be conspiracy theory BS, but I'm posting it anyway) Pentagon: The internet needs to be dealt with as if it were an enemy "weapons system".

    It's going to take someone writing an essay to try to connect all the dots as to what may or may not be going on behind the scenes, but it seems obvious that a lot of people don't like the internet, or perhaps the internet is just too free and a lot of people want to stop the internet revolution and cable TV the net. I'm sure it has something to do with net-neutrality.

  73. What they have in common. by gnutoo · · Score: 1

    They threaten the US and it's allies. No, I don't mean those quaint nation state things from WWII, I mean MSTF, GM, Coke, GE, Walmart, Disney, Warner Brothers, Exxon and so on.

    1. Re:What they have in common. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You already posted in this article with one of your five sockpuppet accounts. Please limit yourself to using one account per article, at least.

  74. I guess not anymore by elucido · · Score: 1


    It seems almost any activity or medium can be linked to child porn or terrorism. I'm as skeptical about this as you, I'm not convinced.

    I'm sure there are mafias out there doing these things, but enough to create new laws and agencies? I don't think so.

  75. Re:They're breaking the law! Quick - pass more law by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's the problem with enforcing existing laws: it requires a politician to do nothing, which means that he/she cannot profit from the current situation. Passing a law - any law - will allow them to claim "I'm doing something!", regardless of whether that something is actually useful.

    Yeah, I don't like politicians.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  76. Why aren't they selling crack? by elucido · · Score: 1

    I don't see why a terrorist who hates this country and the people in it, would sell useful harmless products like software when the terrorist could sell crack or meth. Piracy, usually, is a victimless crime, so why would terrorists sell that when terrorists can sell poisons like drugs?

    The only reason terrorists would sell pirated software that I can think of would be to install viruses on the computers of the people who purchase it, but why the hell would terrorists need to install viruses this way when the terrorists could just create a worm and upload it to the internet and let people install it themselves?

    I just don't see the logic.

    1. Re:Why aren't they selling crack? by BlueTrin · · Score: 1

      To make some money ?

      --
      Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
    2. Re:Why aren't they selling crack? by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      I don't see why a terrorist who hates this country and the people in it, would sell useful harmless products like software when the terrorist could sell crack or meth.

      Because they are selling the pirated software on the streets of their own countries, and/or they are selling the discs or tapes to a third party who will actually do the importation. They aren't in the US.

    3. Re:Why aren't they selling crack? by scummable · · Score: 1

      I don't think that the terrorists receive any substantial portion of their income from software piracy. But to answer your question, they might deal software instead of crack due to the risk involved with selling crack. First they would have to establish territory to do it which is quite dangerous. Second the law enforcement penalties and attention are geared towards stopping the drug trade and with good reason. Argue what you will about drug legalization but the current illegal drug trade that it has spawned isn't doing anyone any good. Black markets are inherently dangerous because you can't seek *legal* recourse for grievances. This is just an attempt to equate software piracy with something much more menacing in order to justify more raids, money, etc. against copyright infringers.

    4. Re:Why aren't they selling crack? by elucido · · Score: 1

      Why? Why would a gang of suicide bombers fear the mafia, or the crips, or anyone else? The mafia and the crips fear these people, not the other way around. Point is, if you are a terrorist, the entire united states has declared war on you already, so it doesn't matter if you fight the united states through the war on drugs or through the war on terror, you're a terrorist if you are involved with either.

  77. but US laws... by mckniffen · · Score: 1

    1) US laws only apply in the united states
    2) AG is talking about terrorism in other countries.
    3)Blatant Lies
    4)????
    5)Profite

    actually "?????" can be replaced with, "freedom raping civil lawsuits that have more steep punishment than the statute of limitations of the same infraction charged as criminal"

    --
    Communism, its a party!
  78. More laws=More criminals by elucido · · Score: 2, Insightful


    The only benefit of having more laws is that you have more criminals.

  79. I don't know how to get warez free by thegnu · · Score: 1

    I always have to pay that Arab guy at the gas sta... OH... MY... GOD!! What have I done?!

