Slashdot Mirror


DECAF Was Just a Stunt, Now Over

An anonymous reader writes to tell us of the de-activation of all copies of DECAF. The creators have announced that the DECAF project was nothing more than a "stunt to raise awareness for security and the need for better forensic tools." Originally DECAF was billed as a tool to stop Microsoft's forensic tool "COFEE" and was covered here earlier this week. In addition to their message of security the authors somehow manage to interject a discussion about religion, so who knows what the real goal was.

206 comments

  1. heh by farlukar · · Score: 5, Funny

    0xDECAFBAD

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une .sig
    1. Re:heh by BeardedChimp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Very bad;
      "As you probably noticed, your copy of DECAF no longer works. We have disabled every copy of DECAF."

      They left the ability in to remotely control how the software behaves. Anyone who installed this let this be a lesson for you.

    2. Re:heh by batquux · · Score: 1

      DECAF l33t

    3. Re:heh by zullnero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait a minute. I never even tried it out...are you sure they had the capability to remote control it? Or did it just have some sort of built in time limiter the whole time? If I were intending something to be a stunt, I for one wouldn't bother remote controlling it unless I had some sort of botnet scheme in my head. I'd just set a simple timeout and make it shut down.

      It's also strange that I didn't hear many reports about it not working. I guess then the question becomes, how do you know if it's working or not? Do you have a pirated version of COFEE to test it out with?

      It'd be interesting though if someone were to hook up a sniffer on their line, leave DECAF installed, and see what happens.

    4. Re:heh by jd_mccloud · · Score: 3, Informative

      They might have shutdown decafme.org server but that is simple to get around. Full details: http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2009/12/reactivating-decaf-in-two-minutes/.
      Plus the whole Hoax angle is totally false itself.

  2. OMFG WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are we going to do now?!!!

  3. Just wow by jaymz404 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wow at self righteous religious bullcrap.

    1. Re:Just wow by clarkn0va · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Religious? yes. Bullcrap? your point of view. Self-righteous? not at all.

      I found that last part a little out of place, but then that's their site, so let them post whatever testimonial they want. Is it any worse or more out of place than the testimonials for atheism or libertarianism or whatever-ism found right here in this discussion and elsewhere on this site (which is not anybody's site, but a public forum)?

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    2. Re:Just wow by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah well the atheists and libertarians that you don't like are merely posting comments on this site. I may not like libertarians, but I can't remember the last time one of them wrote a timebomb malware program, to go off at a set point, and give me a pro-libertarian screed.

    3. Re:Just wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a libertarian you self-righteous twit!

    4. Re:Just wow by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      LOL Hey, I don't hate you, I just hate your ideas! At least you don't write malware programs to preach them to me! :D

    5. Re:Just wow by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, I guess Greenspan's economic policies aren't exactly a program, in the CS sense of the term; but they otherwise fit the bill pretty well...

    6. Re:Just wow by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, in the original Slashdot DECAF article, there were a large number of folks who guessed that this might be a piece of malware, or at least not be what it appeared. Given that they were essentially right and the author's credibility now has to be seen as zero, what weight should be given to his profession of faith? I have to wonder if he isn't a non-Christian, since deceiving people is against Christian principles.

      DECAF was a meta-troll.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    7. Re:Just wow by Vendetta · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yes, because we all know that no self-professed "Christian" has ever deceived anyone. It therefore has to be one of those awful brown people you see so much about in the news.

    8. Re:Just wow by nacturation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I found that last part a little out of place, but then that's their site, so let them post whatever testimonial they want.

      It's their site and their right, but in general using a technical discussion to shoehorn in religious promotion is considered bad form, to put it mildly.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    9. Re:Just wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "deceiving people is against Christian principles. " != "no self-professed Christian has ever deceived anyone"

    10. Re:Just wow by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    11. Re:Just wow by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Settle down. The point was simple. What he does is more important (and more revealing about who he really is) than what he says.

      After the bullshit that was DECAF, do you really believe anything he might have to say about being a Christian? Do you suppose that it just might be another calculated troll?

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    12. Re:Just wow by matastas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being a self-righteous prick with that last statement regarding Christianity. Deceiving people is against the tenets of many, many religions; likewise, there are a frightening volume of scammers, swindlers, abusers, liars, deceivers, moral pretenders, and downright assholes flying under the banner of Christianity. Just because someone is deceiving folks doesn't mean they're not a Christian, and a statement to that effect is along the lines of why the more evangelical Christian community bugs the shit out of everyone else.

    13. Re:Just wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about using religious discussion to shoehorn technical promotion? I'm getting really tired of my pastor's suggestions that Vim is a better editor than Emacs.

    14. Re:Just wow by Toonol · · Score: 0

      Wow, you willfully misinterpret what he said, and throw in racist comments; ironically, you probably view yourself as a smart, unbiased person.

    15. Re:Just wow by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      Wait, wait a minute...ALL OF YOU! Hold on a sec...how do you know that the page wasn't satire?!

      Looks like y'all may have been mega-trolled.

    16. Re:Just wow by couchslug · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "I have to wonder if he isn't a non-Christian, since deceiving people is against Christian principles. "

      Christian practice has eradicated any trust of professed Christian principles by anyone but Christians.

      Only the most backward now believe in religion (examine Christian popularity in Latin American and Africa), while in the US the Catholic Church has dispensed roughly a billion dollars in pedo settlement hush money.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    17. Re:Just wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No REAL Christian would dare choose vi over emacs!

    18. Re:Just wow by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being a self-righteous prick

      Heh heh. I'm certain that from time to time I am a self-righteous prick, but not this time (not intentionally, anyway). I was pointing out the irony of his conduct vs. his profession of faith, not as evidence that he's a good or bad Christian, but because I think he's carrying out an elaborate troll-on-top-of-a-troll.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    19. Re:Just wow by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Only the most backward now believe in religion

      Only the most smug and arrogant sneer at others like that.

      On a lighter note,

      [vader]
      "I find your lack of faith disturbing."
      [/vader]

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    20. Re:Just wow by crashandburn66 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Mod parent up (as insightful), please. This is so true.

    21. Re:Just wow by crashandburn66 · · Score: 1

      Here, this might be helpful in understanding the parent's post:

      Sarcasm

    22. Re:Just wow by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that there's Libertarians with a capital L and libertarians with a lowercase l. It's a subtle but important difference.

      Libertarians are, IMO, the nutjobs - the ones that believe in things like aboloshing private property and all social authority systems (governments, etc.).

      libertarians just want to be able to smoke up whatever the fuck without the government caring.

      But seriously, I consider myself a libertarian with a little L. I am rabidly against any nanny-state sort of laws. The government shouldn't have the right to tell me what I can or can not do with my own body and/or with another consenting adult (or adults, if I got lucky at the night club).

    23. Re:Just wow by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      And of course, libertarians like small businesses, whereas Libertarians hate all businesses.

      --
      $ make available
    24. Re:Just wow by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Yay absolutes! :-D

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    25. Re:Just wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deceiving people is against the tenets of many, many religions;

      Snicker. The underlying foundation of any religion is getting folks to follow the beliefs of your religion. Religion is absolutely deceptive when they're convincing their congregation that a fictitious god really exists. So it's only a sin when you lie to a few people, as opposed to your entire congregation?

    26. Re:Just wow by fractoid · · Score: 1

      I'm an atheist myself, but you, sir, are begging the question. Religion is only deceptive towards their congregation if you take it as given that God does not exist. If we're wrong and God does, in fact, exist, then you are the one who is lying to everyone who reads your post.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    27. Re:Just wow by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      I'm an atheist myself, but you, sir, are begging the question. Religion is only deceptive towards their congregation if you take it as given that God does not exist. If we're wrong and God does, in fact, exist, then you are the one who is lying to everyone who reads your post.

      He's got a point. The Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, and Atheists all have their differing views of a higher power. They all can't be right, and the majority will be wrong. I wouldn't label them as deceptive though, as I don't think they are knowingly telling falsehoods. Well, except maybe the Scientology kooks and a few of the other cults out there. I have no problem if someone want's to believe differently than I do, but I do get annoyed when they keep shoving it down my throat and insisting that they're better because they are religious (or at least pretend to be).

      Personally, I'd have to call myself agnostic. I don't believe in a god with full blown personality that gives a crap about me as an individual as depicted by most religions. But I also won't completely rule out some form of higher power or lifeform that we don't see or understand.

    28. Re:Just wow by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      That's why they call them "faiths" - because to really believe in one, you have to have faith in it.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    29. Re:Just wow by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Religion is only deceptive towards their congregation if you take it as given that God does not exist. If we're wrong and God does, in fact, exist, then you are the one who is lying to everyone who reads your post.

      The concepts of deception and lying imply intentionality. As long as you actually believe what you're saying, you're not lying. You might be a moron for believing such inane crap (that goes to atheists and theists both, in a typical religious debate), but you're a honest moron.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  4. Timebombware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is a perfect example of a software time bomb. I hope anyone who downloaded it learned their lesson. Unlikely, since anyone who downloaded it is still using Windows.

    1. Re:Timebombware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there are a lot of Windows users on Slashdot. I was expecting to get modded -1 Troll right away by them.

    2. Re:Timebombware by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      Trying to karma whore as an AC would be a good example of doing it wrong.

      Your post is another good example.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    3. Re:Timebombware by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps most of us are Windows users that did not download and install the program?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Timebombware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a karma whore posts a comment, but they do it anonymously, are they still a karma whore?

    5. Re:Timebombware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a karma whore whores in the woods and nobody is around to mod it, is it still whoring?

