San Diego GOP Chairman Alleged To Be a Fairlight Co-Founder

Airw0lf writes with a claim that appears too implausible to credit, at first glance: "If anyone remembers 'Fairlight' — one of the great groups on the warez scene, you may be interested to know that one of their leaders, Tony Krvaric, is now the chairman of the San Diego Republican Party." A similar report (on which the TorrentFreak story above draws heavily, and which is cited for the same claim about Krvaric made in the above-linked Wikipedia entry) showed up last week in The Raw Story. According to these reports, Krvaric is the same person known as "strider" in the Warez scene. I called Krvaric seeking comment; though he was unavailable, I hope he chooses to comment by email to help inform any followup coverage. A telephone receptionist at the office of the San Diego Republican Party acknowledged that she knew of the claims, but refused further comment, citing workplace rules. While she would not directly acknowledge or deny the truth of the allegations, she asked me to "remember, these are things that happened more than 20 years ago." Since some people have been penalized quite harshly (and some have been jailed) for the sort of large-scale software piracy that Fairlight enabled, it's interesting that Krvaric has enjoyed instead a meteoric rise in conservative politics.

Comments

Re:Duh

[Kadin2048]

> they want everyone else to pay for the public good of a social safety net

Um, I'm pretty sure Libertarians are against the existence of a taxpayer-supported safety net in most cases, so I'm not sure how you think this translates into wanting "everyone else to pay for one." They don't want it to exist, period, meaning that they obviously don't want to pay for it. Whether they want other people to be able to pay for it (voluntarily, perhaps), or whether they're against it more fundamentally, is a bit more complex.

90% of political disagreements basically boil down to fundamental differences of opinion as to whether government is a good deal for what you pay. Socialists and leftists mostly feel that you get a good ROI for your tax dollar; supporting a larger government makes sense when taken from this premise. Libertarians and true conservatives don't feel that it's money well spent, and would cut government to the bare minimum on this basis. (Incidentally: 'progressive' tax policies that increase the marginal tax rate based on income pretty much guarantee that the wealthy will always be mostly conservative, since they'll end up paying more for basically the same services.)

One of the reasons political discourse in the U.S. is so unproductive (IMO, anyway) is because there's too much emotional rhetoric and very little discussion about the fundamental issue, which is whether or not most people are getting a good deal for what they're paying.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Daniel Dvorkin]

So if I do something I stupid when I'm younger and grow to regret it and speak against it as I age, I'm a hypocrite?

Not at all, and that were what Krvaric were doing, no problem. But that's not what he's doing; instead, in typical Republican fashion, he's blowing it off and suggesting that it must be Those Evil Lefties making an issue of it for Their Own Nefarious Purposes.

From the Raw Story article:

"Apparently there's a hit piece floating around on me, 'exposing' my wild high school, teenage years where I was in a computer club where we swapped Commodore 64 games (similar to how kids swap mp3 music files these days)," he wrote Monday. ... "I don't know who is spreading this," he concluded, "but just wanted to let you know what's going on out there. Likely it's someone who wants us to take our eye off the ball in 2008, be it the democrats, labor or someone else. Either way, we're not going to let them get away with it. Thanks for your leadership." ... Strider was asked in an interview if he had any regrets about his hacking days. "No," he replied.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Kadin2048]

Some Republicans present themselves as "the law'n'order party". However, you're making a mistake to treat all self-identified conservatives, or even all Republicans, as part of a uniform, monolithic entity. There are pretty deep schisms within the Republican party; actually it's pretty amazing that it keeps ticking along at all without imploding. (I have my doubts that it will survive with its current leadership intact if McCain loses.)

There's a wing of the Republican party that's borderline Libertarian (including being pro-choice), there's a large section that's pretty bluntly theocratic/authoritarian, and there's a substantial middle that's driven by financial and business concerns and is pragmatic when it comes to everything else.

I don't really care for them as an organization since the authoritarians seemingly took over, but I think you're dangerously oversimplifying. They do not "buil[d] [their] entire platform on God and Country and Traditional Values," one section of the party presents their platform to one (rather large) slice of voters that way. I can assure you the Rockefeller Republicans don't present the party to the NYC banking elite -- who are a major source of donations -- that way. Similarly, Democratic candidates courting votes in the Midwest aren't singing the same tune as Feinstein and other apparachiks do when they pass the hat around Hollywood.

The best way to understand the Republican party on the national level (and the Democratic party also) is not as a single entity, but as an agglomeration of smaller factions with wildly differing ideas about how government ought to work. They form a united front and attempt to create a plank out of self-interest and because they think that's the most effective way to promote their agendas, not true ideological agreement on many issues.

Re:Republican Motto:

[spun]

It's from the same damn study you mentioned! I guess you didn't read that part though.

So what did he say? Dynastic Succession...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Do as I say, not as I do.

So what did he actually say? Or are you just ASSUMING he quacks the same duckspeak you believe all Republicans quack?

In case you hadn't noticed, there's a war of dynastic succession going on in the GOP. The Constitutionalists, Libertarian Minarchists, and a plethora of other freedom-loving people (mainly inspired by Ron Paul) are attempting to wrest the party from the death-grip of the neocon faction. It's just getting started, and it's already getting very ugly. (See _The Revolution - a manefesto_ - just out and #1 on Amazon.)

Now I have no idea whether Tony Krvaric himself is a "Ron Paul Republican". But that group is large, largely young, and (so far) mostly internet-connected. And their ideology is a close match to that of many of the denizens of Slashdot.

So don't be surprised to see a LOT of people with reps like Tony's in the Republican party in the near future. Complete with mud-slinging campaigns against them, as the powers-that-be try frantically to keep hold of the political machinery.

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty'

[statemachine]

How's this: the "warez scene" that grows around the underground trading of software is like the "drug scene" that grows around the underground traffic of illegal drugs.

I see the picture you're trying to paint, but it has the wrong focus. Tony Kvaric was not just some impressionable young member, he is the co-founder of Fairlight. To correctly expand your analogy about the "drug scene," it would be as if Pablo Escobar of the Medellin Cartel had come to the USA and become a Democratic Party leader.

I'm all for people changing, but Tony Kvaric hasn't admitted anything yet. Without that, he's a huge hypocrite because he hasn't shown us he's incapable of change.

Re:Republican Motto:

[alexgieg]

You're confusing free market economics with libertarianism. You're an economically naive libertarian, not an advocate of free markets.

Nope. This is simple. A "market" is what happens when a minimum of two individuals want to exchange what each produced. A "free market" is when they can proceed with the exchange without the interference of a 3rd party. The end.