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
  80. Huh. by memorycardfull · · Score: 1

    I thought the terrorists were making all of their money by pirating music, gold farming, and selling pot to their friends.

  81. There's a shock by PingXao · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the biggest problems modern free societies face is an alleged free press that doesn't bother to check the facts about anything. If they had bothered to check the facts in this case, it should naturally lead them to the next logical question: What else is being claimed as fact with no evidence whatsoever? There's a whole lot of mis- and dis-information out there (not to mention outright lies and propaganda) and no good way for the general public to recognize it when it's spoon-fed to them. God knows the press/media isn't doing its job anymore.

    1. Re:There's a shock by mounthood · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the press is willing to reprint lies for profit.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    2. Re:There's a shock by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      One of the biggest problems modern free societies face is an alleged free press that doesn't bother to check the facts about anything.

      As opposed to less modern free societies have had where the newspaper publishers and the government were basically in cahoots to print whatever the government wanted printed?

      Everything old is new again.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  82. You forgot what *OBAMA* really is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama is a long-legged Mac daddy.

    Never forget that.

    http://a-place-apart.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-is-long-legged-mac-daddy.html

  83. Proof of the pudding. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    No, the government really isn't afraid of terrorists, but making sure the citizens are allows them to expand their budgets, clamp down harder on John Q Citizen's movements and basic Constitutionally-recognised freedoms, ...

    Too true.

    If the government were REALLY afraid of terrorists the southern (and northern) borders would look like the old Berlin Wall.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  84. Real terrorism by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Studies by experts show that 100% of those running pirated software have a computer. This means that ownership of a computer may indicate involvement in software piracy, a terrorist act. Police should have new powers to arrest people who exit a computer store with a new computer. Meanwhile, real terrorists should continue firing rockets on neighboring communities while the world does nothing.

    --
    McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
  85. Actual data by mattr · · Score: 1

    The Aum cult that gassed Tokyo with Sarin, shot the police chief and burned its enemies in microwave disintegration ovens did have a strong IT connection, but not to warez. IIRC they were involved in building and selling discount personal computers through a shop in Akihabara, this is apparently a good business model especially when you have drugged slave labor and management techniques that rival those in North Korea. Also Aum stored plans for death ray lasers etc. on CD or DVD which I think were found IIRC. And they also manipulated the media.

    They never sold warez. And by the way there are books on sale nationwide in popular bookstores in Japan at least now that explain how to get dark warez or download movies (Hollywood movies from Chinese bittorrent - complete with a list of chinese characters you need to know, or porn that is illegal here).

    There may be a market for illegal software but I have never come across it. Have heard about counterfeit Windows cds maybe in China. I suppose someone could make a bunch of cash by getting illegal software into otherwise legal distribution channels, but in these days of phone-home software I just don't see it as a growth business. I call FUD. FWIW I pay for my own MS Office or use OpenOffice. (OOo is great but it really screws up diagrams and if you try to pass edits of proposals between MS Word and OOo Writer you will wish you had just bought the darn thing. Which I finally did. Best idea is to get a friend at MS who will apply the discount for you.

  86. Since Osama's been dead since 2001... by xjlm · · Score: 1

    I'd be willing to bet that Adobe Final Cut was purchased with US taxpayer money. The CIA don't even worry about open source or price when they're underwritten by the biggest bunch of suckers the world has ever known. http://whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html

    --
    The Tea Party is just the GOP with a bag over its head.
  87. Did I see this in a TV show? by evilklown · · Score: 0
    Sounds ominously familiar.