    6. Re:Timebombware by sentientbeing · · Score: 1

      Yeah but theres no advantage to it. Its sorta like a prostitute doing volunteer work

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    7. Re:Timebombware by NatasRevol · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, sorority chicks???

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    8. Re:Timebombware by Sygnus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah but theres no advantage to it. Its sorta like a prostitute doing volunteer work

      Would that be pro boner work?

      --
      First posting isn't trolling. It's...first posting. :) -- Illiad
    9. Re:Timebombware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Don't you mean 'pro bono'?"

      "I know what I said."

      If only I could remember where I heard that...

    10. Re:Timebombware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much karma could a karma whore whore if a karma whore could whore karma?

    11. Re:Timebombware by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      It's kind of like a karma glory hole. Yeah, it's scuzzy and slutty, but anonymous.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  5. I believe I speak for everybody by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Funny

    When after reading that I reply with "WTF?"

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:I believe I speak for everybody by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously. I read the summary. I read the article. I read the discussion on slashdot about the initial news posting. I still don't get what DECAF was exactly supposed to do, what it actually is doing, and what message the author of DECAF thinks he is sending with whatever his software does.

      Worst. Story. EVER!

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:I believe I speak for everybody by LOLLinux · · Score: 1

      He was using it as a way to prosthelytize for jeebus.

    3. Re:I believe I speak for everybody by r00tyroot · · Score: 2, Funny

      or, WTFWJD?

    4. Re:I believe I speak for everybody by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Seriously. I read the summary. I read the article. I read the discussion on slashdot about the initial news posting. I still don't get what DECAF was exactly supposed to do, what it actually is doing, and what message the author of DECAF thinks he is sending with whatever his software does.

      COFFEE is an idiotbox collection of tools that Microsoft put together for police to do "forensics" on computers.
      DECAF runs on your computer and allegedly checks for/neutralizes/prevents COFFEE.
      The author's general message is "don't trust" and "Jesus"

      If you couldn't figure any of that out, you may want to consider improving your reading comprehension skills.
      What's more likely is that you aren't so stupid, but like to pretend you are on /.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:I believe I speak for everybody by JThundley · · Score: 1

      Well that was the controversy, nobody knew what DECAF was supposed to do. Their site only made vague claims of blocking cops from using COFEE to get information off of your computer.

  6. Huh what? by runyonave · · Score: 1
    1. make fake software.
    2. make fake software work like it will outshine a proprietary software.

    Result
    Make people fall for my religion

    1. Re:Huh what? by pitchpipe · · Score: 1

      In addition to their message of security the authors somehow manage to interject a discussion about religion so who knows what the real goal was.

      Is anyone hiring professional trolls? These guys must be rejects from Microsoft's FUD division.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    2. Re:Huh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!

    3. Re:Huh what? by natehoy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you meant this:

      1. Make fake software.
      2. Make fake software work like it will outshine proprietary software.
      3. ???
      4. Prophet

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    4. Re:Huh what? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      a Pun AND a Meme.

      This deserves to be a Score:6 comment.

    5. Re:Huh what? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Oh, bravo! Kudos, etc.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    6. Re:Huh what? by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I would have used FTFY, but I figured the convergence of pun and meme would cause a breach in the pun-meme continuum.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    7. Re:Huh what? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Well played sir. The only time a 123??4 Profit joke has ever made me laugh.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    8. Re:Huh what? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Sadly not original. See previous threads about Scientology or Islam for instances of the same joke.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:Huh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly not original. See previous threads about Scientology or Islam for instances of the same joke

      Aw, c'mon - don't spoil it for the high-UID guy.

  7. Good luck with that. by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can see what they are getting at but it is a real douche thing for them to be all "shame on you!" for downloading and using software that they themselves created, provided, and handed out. I can't see a whole lot of people taking them seriously, as a result.

    1. Re:Good luck with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off topic, but... how can you truly "be all shame on you". I can see how you can be the best you can be, you can be a dumbass, you can be brilliant, you can be tall, short, ugly, beautiful, many many other things, but not how you can be "all shame on you".

    2. Re:Good luck with that. by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      That's because you don't speak English well enough to parse the sentence.

      "be all shame on you" = "say 'shame on you' empathically"

      There's a lot of nuance missing as well, but that's the closest you'll get.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    3. Re:Good luck with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lrn2english

    4. Re:Good luck with that. by causality · · Score: 1

      I can see what they are getting at but it is a real douche thing for them to be all "shame on you!" for downloading and using software that they themselves created, provided, and handed out. I can't see a whole lot of people taking them seriously, as a result.

      The lesson here is that serious security software is not a black box. It's something you can audit and verify. And yes, shame on anyone who thought otherwise and fell for this. They should consider themselves fortunate that this one was rather benign. It could have easily done real damage.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:Good luck with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can speak English just fine, thank you. Not sure what language actually lets you make shit up though.

  8. Ummmm... Okay? by Beelzebud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I saw the original announcement of this program, I was skeptical of what it was actually for. However, I didn't see this type of angle coming! LOL, wow!

    If you actually downloaded this thing, let this be a valuable lesson. Don't be gullible. This could have been a virus for your computer, instead of one for your mind.

  9. disappointing by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In addition to their message of security the authors somehow manage to interject a discussion about religion so who knows what the real goal was.

    Considering that all but the first paragraph of the article was the religious message its self, I'd say that it is pretty clear what the goal was.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:disappointing by msimm · · Score: 4, Funny

      God is a security conscious douche?

      --
      Quack, quack.
    2. Re:disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Of course he was, consider this electronic fable about his son:


      Jesus and Satan have a discussion as to who is the better programmer. This goes on for a few hours until they come to an agreement to hold a contest, with God as the judge.

      They sit themselves at their computers and begin. They type furiously, lines of code streaming up the screen, for several hours straight. Seconds before the end of the competition, a bolt of lightning strikes, taking out the electricity. Moments later, the power is restored, and God announces that the contest is over.

      He asks Satan to show what he has come up with. Satan is visibly upset, and cries, "I have nothing. I lost it all when the power went out."

      "Very well, then," says God, "let us see if Jesus fared any better."

      Jesus enters a command, and the screen comes to life in vivid display, the voices of an angelic choir pour forth from the speakers. Satan is astonished.

      He stutters, "B-b-but how? I lost everything, yet Jesus' program is intact. How did he do it?"

      God smiled all-knowingly, "Jesus saves."

    3. Re:disappointing by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Of course. God installed the first firewall in history at the entry of paradise, to protect his Apple.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  10. For the lulz... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This troop reminds me of the Yes Men! Their efforts point out the flaws and absurdities in things that should otherwise not have been.

    I applaud them for their efforts, since they seem to have succeeded in raising awareness. Combating and defeating COFEE on the other hand, is something left up to the user.

  11. Ha by Improv · · Score: 1

    I think the coffee was spiked with something.

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  12. Disabled? How? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    How exactly are they going to disable it remotely, when my firewall blocks the connections, and I can always reinstall a cracked download, when it disables itself with a timer?

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:Disabled? How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be something simple like having it not work if the system time is after a certain point. Sure, people who really still wanted to "use" it could set their clock back in time, but we really don't have any indication that it was even doing anything anyway. Even if you were willing to trust it beforehand, why would you still trust it now to "fight COFEE"?

    2. Re:Disabled? How? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Why would you?

      Have you evaluated it and figured out that it does anything useful?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Disabled? How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. It's a silly claim to say 'we have deactivated all copies of DECAF'. It's a bit hard to deactivate DECAF in an isolated virtual machine where every day is December 1st 2009.

    4. Re:Disabled? How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Maybe the software never did anything in the first place.

    5. Re:Disabled? How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Neither of those two will get it working again, it phones home and breaks if the proper message isn't sent. Of course you can set up a virtual host in Apache and a script to send the message and modify your hosts to point to your local copy, and it will work as before.

  13. Re:Ummmm... Okay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ironic that the message to be learned from a group of people pushing a religious agenda is "Don't be gullible."

  14. Re:Ummmm... Okay? by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

    Not really, I think that's one of the best lessons to be learned from people pushing a religious agenda. :)

  15. Clearly this was chicory by assemblerex · · Score: 1

    and not even cofee based in the first place...

  16. Lie, cheat, and steal for Christ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're doing it wrong.

    1. Re:Lie, cheat, and steal for Christ! by telomerewhythere · · Score: 0

      That is so what I was going to say. It's almost like they're trying to give Jesus a bad name.

      I find Gandhi's quote appropriate: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

    2. Re:Lie, cheat, and steal for Christ! by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Informative

      One of my favorite quotes. But the actual quote is "I do not reject your Christ, I love your Christ. It is just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."
      Gandhi never actually said he did not like Christians, just that they do not act like Christ.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    3. Re:Lie, cheat, and steal for Christ! by telomerewhythere · · Score: 1

      I don't do this often, and I did look, but [citation please]

      This is what I found in Wikipedia:

      "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time."

      * As quoted by William Rees-Mogg in The Times [London] (4 April 2005) {not found}. Gandhi here makes reference to a statement of Jesus: “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:13); also partly quoted in Christianity in the Crosshairs : Real Life Solutions Discovered in the Line of Fire (2004) by Bill Wilson

      There seems to have been something on snopes about this but I couldn't find it...seems to no longer be there.

