Slashdot Mirror
CryptoCat Developer Questioned At US-Canadian Border
Dangerous_Minds writes "ZeroPaid is documenting some comments made by an encrypted chat developer who was interrogated at the U.S. border recently. According to the CryptoCat developer, border guards confiscated his passport and interrogated him about the application he developed. Most notably, he commented, "The interrogator (who claimed 22 years of computer experience) asked me which algorithms Cryptocat used and about its censorship resistance.""
According to the CryptoCat developer, border guards confiscated his passport
Maybe I'm the only one that was confused by that but the phrasing of this in the summary lead me to believe that they confiscated his passport indefinitely in some sort of draconian move to prevent him from leaving the country or traveling in general. But, luckily, I read the article:
This: “Also worth noting: my passport was confiscated for around an hour.”
I'm not saying it's okay but I've been pulled into secondary coming back from the Caribbean and, the customs official had my passport for about 45-60 minutes while he asked me the stupidest of questions (far more mundane and pointless than what algorithms I develop).
My work here is dung.
Seriously. It's only going to get worse.
-A.C.
He holds 3 certifications in Word, Minesweeper, and Internet Explorer. Dont try and pull a fast one over him.
This is elegant proof that DHS is a waste of taxpayer money. 30 seconds on google would have given him more detail than any interrogation would have revealed.
Hey DHS, I'll take Director of IT position for only $290,000 a year. I cracked the secret of CryptoCat for you....
https://github.com/kaepora/cryptocat
Everything is right there, and I did not have to waterboard anyone.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It's really none of their business though is it!?
It seems border crossings have become a point at which the usual rules are thrown out of the window and anyone can be interrogated about anything. ACTA will bring border searches of iPods to that mix. It's like bend over and take it for 'security'.
Did they question him, because he was a crypto developer? Or did they stop him for some other reason, and ask about his profession?
FTFA:
A developer of an encrypted chat program is making some dramatic claims. Nadim Kobeissi, developer of Cryptocat which “lets you instantly set up secure conversations.
There is your answer right there.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Obviously the "authorities" knew who he was, what he did and what his plans were.
Secondly, they knew he was coming and had someone with "22 years of computer experience" ready. That means that they arranged for someone to be there when he crossed the border.
So it seems he's under surveilance and they know what he's up to. If they really wanted to take him out, they would have just arrested him once he was in the US and really do a number on him. This looks like scare tactics. Whatever the outcome, Kobeissi will be a bit more paranoid and after dealing with the stress of this incident for a few months, may enter a different realm in app development.
The Canadian government will not intervene as the US can question anyone they want before they let them in their country. If one doesn't like it, one doesn't enter the US.
Perhaps his electronic possessions were encrypted, he seems good at that sort of stuff...
Nice attempt at paranoia, but not terribly well thought out.
People need to realize that the United States has a very brutal regime in charge at the moment.
In my opinion and from experience it's not about brutality, it's about money. Sure, if they find something on you that links you to Al-Queda, you're in trouble. They'll treat you like any Allied nation would treat a Nazi war criminal. But the secondary that you're often pulled into has the primary purpose of tariffs and taxes that you might owe the government. Next on their list is export/import control of stuff like Cuban cigars or controlled substances.
... I think the words you were looking for are arcane, ignorant, laughable, annoying, etc. If you cry wolf at the stupid stuff, nobody's going to listen to you about the genuinely bad stuff.
So I used to be in a band and this band told me a story about how they were crossing the US-Canada border to play one show at a bar. Well, they were in their van, they had weed on them and they had all their guitars and crap and the side of their van said their band name. Well, they made up some excuse about how they were just "passing through" and after an hour of googling, the border guards determined that their intent was to play a show at a bar. They didn't have work permits and, as such, were denied entry. The weed wasn't a problem. The problem was that they were trying to go "work" at a bar and, as a result, a bar owner became very very upset with them. Guess which country's border guards did this to them? Canada's. Is Canada a "very brutal regime"? No.
What happened with the CryptoCat guy is that they asked him what he did for work and he got too specific. One of the guards apparently knows that there is export control on levels of encryption. There was a very very famous case about this involving Phil Zimmerman and PGP that I think has since been dropped. Of course, the guards came to the conclusion that this guy wasn't purposefully exporting high level encryption software to enemy entities. So nothing came of it after they googled for an hour.
Just because Russian border guards are lax or corrupt doesn't mean "the United States has a very brutal regime in charge at the moment." 'Brutal' means savagely violent, vicious, ruthless, or cruel
My work here is dung.
If they think he's carrying around a simple solution to breaking AES256 in a timely manner maybe they did fail the minesweeper cert after all..
Try going into Canada as an IT contract worker. They take the attitude that you are stealing Canadian jobs and they often try to make entry a very annoying process. This once included a two hour questioning by immigration agents where they wanted to know every detail of my stay, my contract, etc. The hell of it was, the contract at that time was with the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency. This even extends to shipping equipment into Canada, we had electronic signage held for weeks at a time and sometimes even rejected (when the exact same item was cleared for another customer). Things may have change recently, I haven't worked in Canada for 4-5 years but don't assume that just the U.S. can be jerks.