    Guy: "Mrs. Griffin, what are your plans for clean up our environment?"
    Lois: "9/11"
    Lady: "Mrs. Griffin, what about our traffic problem?"
    Lois: "9"
    Crowd: gasps
    Lois: "11"
    Crowd: cheers
    I can picture the floor of congress now...
    Representative 1: "Mr. Attorney General, how will this bill help the average American, such as Billy Bob Joe Steven, one of my constituants?"
    Mukasey: "9/11 saw terrorists strike at the heart of the American way!"
    Congress: cheers
    Representative 2: "But won't this possibly bring undue hardship on little Suzy Ann, the daughter of one of my constituants that had to illegally download MS Office in order to complete a required school assignment because the bureaucratic system in her school doesn't leave an alternative for using free and open software, despite the fact that 75% of the children in her school system are at or below the poverty level?"
    Mukasey: "If you think that there is nothing wrong with downloading software, then you must like the idea of American lives being taken. 9/11 was a horrible act performed by terrorists that have also illegally downloaded MS Office!"
    Congress: cheers
  88. And here I thought... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

    And here I was thinking that by the looks of the professional quality of Osama's videos (at least the ones on CNN and FOX) they were likely produced by the same federal agencies that produced Osama himself.

    Course I could be mistaken, but it makes more sense, since Osama, from what I'm told, has had kidney problems that require expensive treatment in Saudi or Dubai. Maybe while he's at the hospital, he's using their Windows Vista machines to splice video streams that predate 9/11, to come up with those strange videos that always show up at just the right time to push through a certain agenda in the USA.

    Damn convenient all these "coincidences".

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
    1. Re:And here I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here I was thinking that by the looks of the professional quality of Osama's videos (at least the ones on CNN and FOX) they were likely produced by the same federal agencies that produced Osama himself

      Would that be Osama Bin Goldstein???

      Course I could be mistaken, but it makes more sense, since Osama, from what I'm told, has had kidney problems that require expensive treatment in Saudi or Dubai.

      About the only way he wouldn't still have problems with his kidneys would be if he were dead, thus having no further need for his organs.

  89. Which leads me to my second question. by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

    Why has nobody whacked Osama when he goes in for his "treatments" ?? I mean the constantly dwindling reward for his head (went from 50 mil after 9/11/2001 to something like 2 mil now) which is still considerable enough to keep any of us here on slashdot, and even most of the mercenaries out there, living it up for 10 to 20 years on that kind of cash.

    And yet nobody's whacked Osama? Very strange to me. Its as if the millions are not worth it, or as if Osama didn't exist... guy only seems to exist the way Emanuel Goldstein existed in Orwell's "1984"... as a figment of imagination of "the Party". The eternal badguy, who always resurfaces just long enough to scare the brainless cattle back into place, and back into line at the abattoir, since we all know the "inner party" likes them a nice medium rare steak. :)

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  90. billions for "anti-terrorist" piracy by alizard · · Score: 1

    not a cent to investigate the connection between Middle East oil monarchies and international terrorism funding. For why, read House of Bush, House of Saud.

  91. Re:They're breaking the law! Quick - pass more law by mjwx · · Score: 1

    Analogous to gun law, only when you don't understand the purpose of gun control.

    Gun control (not gun bans, their different) are about stopping lower level criminals from getting guns, this is accomplished by limiting supply, requiring checks and delays on purchases and driving up prices on the black market (by making it more difficult for them to supply). Please use this analogy, Don Tony Mafioso is going to be armed either way he can afford any price for a gun, he's got the money and the contacts but he's not the target because Don Tony's not about to go and kill 13 bystanders for the fun of it as he doesn't want that kind of media and police attention being focused on his legitimate business interests. But Crackhead McGangMember will shoot John Q Random for no apparent reason and he is the target of gun control, Crackhead McGangmember doesn't have the resources of Don Tony, he cant afford $1.5K for a rifle, but he can afford $250 for a pistol or shotgun which he and his ilk will use in their little gang war killing any bystanders or cops that get in their way. Gun control is only as effective as its enforcement. Inconsistent laws (between states) and poor enforcement makes gun control ineffective not gun control itself. In places like Australia gun control has prevented innocent being hurt in gang wars, the only criminals with guns are the seriously organised ones like Biker gangs. Biker gangs will not shoot random people because they have their own business interests (drugs mostly) that they want to conduct clandestinely. The Asian and Lebanese gangs in Australia are forced to fight with knives and clubs, its a lot harder to hurt let alone kill another with a knife as well as giving the victim (a stab wound is smaller and cleaner than a bullet wound) and fighting change regardless of weather they are armed or not.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  92. Try again, I'm afraid by Gazzonyx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unfortunately, in your insightful response (no sarcasm, that really was insightful and I wouldn't have caught it if you didn't say something), you stumbled upon the counter problem; if software were free, people with the ability would charge for the service instead of the software. If this theory doesn't hold up, open source will have a bit problem in the coming years. Ouch, I just realized how I've just managed to cut myself with a double edged sword.