      I'm not trying to pick a fight, if its there, even in a dead tree reference, let me know where. Thank you

  17. That wasn't weird or anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad that wasn't weird or anything... lol wtf

  18. What is it that is bad, exactly? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What is it that is bad, exactly?
    1. All copies of the software were deactivated remotely
    2. The whole thing was a hoax
    3. The hoax was to raise awareness
    4. The author used the publicity to advocate a cause that he personally considers important

    Which of these are bad? And why? I've often heard that getting a personal message out via publicity stunts is a good thing (The Yes Men) and now all the sudden it's bad, and we should pay no attention to these reprehensible people whose only method is deceit?

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:What is it that is bad, exactly? by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      Well the Yes Men don't try to get me to install stuff to my PC for one thing. This time we're assuming it's something harmless, but this would have been a fantastic way to do something malicious.
      Many people will poke fun at the religious angle of it, but frankly I would be critical of this stunt even if it was for a cause I believed in.

    2. Re:What is it that is bad, exactly? by LOLLinux · · Score: 1

      Because using lies and hoaxes to spread the word of Jeebus is somewhat hypocritical?

    3. Re:What is it that is bad, exactly? by tigre · · Score: 1

      Many people will poke fun at the religious angle of it, but frankly I would be critical of this stunt even if it was for a cause I believed in.

      And seeing as it _is_ a cause I believe in, I will chime in with said criticism. It's not unlike those tracts that look like money that people sometimes leave as "tips". Great way to get attention, but in the end it's generally the wrong kind of attention, rather anti-persuasive.

    4. Re:What is it that is bad, exactly? by Conchobair · · Score: 1

      What did they lie about? It might not have been what you expected, but I see no lies here.

    5. Re:What is it that is bad, exactly? by selven · · Score: 1

      The fact that all copies of the software were deactivated remotely. It's a needless act of destruction, only somewhat justified by the fact that they themselves created it.

    6. Re:What is it that is bad, exactly? by causality · · Score: 1

      Well the Yes Men don't try to get me to install stuff to my PC for one thing.

      If they succeed in getting you to download, install, and execute untrusted and unvetted code, that's your fault. I really consider any "threat" that requires my active participation to be a complete and total non-issue.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    7. Re:What is it that is bad, exactly? by crashumbc · · Score: 1

      What did they lie about? It might not have been what you expected, but I see no lies here.

      LOL, thank you for restoring my belief that people will defend anything. Either that or you really are blind, using a brail keyboard? (hint: go read the definition of "LYING")

    8. Re:What is it that is bad, exactly? by Conchobair · · Score: 1

      lie - an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker.

      They put out a product which did exactly what is said it did. I have not seen anyone reporting otherwise and then they disabled it. Where was the lie?

    9. Re:What is it that is bad, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great way to get attention, but in the end it's generally the wrong kind of attention, rather anti-persuasive.

      Just like getting crucified for our sins.

  19. Re:Ummmm... Okay? by Aladrin · · Score: 1

    True. But it's ironic that is the message they -want- you to learn.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  20. I See A Beautiful Thing Here by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    The Genie is out of the bottle. This has been an excellent learning experience. We now know of a couple of hundred utilities that will clean up some far away places in Windows. My personal thanks to those that made these programs.

  21. Re:Good luck with Jesus, buddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you just die and rot then what difference does it make how you spend your time anyway?

  22. So release a crack by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    Come on, this is good and easy fun. Pop it in IDA, trace it down to its fail point (calls to check the date?), replace critical code (i.e. jumps) with a fixed condition (i.e. jmp rather than jge), and done. The branch can be fixed; or the entire call/compare/branch can even be replaced with nop, nop, jump. It's even feasible to replace the 4 + 2 byte call with CMP %eax, %eax and a NOP, and the branch with a JZ branch (jump if comparison is equal/zero/etc).

    1. Re:So release a crack by techhead79 · · Score: 1

      Great idea, so do you want to sift through countless lines of assembly. Why are we jumping to assembly though...who says a decompiler wont produce good enough code first? But I got a better question for you, why do you think it did what it claimed to in the first place?

      My vote is the NSA nocked on his door and told him he can undo the damage he did or they send him to prison as a terrorist...and lucky him he put a back door in so he can see what everyone was trying to hide. I mean come on the NSA/FBI what have you can't install their crap on every system in the world...what better way than to get someone to write up a program that gets all the idiots in the world to install a program for them that does the same thing?

    2. Re:So release a crack by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Great idea, so do you want to sift through countless lines of assembly.

      Run, generate a call trace, walk backwards to a suspicious function (one that calls getdatetime() or such), etc. It's easy to find system calls and log the call path with a debugger. This is more a strategy exercise than an exercise in brute force reading and altering raw code, which means it's both fun and actually not much work if you know what you're doing.

      Why are we jumping to assembly though...who says a decompiler wont produce good enough code first?

      Because there's no such thing. Optimization destroys decompilation. Currently the very best and most awesome decompilers generate a clunk of garbage code, and then you have to examine it and determine structure, feed that back to the decompiler, and it uses the new information to generate a better decompilation. In the end it's still garbage code, but it shapes up well enough.

      Besides, a decompile is less intuitive than tracing debugging for this problem.

      My vote is the NSA nocked on his door and

      And you need to remove your idiot cap. This makes no sense in the scope of the real world.

    3. Re:So release a crack by techhead79 · · Score: 1
      Well I'm sorry we both live in different realities. I've never went through a large app in assembly before...but I'm no hacker/cracker what have you so I'm sure there are many like yourself that find it fun...I WOULD NOT.

      I have used decompilers before, it answered my questions for the problems I've run into. Your statements make it sound like they are useless. They work for some people but obviously while they work in my reality they don't work in yours well enough.

      And you need to remove your idiot cap. This makes no sense in the scope of the real world.

      Actually the NSA comment was in response to this PBS thing that was on last night that I saw. Apparently there is an NSA "room" in some ATT building on the west coast that soaks up every incoming communication from Asia...every incoming communication...and enough data is sifted through for...well...that's off topic...but still. The CIA/NSA have done dumber stuff before...but as we've both decided we don't live in the same reality.

      Happy hacking!

      Besides...at least for me the times I did a key registry for an app once I didn't just check the time...I dumped a bunch of keys in the registry, added a temp file not in the program dir with time stamps and had it fail if system time was in the past of those time stamps or in the future of the cut off date. It's not as simple as just checking the date/time...and by the sounds of TFA it was remote triggered? Which means no date/time check.

    4. Re:So release a crack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did you learn your trade at Fravia , in the year of 1996 ?

    5. Re:So release a crack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already been disassembled! I'd have to track it down for you.

    6. Re:So release a crack by techhead79 · · Score: 1

      I haven't been following this story very well. Has someone confirmed it actually does what it claims to yet?

    7. Re:So release a crack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just have no idea of what he is talking about.

      You cannot crack with a decompiler, you cannot even get your own compiled unoptimized code to decompile to anything meaningful in the first place, let alone something that could be use to produce a new version.

      Unless you decompiled VB3 code or old Java(Both of them interpreted languages whereas this is a binary), you are lying - and in any case you are wrong.

    8. Re:So release a crack by techhead79 · · Score: 1

      You just have no idea of what he is talking about.

      No actually I do. What's so funny about this conversation is that in no way did I say he was wrong...or that what he was doing is the wrong way to do it...yet both "you" and he seam to read my posts the same way. To put it clearer, I'm not arguing here...at all.

      The code I decompiled was java...sorry wasn't lying..and I have no idea when the program was written.

      Guess I should restate this somehow so no one interprets it as telling someone else off...how can I say this...

      First of all, I (also read as me myself and I and no one else on this planet but me speaking for myself), would not in any way go download someone elses code that stops a government from spying on me...because there are many other ways to secure your system than trusting someone you don't know with it...because you don't know what that program is honestly doing...and because I don't even have the original code it claims to prevent from running to test it with.

      Second of all, I would not jump in and start tinkering with some app I know nothing about. The first goal should not be to look for some stupid flag set somewhere or some time function call at a point in time when the program stops (as I said it probably does a lot more to check the validity of running besides just a simple example provide by the OP). The first goal should be to confirm it does what it says to. So if I were to tackle this problem the first thing I would do would be to startup a VM and install MS's COFFEE, assuming I could find a copy. Compare the images before and after and make notes of all changes made. The next step I would do would be to install DECAF and confirm it removed and stopped COFFEE. The next step after this that I would take would be to decompile it. Yes...me...I...what have you would go the stupid dumb route and use a decompiler on it...why? OMG Why would I do such a horrid thing against mankind? Even if it doesn't decompile the code correctly it would decompile it to understand the overall logic followed. If you honestly want to tell me that it would be a waste of my time...great...in meeting the goal of cracking the system to "work" again...yes it maybe. But in understand what the program actually does...well I would decompile it first. If I can't figure out head or tails from that I would at least try and narrow down the area to look at. The next step I would take would be to start looking at the assembly and then start using steps that the OP said he would do. Locate the areas in which the program halted and try to identify exactly what it is doing...not just replace a jump line with something that makes it run...but actually understand if this is the only place that breaks the program and prevents it from running. I have never done this nor found a reason to...and the concept that someone would find a reason to baffles me...what possible gain do you have from doing this thing? Geek points is all you would gain...and honestly I don't give a crap what other geeks think of my abilities. I don't want to create some dumb ass name for myself or plaster my online persona name all over someone's website. I don't have an ego to protect or inflate. There is NOTHING of value in this code...NOTHING worth wasting time over...and surely NOTHING worthy of my attention. Because honestly it has no value in the "real world" even if it works exactly as it claims.

      But by all means...continue the argument I wasn't engaged in without me...