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  93. The problem is people wanting to feel honest by Eskarel · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Ya see, the funny thing about all of this, is that the reason people buy these things is because they want to feel less guilty about their purchase(I paid for it, it's not my business whether the seller is genuine). It's not huge in the states, but I've known folks who went for that Russian allofmp3 or who bought knock off DVD's in Bali, because they felt better doing that than just downloading it without paying for it.

    Basically the organized criminals have discovered what the RIAA and MPAA never seem to work out, which is to say that people will pay for the ability to feel legitimate in their purchases.

    Sure the legal justification is shaky at best(and in some places purchasing stolen goods can get you jail time), and the funds are going to people who are likely more morally repugnant than the record industry, but people pay it.

  94. Not much to be made in warez by Gazzonyx · · Score: 1

    Kinda'. I dropped out of my warez scene, for many reasons, about 3 or 4 years ago. But, the when I left the scene, warez was really a pride thing between IRC channels and groups. It was all about having the most servers, the most efficient distribution network (and when I left, those guys had it down to a science!), the power to hold 'dump' access over someones head so that they'll serve for free while working up the ladder, and being the first group and channel to have a release within hours of a release.

    I mean, in theory you could make money if you got dump access to a few TB of warez and started pressing cds and selling them, but the overhead in time and hardware (your bandwidth is maxed constantly, you're only downloading something new when it comes out and then you're sending it to people who have been idle for days on queue - and you gotta' have the space to keep everything that's hot) to keep a library of warez on cd/dvd marginalizes any profit you could make. You never run off more than 5 copies at a time, so you don't really get the benefit of the economy of scales. You'll want to keep everything organized, and stuff is coming in every day, that's a good chunk of your time.

    At some point, you'll get infected or hacked - it will happen, it's just a matter of when, by whom, and how badly they want to make your life miserable. Worse than that, you might go and sell some discs with viruses on them; not something you want to deal with for a $5-$10 sale. The only way anyone could make money doing it is getting a specific hot software package (say, Windows) and spending the time to release it in mass quantities, passing it off as legit or selling in quantity to a middleman and making it up on sheer volume (greatly decreasing your ability to conceal your affairs). That also is exactly the behavior that will get you a nice sentence and fine if you're caught. The risk/reward ratios just don't line up with warez to a place where it makes sense, IMHO. When you don't have the risk, you'll never be in the black, and when you're in the black, the risk is more than its worth.

    --

    If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.

  95. diamond trade - terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everyone knows that the sale of diamonds is more closely linked to terrorism. In comparison, there is no money in the resale of software.

  96. Welcome to Facism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is exactly how hitler did business, got a freedom too take away, add more SS or in this case a new HSS ( Homeland shithead service ) sad to see that the USA goes around the world mouthing off about liberty and freeodm and yet turns around and completely takes away the basic freeodms of innovation and liberty of its citizens. ANd its also good to see that politicians instead of doing or looking for solutions to help society would rather invent new laws to imprison people for using technology to enjoy themselves. OH be scarey if movies were as opensourced as linux and software. People would make films and movies they wanted too. NOT THE 50 CRAP MOVIES that come out a day. Don't worry about piracy just keep making crap films , even in a country where its legal to downlaod films i rarely download one or two a week now. Its so bad that if you arrested me you might be doing me a favor so i dont have to watch the other films and i can get liberated form this torture. with the SAC proposal of 5$ a month applied ot the USA that would equate to 8-9billion a year and last i heard they only lose 6 a year world wide. so as warner states globally just for there own movies thats 20 bill, my cost 2-3 $ a month on my net charges, thats a lot more intelligent then your govt is. FUNNNNNY

  97. F/OSS fights terrorism! by belmolis · · Score: 1

    This is great! It means that F/OSS fights terrorism! If you can get software for free, there's no motivation to pay a pirate. Will the Bush administration now be throwing its weight behind F/OSS?

  98. software piracy is terrorism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...in and by itself. You just don't understand. Believe me. Really. And now all together: "software piracy is terrorism, software piracy is terrorism, software piracy is terrorism, personal privacy is terrorism, software piracy is terrorism." Always believe me.

    cb

  99. Others by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Support of Batista in Cuba, support of iran's dictator (too half assed to google, check the bastard that the US supported in iran before the current regimes), panama, the various CIA op in south America... The lsit goes even longer if you count incursion in Asia.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Others by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Mossadeq was Iran. We backed Zahedi against him.

  100. Stop Terrorism, Always Download Software Free! by billstewart · · Score: 1
    • You, yes *you* can help stop this scourge of terrorist funding through sales of counterfeit software!
    • All you have to do is download all your software for free!
    • Never trust those cheap DVDs, and especially never trust the expensive ones that pretend to be from reputable companies!
    • Remember - if you never pay, the terrorists never collect!


    If the Feds want to sling bullshit, make sure to answer it appropriately...

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  101. Wait wait wait by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny


    People PAY for pirated software? LOL. Glad I'm not funding terrorism, because I don't pay.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  102. Or a common one in America by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Is with a computer. If you look at the number of computers sold by the major OEMs, they don't add up to anything near 100%. The reason is that there is still a lot of computers sold by local shops. Well some of these places like to pad their incomes by selling illegal copies of software, particularly Windows and Office. You pay them $100 or whatever to include a copy, they never bother to pass that along to MS and actually buy one for you.

    More common than you'd probably think, and users are unaware since most of them don't know what sort of things are supposed to come with a genuine Windows license (and MS has not helped themselves at all in that regard by changing shit all the time).

  103. And then by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 1

    Slashdot Understates Ridiculousness of Terrorism Claim

    --

    "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

  104. I have a claim of my own! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cabinet-level officials in the Bush administration lie constantly, and their lies lead to torture, economic collapse, the outing of CIA agents, and pointless wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people. To combat this, the American government requires the ability to summarily hang any Cabinet-level official who even seems to be lying.

    If we don't do this immediately, our very Republic is in peril.

    I'm certain my claim has more actual verifiable data backing it up than does Mukasey's claim.

  105. Reduce prices... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    The answer is to reduce prices, rather than trying to keep them artificially high.

    If copyright infringement is used as a source of funds by terrorist groups, and that's a big *IF*, setting higher punishments for the copyright infringement is actually going to help, not hinder them. Higher punishments may discourage some other parties, but terrorist groups, who are already engaging in far more illegal crimes (terrorism) which bring far greater punishments if caught, will simply not care about the comparatively light punishments for copyright infringement.
    These people are willing to risk lifetime imprisonment, or even death for their crimes... Do you think they're gonna care about the risk of a 5 year prison sentence while raising money for their cause? Ofcourse they won't, they will spend their 5 years in jail, meeting new criminally minded people, and come out 5 years later with new knowledge and contacts in the criminal world, ready to continue fighting for their cause.
    What the higher punishments will do tho, is discourage smaller copyright infringers who are not doing it for profit, or aren't using the profit to fund other more serious crime. These people are more likely to be scared out of the market, leaving more market share to any terrorists there might be.

    However if you reduce the prices to such a level that it's no longer economically viable for the terrorists to sell copies, then they will lose this source of income and be forced to seek another. Copyright infringement is possible because the originals are so overpriced compared to the reproduction cost, and because the copies often remove undesirable anti-consumer measures (unskippable commercials, forced registration/activation, phone-home systems etc). Terrorists won't get rich selling warez copies of linux, just a thought.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  106. fact is: terrorists use spam, virusses, tojans... by Gunstick · · Score: 1

    Terrorists (or criminals, mafia) use viruses or tojans to install software on people's PCs to get to their bank accounts or credit cards. They also install dialers to get money and many more illegal money milking methods.

    Selling pirated software is much more difficult, dangerous and less profitable.