    9. Re:So release a crack by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The first goal should not be to look for some stupid flag set somewhere or some time function call at a point in time when the program stops (as I said it probably does a lot more to check the validity of running besides just a simple example provide by the OP).

      In bare machine code, no matter how much checking you do, no matter how much scatterbrained execution loops you run through, eventually you jump to either an error function or you continue execution. If, at the first of five million checks, you replace the branch or the call or variable assignment or just the code for the call or check itself with "Jump to the part that says okay we're good let's go," it will... continue execution like normal. Fact of life. If there's six thousand tanks in front of you, and you go around a nearby mountain, the tanks will not shoot at you because they are not where you are.

      I would take would be to decompile it. Yes...me...I...what have you would go the stupid dumb route and use a decompiler on it...why? OMG Why would I do such a horrid thing against mankind? Even if it doesn't decompile the code correctly it would decompile it to understand the overall logic followed.

      You used a decompiler on Java once, good for you. This is in C. The difference is that the logic of a compiled C program isn't the logic of the C source code used to generate it; static functions (i.e. functions not called from other source code files) are often combined into one big function, shifted around based on their call structure, and in some cases optimized out almost entirely. Whole swaths of code are replaced. Recursion is often optimized into a single non-looping iteration, even for complex things like the Ackermann function implemented recursively. Java and .NET do that at runtime, by profiling.

      Using a tracing debugger means the program executes, and you follow the logic. It generates a graph of what the program has done and where it has gone; in some debuggers, you can even execute the program backwards, because it logs every single state change. In the worst case, you get a call trace, and can study that and insert break points to narrow down the program's behavior. In better cases, you can get a list of all conditional branches taken during execution.

      You don't seem to appreciate the mess you're dealing with decompiling a pre-optimized C program versus an unoptimized Java program that will be optimized during execution by the runtime profiler.

      Also you're back in the paranoid "this program must be evil and the CIA is monitoring my intarwebz!" argument again.

    10. Re:So release a crack by techhead79 · · Score: 1

      I had to look up that program you mentioned before. You've sufficiantly interested me in actually doing this...not with the DECAFF thing but with something easier to tinker with. If someone was just starting to do what you suggest are there any run time debuggers you would suggest? Any good books? Wouldn't mind learning something new and seeing what you mean.

    11. Re:So release a crack by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      IDA Pro is excellent but pricey and the trial is rather useless, although I believe the older version is free. Mind you, the older version is not as awesome as the newer version; but do realize, there was a point when it was THE state-of-the-art product too.

      I usually use tracing debuggers to find security holes. This would involve a huge muck of explaining to you how to inject shell code, but it's the same concept and easier than modifying a program; ironically, once you can do that, making random modifications to dead programs is obvious (it's the same operation, but elsewhere).

      Though if you want to have some fun, download OllyDbg (free) or IDA Pro (4.9 is free), or hell you can install Insight Debugger (a front-end for GDB) for free to get started.

      This program should blow itself up pretty well:

      #include <string.h>
      int kill_self(char *s) {
      char a[16];
      if (s) // Just to add a condition strcpy(a, s); // broken
      return 0;
      }

      int main(int argc, char** argv) {
      if (argc return -1; // no
      return kill_self(argv[1]);
      }

      With the above, you can do two things.

      First off, more easily demonstrated, you can watch this thing in a debugger. Watch the stack! Compile the program and run it as "./buggy AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" and all is well; run it as `./buggy $(perl -e "print 'A' x 128;")` and it will crash. What you'll see is the program attempt to execute from address 0x41414141, or 'AAAA', because you overwrote the return pointer. Fun part: Figure out where that is (ABCDEF.... and look for where it jumps) and you can jump anywhere-- say, onto the stack, where you've inserted code (./buggy AAAAAAAAAAAA\xab\xcd\xef\xghAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA${ShellCode}).

      More interesting to you, for this discussion, is the above check to see if kill_self() was passed a non-zero value. In my output, there's a section in the kill_self routine:

      xorl %eax, %eax
      cmpl $0, -44(%ebp)
      je .L2
      movl -44(%ebp), %eax
      movl %eax, 4(%esp)
      leal -28(%ebp), %eax
      movl %eax, (%esp)
      call strcpy
      .L2:

      In the actual program, the 'je' (jump if equal) would point to an address (i.e. 'je 0x4a5296b3') and so would 'call'. Now, there's a command 'inc %eax' which is represented by one byte: 0x40 or '@' ('A' is 'inc %ecx'). So we can replace the 'xorl %eax,%eax' and 'cmpl $0, -44(%ebp)' instructions flat out with a bunch of single bytes. Then, we can wedge 'xorl %eax, %eax' into the end, which will cause the next 'je' to follow in all cases:

      inc %eax
      inc %eax
      inc %eax
      inc %eax
      xorl %eax, %eax
      je .L2
      movl -44(%ebp), %eax
      movl %eax, 4(%esp)
      leal -28(%ebp), %eax
      movl %eax, (%esp)
      call strcpy
      .L2:

      Making that modification would cause the program to ALWAYS jump around the strcpy() call, in ALL cases. Or alternately, around copy protection, around logic timebombs, etc. It's a program, you modified it, the sky's the limit; you can even replace this section of code with a brand new call structure and wedge NEW code into the program elsewhere (think Hot Coffee).

      The tricky part is finding that particular call in a pile of disassembled, heavily optimized code; we're talking millions of instructions here, it's really fucking hard to do. The above source code file compiles to 53 lines of assembly; the final linked program is 269 lines, and /bin/ls is 21800 lines, while just the C standard library itself is 299534 lines and GTK+ is huge. A good decompiler helps sometimes, but a 'good decompiler' still makes a mess. Often times it's just not feasible (I still drool over hex rays).

      However, if you have a call trace from running a tracing debugger, you can work backwards and see where the program's actually been. Out of millions of lines of code, it's only touch

    12. Re:So release a crack by techhead79 · · Score: 1

      Thanks! I've used a gui to GDB before on a couple other projects so I guess I'll start there.

  23. Phew.. by KraftDinner · · Score: 1

    Oh good, the site is down. Now we can all forget about what this moron's message was(whatever it was) and move on with our lives.

    1. Re:Phew.. by LOLLinux · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately it's up still.

  24. Hey!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a self-righteous twit, you insensitive clod!

    1. Re:Hey!!!! by Verdatum · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "I'm not your Buddeh, Fwend!!!!"

    2. Re:Hey!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an insensitive clod, you insensitive clod!

  25. Re:Good luck with Jesus, buddy by QCompson · · Score: 1

    If you just die and rot then what difference does it make how you spend your time anyway?

    Because you may as well enjoy yourself while you are alive. Many bible-beating christians seem to try their best *not* to enjoy themselves while alive, because they are preparing for a wonderful afterlife.

    Yes, yes, I know... -1 flamebait or troll.

  26. Text of Site since it is down by DarKnyht · · Score: 0, Redundant

    We want to thank every media outlet, financial supporter, security expert, and forensic investigator that showed us support.

    As you probably noticed, your copy of DECAF no longer works. We have disabled every copy of DECAF. We hope that as you realize this was a stunt to raise awareness for security and the need for better forensic tools that you would reconsider cutting corners on corporate security. Also, governments should not rely on a tool to automate the process of forensics but rather invest in the education of investigators and forensic tool experts. If we were able to assist every government agency in their computer crime investigations, we would. The problem is DECAF is just two people. As a security community at large, we need to band together and start relieving some of the burden off our government by giving back.

    It also goes to show that if two people can make an impact as big as DECAF did; imagine how much positive we could all do together. Lately our media has been presenting many individual people (balloon boy, white house visitors, etc) who have been manipulating media outlets for selfish publicity in hopes of being "successful". The problem is that America has grown to be selfish, self-reliant, prideful, and a arrogant monster. We leave our marriages, neglect our kids, chase positions/status at work, chase materialistic property and only think of ourselves. In the mean time our whole country goes down the tubes.

    These problems individuals are facing are not new. They are due to you trying to fill the void in your life with things of this world. Most everyone has bitter roots, some have been victimized, others are just neglected. You go through the woes of life with no life support.

    I too would still be swallowed up in my prideful and selfish ways. I would still be with my addictive behaviors; womanizing, pornography, stealing, hacking, lieing, manipulating, and fighting. DECAF would have been a perfect way to feed my addictions. Instead I used it as a way to bring you a message. A message of freedom, a message of peace, a message of transparency and a message of unity. As you learn a little about me, understand I faced the same things I am speaking about. I didn't address the fruits of my life, I addressed the bitter roots of my life. Religion didn't do it for me. Catholicism didn't do it for me. Athiesm didn't do it for me. Agnostic didn't do it for me. Unity and education did it for me. Only one man gets credit for it. Jesus Christ. Once I learned Christ wasn't about that foolishness I seen on t.v. or seen in other "Christians", I realized I was missing the point. I couldn't look past the Christians to see the CHRIST. I accepted Him as my savior and then started putting Him in positions over my life. My life changed and yours can too. It was about relationship.

    Romans 10:9 - "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

    Stay tuned for the release of the forum and if you are interested in joining, please send an email to join@decafme.org

    --
    Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
  27. Re:Not open source, don't trust it. by DustCollector · · Score: 1

    What alerted me was "womanizing." Clearly, the DECAF author doesn't know the slash dot audience. :P

    Regardless, I've learned with proselytizers, the problem is more within them, than with the people they try to convert (through lying and manipulation and fighting, of course).

  28. It's not hard to figure out what their intent was. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MS created a forensic tool. People became paranoid that this tool might expose their activities, which are sometimes illegal, and often immoral, to the light of day. Two people developed a piece of software as a form of social commentary to show how depraved modern society is, because people want to hide their shameful activities. They did a good job, up until their final explanation. If they explained their intentions more clearly, then it would have been a success. Instead, it fell short at the end. Good job, but not quite good enough.

  29. Re:Not open source, don't trust it. by jason.sweet · · Score: 1

    I would still be with my addictive behaviors; womanizing...

    Yeah! Right!
    The closest this hacker Jesus freak gets to womanizing is when his mom brings his hot pockets to the basement!

  30. Re:It's not hard to figure out what their intent w by LOLLinux · · Score: 1

    People became paranoid that this tool might expose their activities, which are sometimes illegal, and often immoral, to the light of day. Two people developed a piece of software as a form of social commentary to show how depraved modern society is, because people want to hide their shameful activities.

    So you live in a house with no walls and with CCTVs all over the place so you can be constantly monitored by the police and any other government organization? And you never have conversations with people without everyone being able to hear what you're talking about?

  31. Countdown to REAL DECAF in 3, 2, 1 .... by unity100 · · Score: 1

    you are aware that it wont take long before some party comes up with a working DECAF after this point, right ?

    1. Re:Countdown to REAL DECAF in 3, 2, 1 .... by natehoy · · Score: 1

      How many people would be gullible to fall for it twice?

      Oh, wait, never mind. I must be new here. Continue with your countdown.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  32. Re:Ummmm... Okay? by nacturation · · Score: 1

    When I saw the original announcement of this program, I was skeptical of what it was actually for. However, I didn't see this type of angle coming! LOL, wow!

    Few would have guessed that there was an angel coming. :)

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  33. Re:Good luck with Jesus, buddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you just die and rot then what difference does it make how you spend your time anyway?

    If all you need to do is accept Jeebus as your saviour to earn eternal bliss, then what difference does it make how you spend your time anyway?

  34. "REMEMBER TO DRINK YOUR DECAF" by MarkGriz · · Score: 2, Funny

    "REMEMBER TO DRINK YOUR DECAF"

    A crummy commercial. Son of a bitch!

    --
    Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    1. Re:"REMEMBER TO DRINK YOUR DECAF" by AnotherShep · · Score: 1

      I really wish I had mod points. :(

  35. goverment threatens decafe authors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well it seems rather suspect to me that this comes out soo long after the tool was released. As the ideas behind the program where not out of teh relm of possiblity. I think the goverment would have a huge intrest in removing this software from peoples comeputers and punishing the authors. I mean if i was an author who wrote an anti govt comp forensics tool and they came knocking at my door threating to make me disapear like the rest of the terrorist they capture i would come out and say it was a hoax and deactivate it as well. I smell the stench of a goverment hand in this... Can some body say conspiracy............

    1. Re:goverment threatens decafe authors by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Government would just rick roll you for your IP, prove to a judge you could maybe have a taste for young and visit you at 7 am.
      Or note your CC number as part of an ongoing investigation.
      Then pour COFFEE on your box. Let DECAF be a download reminder about closed source apps, next time it could be heros and white knights harvesting all they can about end users.
      Vigilantes at a door they accessed via the 'registered' details in your MS box ... enraged with self righteousness.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  36. Open Sourced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If that had been opened sourced, everyone would have seen that this wasn't for real.

    1. Re:Open Sourced by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      If everything was open sourced, there would have been no need for it in the first place since the world would run on unicorn farts and love.

  37. Re:Not open source, don't trust it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I would still be with my addictive behaviors; womanizing, pornography, stealing, hacking, lieing, manipulating, and fighting. DECAF would have been a perfect way to feed my addictions."

    Except this "Christian" did those things. DECAF did involve lying and manipulation. I'd probably include hacking and maybe stealing as well. It certainly wasn't something an honorable Christian would do. We're all hypocrites at times, but I find it hard to take this guy seriously. Maybe he only stopped because he his religious beliefs conflicted with what he was doing. If so, the first step in atoning is admitting you've sinned. It's not mocking others.

  38. Beating dead whores (not a bad pun, eh?) by Verdatum · · Score: 0, Troll

    If a whore whores in the woods and nobody is around to get me mah money, is a falling tree gonna have to choke a bitch?

  39. coffeemate by Scarumanga · · Score: 1

    my solution to this is coffeemate

  40. Libertarians by Bragador · · Score: 1

    But why do you hate the ideas? I'm a weak libertarian myself and find that personal liberty is important. Don't generalize and say all libertarians are extremists. We don't all want to abolish the government. I'm curious about your ideas since I feel a decentralized government that helps those who truly need it, while not having ideas to force upon you about religion and ethics (marriage, alcohol, etc) would be the best deal. This is libertarianism for you.

    1. Re:Libertarians by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But why do you hate the ideas? I'm a weak libertarian myself and find that personal liberty is important. Don't generalize and say all libertarians are extremists. We don't all want to abolish the government. I'm curious about your ideas since I feel a decentralized government that helps those who truly need it, while not having ideas to force upon you about religion and ethics (marriage, alcohol, etc) would be the best deal. This is libertarianism for you.

      Libertarianism is one of those few ideas that, if implemented and accepted, really would reverse the current trend of ever-expanding intrusive government and the general decline of personal liberty. For just that reason, it cannot be tolerated by anyone who stants to profit from this status quo. Such people include powerful politicians and influential members of the media. These are people who can influence the society and the prevailing opinions of the day quite a bit more than most people would like to admit.

      It's no surprise to me that denigrating Libertarianism is another trendy bandwagon. That bandwagon is intended for people who won't personally investigate it and see what it's about on their own. If they did that, they'd quickly find that the Founding Fathers are some of the truest Libertarians who ever lived, except that back then it did not have such a name. They'd also see that throwing out those freedoms for any reason and with them the traditions of this nation is always a mistake, no matter how tempting.

      Such people who form strong opinions and beliefs about things they have not investigated are sometimes called "useful idiots." They are extremely useful anytime you want to deceptively campaign against something. They are so useful because they will accept ideas from others and adopt them as if they independently came up with those ideas on their own. Look at the methods used here. The negative portrayal of Liberterianism is based almost exclusively on pretending like its most extreme form is its only form, and so anyone who calls himself a Libertarian is immediately equated with an anarchist or anarco-capitalist. This is a classic example of straw-man or red-herring demagoguery in the media. It's so easily refuted that there can be nothing accidental about it.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:Libertarians by Bragador · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your answer clarifies the problem.

      I'm going to do a bit of politics myself and see if I can influence things then. I actually went to a town hall meeting this month for the first time. I know one person who is a municipal councillor and he invited me because of my interests in politics. I suppose we should all do this and slowly nudge the laws towards liberty ourselves. If most politicians want power for power's sake like you say, that would be the only way to change things.

      He did tell me that if I was really interested I could become influential with time, but that you had to know people that are already in the game to play it properly...

      Sad isn't it?

    3. Re:Libertarians by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      The thing is, on /. you get to see some of the crazy left, and some of the crazy right. But the craziest motherfuckers you see here? All self-professed libertarians.

    4. Re:Libertarians by causality · · Score: 1

      He did tell me that if I was really interested I could become influential with time, but that you had to know people that are already in the game to play it properly...

      People who probably won't give you the time of day unless your beliefs are not too different from theirs. Hence the problem with reforming the Democrat/Republican system or otherwise introducing pro-freedom elements into it. Both of them function to get people as helpless and dependent on government as possible. One does this with social programs and financial security (i.e. Social Security), while the other does it with the military and physical security (i.e War on Terror). Both take turns blaming each other for any problems while never actually addressing those problems, or doing so only in a superficial and reactive way, for they derive their perception of usefulness from having such problems to solve.

      Sad isn't it?

      It was never about who has the best ideas or whose principles, if implemented, would lead to the best government. Not for a moment. Major political parties do for politics what trade guilds once did for professions. Their only function is to raise the barriers to entry as high as possible in order to lock out competitors for the sake of protecting an entrenched hierarchy.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:Libertarians by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      So would anarchy.

      The problem with libertarianism is it professes to draw a distinct line in where government should and should not intervene where none exists.

      Even communists and fascists see limits to government. Only anarchists can legitimately claim to objectively hold claim to limiting the scope of government.

    6. Re:Libertarians by causality · · Score: 1

      The thing is, on /. you get to see some of the crazy left, and some of the crazy right. But the craziest motherfuckers you see here? All self-professed libertarians.

      Honestly I haven't seen too many crazy Libertarians here and I'm no stranger to the site, but for the sake of argument let's assume that many of them fit this description.

      It's still up to the reader to determine whether these folks actually represent what they claim to represent. It always was and has always been this way for as long as humans have communicated with one another. If I saw a Christian talking about how much he loves to worship Satan, I have two choices: I can assume all Christians are just like him, or I can look into the teachings of Christianity and decide whether what he says is consistent with them. The former option is myopic at best, naive and stupid at worst. It's the same with Libertarianism.

      There never was, is not, and never will be any substitute for thoroughly investigating a thing to your own satisfaction. It would be nice if everyone were always exactly what they claim to be, and if they always had a perfect understanding of what they are claiming to be. That's not the case and we do not live in such a world. Any desire to pretend that we do is little more than a thinly-veiled excuse for being too lazy to look into things before opinions are formed about them, or for being too ignorant to realize the importance of doing so. Of course such people are going to be misled; how can it be otherwise?