    --
    Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
  107. war on drugs is terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the war on drugs is all about making sure there's enough rich criminals to bust and fill the private prisons with

  108. Political Donations to fund their Operations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when senators take political donations, take up discounted real estate /shares, land deals, or inside information about sure fire money spinners - in return for.. oh wait, the givers don't really expect anything back - yeah, right.

  109. Logically Congress should Legalise Piracy by giafly · · Score: 1

    ... because nobody is going to buy from a terrorist if they can get the stuff for free from a file-sharer. It's the people who want to keep prices high that are the problem.

    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
  110. How does this even make sense? by i_ate_god · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I'm not going to buy a DVD from a store because I can get it for free from the pirate bay, why would I buy a DVD from an obvious criminal?

    Honestly, I've never figured out the whole "PIRACY FUNDS CRIME" angle since well, the whole premise of piracy is that I can get digital media for free!

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
  111. It's all bullshit anyway by SpacePunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    'IP' (hate that term) piracy is just small beans compared to Identity Theft, and the government doesn't even seem to be considering passing legislation that would protect the victims from identity thieves and the resulting collection hassles.

  112. Filthy rotten soulless shit, all of them by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Soulless because they sell their soul in the first opportunity that comes their way. In this case, its RIAA and the robber companies that support them. check that out - the shit links software piracy to terrorism, and seeks out unquestioned power to detain people because of that.

    there have been many bastards who sold their souls for a sack of cash during the course of history, but probably none of them were as stupid and as filled with filth as this one.

  113. In other news, oil linked to terrorism by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Decades of experience shows that almost all terrorist organizations are supplied by donations from middle eastern countries, which has oil as their main product of export. NSA should arrest anyone driving a car, because they are indirectly supporting terrorism.

  114. Fundining terrorism by pirating goods not new... by The+Empiricist · · Score: 1

    ...and Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey isn't the first to draw a connection. INTERPOL (The International Criminal Police Organization) has identified potential links between IP crime and the financing of terrorist activities:

    Many terrorist groups engage in a variety of organized crimes to fund their activities. As terrorist groups tend to act in similar ways to transnational organized crime groups, it is important to carefully monitor how their activities evolve. There is general agreement that IP crime is a high-profit, low-risk crime, which inevitably motivates criminals to engage in this type of activity. It is clear paramilitary terrorist organizations have traded in counterfeit and pirated goods to maintain their organizations and fund their activities. In light of this, INTERPOL remains concerned about the possibility that some other terrorist groups would seize the opportunity to finance their activities through IP crime.
    It is an issue that needs to be carefully monitored, and evidence of terrorist groups actually engaging in IP crime must be collected in a systematic fashion, if and when it surfaces.

    A 2004 report by the Union des Fabricants also highlighted the links between counterfeiting and terrorism. One excerpt reads:

    According to R.E. Kendal, former General Secretary of Interpol, the connections with organised crime are increasingly obvious. He has written that counterfeiting is a fully-fledged criminal activity that is not on the periphery of other criminal activities but, instead, at their very heart. Similarly, Christophe Zimmerman, a French expert advising the European Commission, has quoted an unusual example: fake boxes of Vaseline, a product used to make certain explosives, were intercepted at the Danish border, having originated from Dubai; the head of the network was a known member of Al Qaeda. According to Chris Merchant from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, the IFPI "has proof of links between terrorism and counterfeiting and industrial piracy". In Northern Ireland, nine arrested terrorists had financed their activities through industrial piracy. In Latin America, links have been established between Middle Eastern terrorist groups and industrial piracy networks. More recently, Islamic terrorist groups in Southeast Asia and the Philippines have used industrial piracy to finance their operations with Al Qaeda. There is nothing new about this phenomenon. As far back as 1992, Muslim fundamentalist groups were suspected of being connected with trafficking in contraband goods and counterfeiting designer products, watches and perfume. In 1993, the police arrested the owner of an import-export company in Paris, whose offices were being used as a base by an Islamic association. A stock of fake designer shirts was also found there. In November 2003, a counterfeiting network between France and Italy was dismantled and thirteen members of the Hijdra Oua Etakfir phalange were arrested. They are suspected of having supplied arms and false papers to Algerian terrorists via a network financed by counterfeiting clothes.