      So really, I don't care how many crazy people claim to be Libertarian. I don't care if they think that anarchy or anarco-capitalism is the same thing as Libertarianism. The true definition of Libertarian thought was embodied in the Founding Fathers. Not only did they tolerate the idea of having a government, they created one! What was Libertarian about this was that they advocated a relatively weak State, and advised us that freedom can only truly be honored when the State is kept weak enough that it can only focus on its essential functions ("that government is best which governs least" etc.). I can do my own research and see that for myself no matter how a bunch of fools wish to exercise their freedom of speech.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    7. Re:Libertarians by causality · · Score: 1

      So would anarchy.

      The problem with libertarianism is it professes to draw a distinct line in where government should and should not intervene where none exists.

      Even communists and fascists see limits to government. Only anarchists can legitimately claim to objectively hold claim to limiting the scope of government.

      I'm not sure why you seem to equate Libertarianism to Anarchism in response to my post. Sure, anarchy would reduce the size and power of government, but its ultimate goal would be to eliminate government entirely. With no government of any kind, what you can expect next is that a few warlords would establish local dictatorships. They would protect their territory against other warlords much like street gangs do against rival gangs. A perfect implementation of Anarchism would quickly lead to the average person having both less freedom and less security than they have now.

      The perfect implementation of Libertarianism would include a government that is at least strong enough to provide effective law enforcement, as this is viewed as a basic and legitimate function of government. What would be against the law are any activities which deprive another person of their natural rights (such as property, life, and freedom) against that person's will. Anything consenting adults do would be legal. No one would be protected by the government from the consequences of their poor decision-making. The state would only use its law-enforcement powers to curtail activities that use force, fraud, or the threat of force to coerce others. Such an implementation would lead to the average person having both more freedom and more security than they have now.

      So no, they are not equal. Any similarity of effect is superficial in nature.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    8. Re:Libertarians by Improv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not particularly trendy, it's just given the variety of positions people can take, not everyone will choose a particular one. When Libertarians *cough* assert that everyone would be one if only they would look into it, they're being ridiculous.

      I was a libertarian for many years. I eventually changed my positions.

      You're very ignorant about the founding fathers. They were by no means posessed of any modern political ideologies - they had different issues, different positions, and radically different ways of framing issues. Do you want to claim both the Federalists (Washington, Adams) *and* the Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson) as being libertarian parties? I assert that neither I nor you could claim either of them.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    9. Re:Libertarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the Founding Fathers are some of the truest Libertarians who ever lived...

      "Founding Fathers", you say? Interesting that it's not "Founding Mothers" - or even just "Founding Parents". It's interesting that the Founding Fathers didn't think women should have the right to vote (and, as it happened, were also OK with slavery). In modern times, you'd have to look pretty hard to find a group of people who held such beliefs (maybe the Taliban, perhaps?).

      So, anyway, I'm not sure that referencing the Founding Fathers really gets you that much credibility. But I digress...

      You claim that the Founding Fathers were the "truest" libertarians. "Truest" - I'm not quite sure what that even means. Perhaps you mean that the Founding Fathers were the most extreme libertarians to have ever lived - but that is unlikely to be correct.

      As I understand it (and perhaps I don't), libertarians think freedom is very important. But, for me, when I put together a list of the issues that seem to be the most egregious violations of individual freedom, I get a very different list of issues than most libertarians.

      For example, the essence of individual freedom is letting people do what they want as long as it's not affecting other people. One of the more obvious violations of this principle is opposition to gay marriage. But most of the libertarians I've seen really just don't seem to care.

      Another major issue is immigration. I would assume that libertarians would be strongly opposed to having a government bureaucracy tell people where they can live and work and travel on the basis of something as arbitrary as who there parents were or where they were born. I would assume that libertarians would favor totally open borders - believing that crossing the USA-Mexico border should be no different from crossing the Michigan-Ohio border (just a sign saying "Welcome to the USA"). But the libertarians I've seen are at best neutral on immigration and are often even in favor of restricting immigration.

      And, when I actually look at the issues that "libertarians" get excited about it's mostly the issues that tend to benefit upper-middle class white men (who are US citizens) - people who are wealthy enough to pay a lot of tax but not so wealthy that it doesn't matter.

      So, when I put it all together, it looks like upper-middle class white men are using something no one can argue with ("freedom") and some convoluted reasoning to rationalize holding positions on issues that benefit them personally. It's like Dick Cheney using the prevention of terrorism (hard to argue with that) to rationalize a war that mostly seems to have been for the benefit of his corporate buddies at Haliburton.

      Maybe libertarianism is more than just a crude attempt to rationalize upper-middle class greed - but it sure doesn't look like it from where I'm sitting.

    10. Re:Libertarians by Improv · · Score: 1

      Just letting you know that the term you seem to be looking for is "minarchism" (I am not a minarchist or libertarian myself, but knowing the terms helps avoid lengthy summaries of an idea)

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    11. Re:Libertarians by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      The perfect implementation of Libertarianism would include a government that is at least strong enough to provide effective law enforcement, as this is viewed as a basic and legitimate function of government.

      There are a helluva lot of people out there who also consider things like education, firefighting, healthcare, and provision of basic needs like food and shelter as a "basic and legitimate function of government" as well.

      The state would only use its law-enforcement powers to curtail activities that use force, fraud, or the threat of force to coerce others. Such an implementation would lead to the average person having both more freedom and more security than they have now.

      "Security" in what sense of the word ? Many would argue that being in a position where an unexpected illness, an accident, or an episode of gullibility could permanently ruin a life is substantially less "security" than they have now.

    12. Re:Libertarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not everyone who isn't a libertarian is ignorant or malicious.

      Ignoring the possibility that someone could understand your ideas, yet still have sincere, fundamental disagreements with them is one of the ways our brains filter out contradictory information. Don't fall into that trap.

    13. Re:Libertarians by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      The problem with libertarianism is it has a very narrow definition of what government services protect liberty and freedom.

      Anything two consenting adults do could include slavery and yet we know that even consensual slavery can easily result in a system where the powerful abuse those without influence to put them in a situation where they no longer are free.

      We all have our own concepts of what the government's role is and how it can best serve the public good. Libertarians just arbitrary define their view on the government's role as the 'minimal'. The libertarian definition of 'minimal government' is often just sufficient to protect the business interests of those who have money and power.

    14. Re:Libertarians by causality · · Score: 1

      There are a helluva lot of people out there who also consider things like education, firefighting, healthcare, and provision of basic needs like food and shelter as a "basic and legitimate function of government" as well.

      I know of no tenet of Libertarianism which states that these things are forbidden. Some people who call themselves Libertarians may believe that these have no place in government, but you'd have to take it up with those people, for that is their personal interpretation of the concept. The only other thing I'll say is that if you study the works of folks like John Taylor Gatto, the assumption that government education is the only effective education is shown to be the farce that it is. Gatto affirms that it takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy and mathematics skills; from that point on, the person is capable of educating themselves. In this era of personal helplessness and the decline of self-sufficiency, that sounds unreasonable, though this was the way things were done in the USA until right about the late 1800s.

      "Security" in what sense of the word ? Many would argue that being in a position where an unexpected illness, an accident, or an episode of gullibility could permanently ruin a life is substantially less "security" than they have now.

      To that I say: live within your means, spend less money than you make, and put away savings. Anyone who does that won't be ruined by an illness or an accident. No massive social spending programs are necessary to achieve this. They only seem necessary when conspicuous consumption is our first priority and people refuse to live within their means. People who do this really would need a government to come along and bail them out of their poor financial decision-making. That doesn't mean that government intervention is the only possible way.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    15. Re:Libertarians by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Would you like to hear something interesting? I'm a libertarian socialist - I think the government has a responsibility to do things like transportation, utilities, telecom, and other infrastructure, but that they should have essentially no control over individual people.

      In my opinion, libertarians have a collective persecution bias. I don't think libertarians (little L) would know what to do with themselves if they actually became a significant force. Oh the status quo and people profiting and the founding fathers... everybody opposes us which prevents us from doing anything.

      And, deep down, I think they know it. People know that withdrawing government from, well, just about everything could never work. But it's popular to denigrate the government because it can't argue back. It's a one-sided 'debate' that nearly everybody agrees with - and that's fun.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    16. Re:Libertarians by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Libertarianism is one of those few ideas that, if implemented and accepted, really would reverse the current trend of ever-expanding intrusive government and the general decline of personal liberty.

      Your words seem to be an extension of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
      You'd have to start by telling us which version of Libertarianism you think will solve America's ills before we can have a learned discussion on the matter.

      As a general comment though, history has shown that time and time again, when ideology and reality meet, ideology usually fails.
      A more pointed comment is that America tried laissez faire economics (a principle key of most libertarian ideology) and its own excesses earned it a well deserved death.
      Agencies like the EPA, FDA, SEC, FTC, etc were all formed as a direct response to libertarian practices.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    17. Re:Libertarians by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's no surprise to me that denigrating Libertarianism is another trendy bandwagon. That bandwagon is intended for people who won't personally investigate it and see what it's about on their own.

      I used to be a libertarian myself in my uni days.

      Now? See my sig.

      If they did that, they'd quickly find that the Founding Fathers are some of the truest Libertarians who ever lived, except that back then it did not have such a name. They'd also see that throwing out those freedoms for any reason and with them the traditions of this nation is always a mistake, no matter how tempting.

      I'm not an American. What are your Founding Fathers to me?

      It also makes me wonder - so "truest libertarians who ever lived" considered ending the relatively minor oppression of American colonists by British government more important than ending slavery (since, regardless of their personal opinions on slavery - and not all of them were opponents - they chose to gloss over it when establishing the nation)?

    18. Re:Libertarians by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Oh, and your post very nicely shows one of the fundamental problems with libertarian movement. As a matter of ideology, it divides all people into two categories:

      1) libertarians
      2) idiots ("sheeple" etc)

      Now, do I need to explain why this is a bad idea that doesn't score libertarians any points?

    19. Re:Libertarians by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know of no tenet of Libertarianism which states that these things are forbidden. Some people who call themselves Libertarians may believe that these have no place in government, but you'd have to take it up with those people, for that is their personal interpretation of the concept.

      I can confidently say I've never met anyone who identified themselves as Libertarian who would even *entertain* the idea of Healthcare being a legitimate service of Government. Heck, you're lucky to even get firefighters out of most of them, and about the only more basic government services than that is the army and police.

      The only other thing I'll say is that if you study the works of folks like John Taylor Gatto, the assumption that government education is the only effective education is shown to be the farce that it is.

      I'm not aware of anyone here suggesting "government education is the only effective education". The point of Government-funded education is so that everyone has *access* to education.

      Gatto affirms that it takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy and mathematics skills; from that point on, the person is capable of educating themselves.

      No, they're not, because they're only going to "educate themselves" in things they're interested in. If you want to see where "educating themselves" leads to, look at Creationists.

      In this era of personal helplessness and the decline of self-sufficiency, that sounds unreasonable, though this was the way things were done in the USA until right about the late 1800s.

      Personally, I have zero interest in living in the 1800s.

      To that I say: live within your means, spend less money than you make, and put away savings.

      Sorry, born poor. Only young, so never had the chance to accumulate any meaningful savings, and the hospital bills already chewed through what little were there.

      Anyone who does that won't be ruined by an illness or an accident.

      Rubbish.

      No massive social spending programs are necessary to achieve this. They only seem necessary when conspicuous consumption is our first priority and people refuse to live within their means.

      I know plenty of people for whom "conspicuous consumption" is an anathema, and the only reason they (and their children) are even alive is because of "massive social spending programs". Thanks to those, they can actually live some semblence of a normal life, rather than being begging out of a cardboard box in the street, or dead.

      People who do this really would need a government to come along and bail them out of their poor financial decision-making.

      Most poor people are poor because of someone else's poor financial decision making, not theirs.

    20. Re:Libertarians by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      If you get right down to it, the psiops tricks you are claiming are being used against libertarianism by equating it with anarchy are the ones once used against anarchy (and they evidently worked, at least on you - nothing personal, they have worked on most people). Literally translated from the Latin, anarchy does not mean no laws, but no rulers. A lot of its advocates are simply advocating that there be no ruling class - for example just about everyone in the UK who opposes the institution of the Monarchy has been listed as an Anarchist even if they support a house of commons with no house of lords type system.
        One of the most infamous 'anarchists' of all time, Gavrilo Princip, the assassin of the Arch-Duke Ferdinand, wanted merely a non-imperial government over an independent Slovic state, not no government. (although his actions led to a period of chaos where there were zones no government could honestly claim to control). A little reading on this case will make anyone in modern America wonder why they were taught that the people in this plot were "anarchists' instead of terrorists. The name 'anarchist' was used for Sacco and Vanzetti and others in the 1920's, but so was 'communist', and again, they were part of an organization that advocated serious power be placed in the hands of certain people, just not a Noble class, so by the standards of the USA, they definitely weren't real anarchists.
            It would be possible to fairly call oneself an anarchist just by advocating that the Jury system is the model for all government systems, and groups of people who are our general peers should be assembled to run all functions of government, and kept in place for only short times to avoid them thinking they are somehow privileged. Indeed, strict term limits are a small step towards Anarchy, and indexing salaries (or health plans) for government officials to the average income (or insurance coverage) of their constituents might even fit the definition. While I wouldn't class Jefferson as a complete Anarchist, there are various times in Payne's writing career when he certainly was.
              Some of the modern Anarchists, and just about all the people who call themselves Anarcho-capitalists, have very definitely lost sight of the older definitions.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    21. Re:Libertarians by Bragador · · Score: 1

      You know, I'm reading all of this and I'm starting to wonder if I'm really a libertarian. I considered myself a weak libertarian, but then I'm from Canada where we have universal healthcare. I wouldn't consider removing that.

      But then, our liberals want to have a nanny-state and our conservatives want to impose their morals on us... What am I if I want a really weak nanny-state that doesn't impose morals?

      I figured I was a weak libertarian.

      If not, what am I?

    22. Re:Libertarians by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Anything consenting adults do would be legal. No one would be protected by the government from the consequences of their poor decision-making. The state would only use its law-enforcement powers to curtail activities that use force, fraud, or the threat of force to coerce others. Such an implementation would lead to the average person having both more freedom and more security than they have now.

      No, he wouldn't. Just as there are people stronger and more charismatic than me - the would-be warlords - there are people smarter or just plain luckier than me. Those people would be able to amass more resources than me, and then use those resources against me. For example, a businessman who owns both a factory and a bank would be able to talk me into getting a loan, fire me from the factory, then use my sudden inability to pay as a means of blackmail. No fraud, no force, just someone smarter than me outthinking me.

      Libertarianism focuses on physical force and coercion by threat of violence; however, it fails to consider coercion through economic means. However, in real life more people are constrained by economics than by physical force, which is why Libertarian Party fails to get significant support. Rather than examine their ideology and try to fix these problems, the typical libertarian when confronted launches into a rant about "sheeple who suck on public teats not knowing their own best", or something to that effect, which of course doesn't win them any converts either.

      Or, as one snide comment once summed it: "Libertarians are anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    23. Re:Libertarians by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If not, what am I?

      Left libertarian or libertarian socialist. Or, to be very very bold: "Someone who believes that society exists to help and support rather than control its members."

      Yeah, I know, it's a shocking thought that one might have individual views rather than simply chosing what party line to parrot. Maybe I should start an "Individualist" party - our line: "I'm unique - just like everyone else " ;).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    24. Re:Libertarians by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Libertarianism is one of those few ideas that, if implemented and accepted, really would reverse the current trend of ever-expanding intrusive government and the general decline of personal liberty

      No, if libertarianism were implemented there would be no reversal of the decline in personal liberty or in the increase in government power. The only change would be that the government would no longer be called a government and would be completely unaccountable to the people, while the accountable organisation that was called the government would be effectively powerless.

      Libertarianism only opposes oppression when the oppressors self-identify as a government.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    25. Re:Libertarians by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It also makes me wonder - so "truest libertarians who ever lived" considered ending the relatively minor oppression of American colonists by British government more important than ending slavery (since, regardless of their personal opinions on slavery - and not all of them were opponents - they chose to gloss over it when establishing the nation)?

      Slaves were owned by private individuals and were oppressed by them. They were not oppressed by the government. If you don't want to own slaves, then you had the right not to do so. Now, a modern libertarian would probably not make that argument for purely emotional reasons, but they'd make arguments that, if implemented, would create a society with exactly those properties. Somehow, people who claim to be libertarians still manage to be outraged that other people don't subscribe to their 'I'm alright Jack' philosophy.

      With regard to your sig, I don't like paying taxes, but I dislike paying taxes a lot less than I'd dislike living in a libertarian vision of utopia.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re:Libertarians by Burpmaster · · Score: 1

      the general decline of personal liberty

      That's not an objective fact. It's a matter of how you frame it, and libertarians frame it badly. Beware of reification, where abstract concepts such as liberty are treated as concrete objects. It just gets you too caught up in your own point of view to reject ideas that don't make sense, because your reified concept seems so real and objective to you.

      Libertarians always seem to reify liberty as a physical possession of theirs that is harmed or taken whenever government does something to them that they don't want, but not when anybody else or anything else does it. So they are more concerned with protecting the abstract concept of an individual's liberty rather than directly protecting the actual individual.

      Libertarians need to realize that being mauled by a bear, getting killed by a criminal or disease, or dying of starvation all end your freedom just as much as being shot by thought police. Then they would see the need for a balanced approach to government that seeks to make us better off by broad, not narrow, criteria.

    27. Re:Libertarians by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      From: "Liberatianism: Marxism of the Right"
          http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/
      "The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments. "

      Health and community are important too, but that article leaves out the government's role in promoting them too, befitting typical US conservatives. :-)

      See also:
          "MESHWORKS, HIERARCHIES AND INTERFACES" by Manuel de Landa
            http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/meshwork.htm
      """
      To make things worse, the solution to this is not simply to begin adding meshwork components to the mix. Indeed, one must resist the temptation to make hierarchies into villains and meshworks into heroes, not only because, as I said, they are constantly turning into one another, but because in real life we find only mixtures and hybrids, and the properties of these cannot be established through theory alone but demand concrete experimentation. Certain standardizations, say, of electric outlet designs or of data-structures traveling through the Internet, may actually turn out to promote heterogenization at another level, in terms of the appliances that may be designed around the standard outlet, or of the services that a common data-structure may make possible. On the other hand, the mere presence of increased heterogeneity is no guarantee that a better state for society has been achieved. After all, the territory occupied by former Yugoslavia is more heterogeneous now than it was ten years ago, but the lack of uniformity at one level simply hides an increase of homogeneity at the level of the warring ethnic communities. But even if we managed to promote not only heterogeneity, but diversity articulated into a meshwork, that still would not be a perfect solution. After all, meshworks grow by drift and they may drift to places where we do not want to go. The goal-directedness of hierarchies is the kind of property that we may desire to keep at least for certain institutions. Hence, demonizing centralization and glorifying decentralization as the solution to all our problems would be wrong. An open and experimental attitude towards the question of different hybrids and mixtures is what the complexity of reality itself seems to call for. To paraphrase Deleuze and Guattari, never believe that a meshwork will suffice to save us.
      """

      Most US libertarians could be termed "Propertarian Liberatrians".
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propertarian

      Another flavor, Noam Chomsky's, is "Libertarian Socialist" (which I mind less, and we may well see more and more of as we transition to a post-scarcity society):
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

      But, as Manuel de Landa suggests, we need concrete experiments to see what works well in different situations.