    The assertion that "[c]riminal syndicates, and in some cases even terrorist groups, view IP crime as a lucrative business, and see it as a low-risk way to fund other activities" doesn't seem to be lie given the findings of others. It hardly seems necessary to make extensive references in a public speech given at the Tech Museum of Innovation when identifying supporting finding is easy to do. The speeches given by government officials are boring enough already without turning them into oral treatises to avoid being accused of telling lies.

  115. Better play it safe by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Criminal syndicates, and in some cases even terrorist groups, view IP crime as a lucrative business, and see it as a low-risk way to fund other activities,' Mukasey told a crowd at the Tech Museum of Innovation last week.

    Seeing how I certainly wouldn't want to fund such scum, and how it is impossible for a casual consumer to tell counterweight goods from genuine ones, I suppose this means that I'll have to download all of my IP stuff from BitTorrent from now on. Yes, I know, it might hurt the creators; but if you pay anyone, the money might find its way to the hands of terrorists, and we wouldn't want that, now would we ?

    If you don't warez, the terrorists win ! Think of the children and keep those torrents seeding !

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  116. In a related story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the news within 24 hours if the news wasn't owned by the people who make the movies...

    "This is Jim reporting live at a foreclosed pirated software market in Kabul. In a strange turn of events, though The Pirate Bay was not able to put Microsoft, Apple, Sony, BMG, Universal, Electronic Arts, Activision, or any other Music, Movie, or Software studio out of business, we have new reports that they did manage to Bankrupt Al Queda. In markets like this all over Afghanistan, shelves sit stocked with thousands of CDs of pirated software just like this, which nobody will buy. I mean, they have Microsoft Office, Adobe Acrobat, and Transformers here, and they can't sell them for $1 each! The reason? It appears that when people discovered they could download pirated software for free instead of paying a terrorist a reduced price for it, they chose to download it for free and hurt nobody. So Tom, it appears that piracy both supports terrorism and bankrupts it. Also, within the walls of Congress, we have reports from another field reporter that pigs do actually fly and walking on anything but the ceiling is considered abnormal. This has been Jim reporting live from a foreclosed pirated software market in Kabul. Back to you in the newsroom."

  117. Really by danwesnor · · Score: 1

    Does any one really think that the terrorists are more worried about IP law than they are with a Predator dropping a missle on their hut?

  118. International Relations is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one country shagging another...

    Mulkaskey is going after two birds with one stone: he is effectively telling off the Chinese(since the ROC thinks that it owns ALL intellectual property and is silently complicit in this), while putting a stranglehold on domestic P2P...

    They are using DHS to put terror watches on Swap Meets and Open-Air Markets...not for the security, but for the free-market exchange that doesn't involve traceable payments and purchases (zebra codes and MasterCards).

    The cronies in the stock market let venture capitalists drive the housing market up just for profiteering, and now all the banks are left holding the bag--where us taxpayers have to pay for, and the administration is drumming up a regulatory body for Real Estate transactions...thereby nationalizing any land transfers...

    Welcome friends, can you say Nationalistic Socialism here in the U.S.? Mulkaskey's statement is just a hidden agenda from ALL politicians, not just Donkeys and Pachyderms..

  119. More 'terrorism' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fake 'terrorism' and fake 'terrorists' behind every corner. The War on Terror, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
    They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
    They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
    They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
    They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
    They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
    They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
    Write in Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.
    Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
    America Deceived (book)

  120. B.S.! It's Spam that funds terrorism, not piracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Downloading MP3s does not fund terrorism, but all those dollars being sent by people to shady operations as a result of receiving email spam sure does! I've got several thousand copies of evidence to support my claim in my in-box.

    Whether you laugh or ponder, the spam / terrorism link is far more credible than the piracy / terrorism link.
    Even if no such link exists, we'd be better off in terms of improving quality of life by spending the tax dollars on fighting spam than on fighting piracy.