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  41. Re:Ummmm... Okay? by crashumbc · · Score: 1

    True. But it's ironic that is the message they -want- you to learn.

    that's because they never consider the implications, "go forth Columbus! and find a new route to India!" "Oh sh!t what do you mean the worlds not flat?"

  42. Re:Not open source, don't trust it. by cfalcon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Offtopic lol. GOOD MOD JOB BRO Anyway, the other thing that was great is that they originally claimed not to release the source code because they didn't want Microsoft to patch around them, or some other nonsense. Everyone in the original article who said that they wouldn't trust an anti-forensic tool that was closed source was 100% correct.

  43. Re:Good luck with Jesus, buddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually I find that most religious folks are more content with the offerings they're given in their lives compared to the atheists who scramble to find some meaning in their lives. My guess is that people who are a member of a religion and are unsatisfied with their lives probably have little faith in their ideology. I know it's a shame but some people are going to go down that path. It's their loss. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

  44. Re:Good luck with Jesus, buddy by pbhj · · Score: 1

    If you just die and rot then what difference does it make how you spend your time anyway?

    If when you're 16 someone emails you and arranges to send you millions of dollars from Nigeria what's the point of having an education?

  45. Re:Good luck with Jesus, buddy by QCompson · · Score: 1

    Actually I find that most religious folks are more content with the offerings they're given in their lives compared to the atheists who scramble to find some meaning in their lives.

    Then why the obsession with preaching to others and trying to convert them?

    I don't know of any atheists who "scramble to find some meaning in their lives."

  46. How amazing! by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In shockingly unexpected news, it turns out that a closed-source alleged anti-malware software was not trustworthy.

    Who would have guessed.

    1. Re:How amazing! by noidentity · · Score: 1
  47. So apparently.. by twistah · · Score: 3, Funny

    What DECAF giveth, DECAF taketh away.

  48. Re:It's not hard to figure out what their intent w by Conchobair · · Score: 1

    COFEE specifically targets criminal activity. So using a tool to prevent the detection of criminal activity would only be useful if you were partaking in criminal activity. There are plenty other things that you might want to hide that are totally legal, but the tool isn't looking for those and only targets criminal activity.

    Yes this is putting a lot of good faith in the tool and I am open to that being questioned, but you make it seem as if they are scanning you whole computer and posting all over the internet the picture of you the time you dressed up with all the nintendo controller stuff and a towel cape.

  49. Re:Good luck with Jesus, buddy by couchslug · · Score: 1

    "All we need now a GNAA Troll."

    Given the choice between GNAA and Christianity, the GNAA seem quite a rational bunch.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  50. Re:Good luck with Jesus, buddy by pwfffff · · Score: 1

    Who modded this flamebait? The whole frickin story's flamebait, just go with it!

  51. Re:Good luck with Jesus, buddy by pwfffff · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't be so sure about that. That book, 'The Purpose Driven Life', spawned tons of prayer groups and such focused around finding Jesus' personal plan for you. I guess it's possible that they actually did all find a purpose after that, but from what I can tell most are still 'scrambling' for it.

  52. Re:Not open source, don't trust it. by pwfffff · · Score: 1

    Ummmm, hello, it's not a sin if it's for JESUS.

  53. Re:Ummmm... Okay? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Well, of course it is flat. Spherical Earth is just a large conspiracy. They want you to believe spherical earth so they can throw you over the border of the world if they see the need for it, and nobody will believe it. :-)

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  54. Re:It's not hard to figure out what their intent w by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1

    COFEE specifically targets criminal activity.

    You're suggesting that COFEE is able to distinguish criminal activity from non-criminal, and only allow law enforcement to use it to get forensics for criminal activity? That's some pretty f*&#ing amazing artificial intelligence in there, since the law enforcement officers themselves often have a very hard time making that distinction and it ends up having to be settled by courts.

  55. We need to hate them by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Since Amazon is hated for pulling a single book, we obviously MUST hate Jesus now! Do not allow him to infiltrate your home, especially during the Christmas season! Avoid any place where he is treated with respect, like those "church" places.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  56. Re:Not open source, don't trust it. by couchslug · · Score: 1

    "It certainly wasn't something an honorable Christian would do."

    There are no "honorable" Christians, because their superstition exists to empower those who would enslave the rest of us to their social vision.

    The only people who speak of honor in conjunction with religion are superstitionists themselves.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  57. religion by reiisi · · Score: 1

    Some people think Jesus Christ was the first true libertarian.

    There is no word a person motivated by the desire for self-justification can't twist.

    Anyway, questions of particular religions aside, when we can find a way to get past the false concept that atheism and agnosticism are somehow morally above religion, we'll discover that there is no way to keep religion out of a conversation.

    Refraining from using religion to troll is another matter, but there may even be an appropriate place and time for using religion to troll.

    Your biases are showing.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  58. Did they want DECAF to be taken seriously? by reiisi · · Score: 1

    Somehow, I get the impression that they didn't want DECAF to be taken seriously.

    From the start, even.

    As for the thing about salvation and Jesus, well, for example, Jesus said (paraphrased), "You should learn the truth. Learning the truth will make you free." Putting that into context for you, truth is about reality, and COFEE was/is not about reality, and their DECAF was an unreal response to security snake-oil.

    Poorly implemented, perhaps, but I read the message as something like, "You're not free if you trust someone whose primary purpose is to sell you more and more software to do things that really can't be done."

    Maybe I'm reading things into it, but then I never downloaded DECAF, and I don't have any Microsoft software at all on my computers anyway.

    "Don't keep buying the snake-oil when you know it's snake-oil." seems to be a really difficult message to get across.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
    1. Re:Did they want DECAF to be taken seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it wasn't snake oil. It was a working tool, and it can easily be reactivated by spoofing the decafme server. My hypothesis is that Microsoft threatened to sue them and this is their way to squirm back out. The Jesus crap is just in case they need to fall back to an insanity plea to get rid of Microsoft's lawyers.

  59. Re:Ummmm... Okay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, he claims to have rejected modern churches and atheism to find religion via his own path. Doesn't sound very gullible to me.

  60. Bowtrol Colon by tammyyy · · Score: 1

    Well, actually, there is no hard evidence that COFFEE itself (or the caffeine in it) will stunt your growth, but since it is the caffeine that is suspect, decaf should not have any affect. http://ezinearticles.com/?Bowtrol-Colon-Cleanse-Review---Does-Bowtrol-Cleanse-Work?&id=2926555

  61. What a load of nonsense by danielkennedy74 · · Score: 1

    The tool didn't send data to decafme, didn't open any backdoors, isn't really disabled for anyone with half a brain, and was a stunt but never a hoax: Reactivate DECAF in two minutes: http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2009/12/reactivating-decaf-in-two-minutes/

  62. Hacking bad???? by jdc18 · · Score: 1

    . I would still be with my addictive behaviors; womanizing, pornography, stealing, hacking, lieing, manipulating, and fighting. Since when hacking is a bad thing? Or pornography? I will give it you stealing and womanizing. but hacking?

  63. The real problem with libertarianism by TheLink · · Score: 1

    > The problem with libertarianism is it has a very narrow definition of what government services protect liberty and freedom.

    The real problem with libertarianism is that it's barking up the wrong tree (and almost makes a religion of doing so).

    It's not the quantity of Government that matters so much. It's the quality of Government that matters far more.

    Picking a Government based on quantity is more foolish than picking a place to eat based on how many/few workers it has.

    There is little advantage to the citizens between having a small corrupt government that works with huge corrupt corporations to milk the citizens, or having a huge corrupt government milking the citizens.

    There are many examples around the world where a government has proven itself capable of managing things better than most corporations. Not all governments are good at the same things, or bad at the same things - because governments are made up of people. So one government might decide to do some stuff internally, and another government might decide to leave it to a bunch of external organizations to bid for and yet another might even help form an independent organization to handle it. A good quality government would make such decisions better than a poor quality one.

    If you don't know what the real problem is, you are unlikely to solve it.

    When too many voters don't know what the real problems are, you are less likely to get a better government.

    --
  64. Re:Good luck with Jesus, buddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, lord, what would happen if the GNAA and Psycho-Christains where the two choices on the ballot...

  65. Re:Ummmm... Okay? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Columbus did not believe that the Earth was flat. No one other than the uneducated peasants had thought that for hundreds of years. The greeks had accurately measured the size of the Earth thousands of years earlier. Columbus believed that the Earth was much smaller than everyone else thought and so it was possible to sale to India with the provisions that ships of the day could carry. If America had not been there, he would have run out of food in the middle of the ocean and starved to death.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  66. Hmm. Our Lord and Savior, Windows by Torodung · · Score: 1

    Well, now we know why it works so well on XP.

    (Read that as Chi-Rho, as often seen on altars)

  67. I'm a numerologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DECAF + C0FFEE = 13560989

    This makes more sense than the target article.