I am really sceptical Slashdotters go and buy stuff from posts like this, which leaves the question - Why bother spamming?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
They're far more dangerous than most people realize: the checks and balances and legal avenues of appeal that US citizens are used to don't apply on the border for non-citizens. They can jail you indefinitely, subject to appeals from your native country if they wish. If your "native" country doesn't care (eg. you are an asylum seeker) you can rot in jail indefinitely.
Google whats happened to citizens of "former countries", for example. If you break the law in the US, you go to jail. Fair enough. Typically if you're not a US citizen you may be deported. What happens if your original country no longer exists, or won't take you? you can sit in jail indefinitely. There were several thousand in this position the last time a journalist investigated (oh, and FOIA requests are pretty hard here too).
I'm posting AC because I have relatives in the US in a similar position. They are in a small, Pacifist Christian sect. They left Ireland (sent to relatives in US) in the 1940s as children, less than 10 at the time; they are now retirees, and naturalized, but not US citizens: becoming citizens would mean swearing an oath to defend the US, which they will not do as pacifists. Their children are US citizens and don't have to swear this oath.
Now, they have to be careful: their children are active in the antiwar movement and have frequently been arrested on protests. Small, non-violent stuff. But if they go near a protest, they risk being arrested: they will be deported "back home" after they have paid the fine, etc. They are in their 70s and don't ever remember Ireland, never mind have friends and relatives there. Any small infringement: traffic violation, etc. can ruin their lives, on the whim of an ICE official.
So when you see that nice American granny in your neighborhood, upstanding member of the community, don't imagine they don't live in fear of arbitrary "American Justice".
Imagine a computer that is the size of a grain of sand that can test keys against some encrypted data. Also imagine that it can test a key in the amount of time it takes light to cross it. Then consider a cluster of these computers, so many that if you covered the earth with them, they would cover the whole planet to the height of 1 meter. The cluster of computers would crack a 128-bit key on average in 1,000 years.
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
Is there any source for this aside from random Twitter posts? I generally trust ZeroPaid, but come on - this entire story is built on the basis of a few Tweets.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
I was wondering why the border folks were interested in the cat-copter :)
Protesting in a way that results in a fine is not something you are supposed to do at all--(of course it could be a problem if they are unjustly fined for something they didn't actually do, but it doesn't sound like that's the problem you're describing). I have little sympathy for the idea that these elderly people have to avoid doing things that they're not supposed to be doing at all anyway to avoid being deported.
A fine is not a fee. You don't pay a fine and get permission to perform one illegal protest, any more than a company which paid the fine for illegally dumping chemicals has actually purchased permission to dump the chemicals, or a rapist who's put in jail has retroactively purchased, with his jail time, the right to commit one rape. A fine is a punishment and the activity for which you are punished is prohibited; it doesn't become okay because you've paid the fine. If you're thinking "their children can protest if they pay the fine, why can't they", you're thinking about it the wrong way.
I am currently checking out all his sites to see if there's a newsletter I can subscribe to
If he was coming into Canada from the US, then it would Canadian Border Services "interigating" him, would it not? It would not be DHS. So, I am thinking this might be some way to gain attention to his product.
It possible to get a waiver on religious grounds for the part of the oath that requires you to bear arms. See http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/chapter5.pdf
I don't think your relatives looked very carefully at the citizenship process.
* Well, OK. Sometimes that's what it takes to get O/S developers to comment their code.
Have gnu, will travel.
I suspect their interest in him did not originate from Cryptocat, but instead from his support for WikiLeaks (including at one time having a WikiLeaks mirror).
I think you as well. Protesting shouldn't be illegal, and a citizen of the US should never be fined for doing it. If you are on private property then it is tresspassing. If your activity is unsafe or otherwise disrupts other's lawful activites, there are other relevant charges. But protesting in the USA should always be legal for US citizens. Now, I'd rather see protesting be legal for anyone here lawfully. I want people here on visas, or green cards, who are wronged by the US government to have a public voice as well. But I'm willing to accept there may be good reasons to not do this.
I am confused by what grandparent says about his relatives are naturalized but not citizens. I thought naturalization by definition is becoming a citizen of a country in which you were not born. If they can't protest and they are naturalized citizens, I am really concerned. But if they are green card holders but not citizens, then again I'd rather they could lawfully protest, but can understand otherwise.
Except that the restrictions on even peaceful protest in the united states has exceeded a reasonable level. Protesting outside of a 'designated zone' (which will be so far away from what you are attempting to protest as to be effectively censorship of your statement); arrest.
Failure to identify your intent to protest; arrest.
Challenge a politician with a non-vetted question during a presentation at a public location- fine+removal, refuse to leave; arrest.
Protesting for too long; eviction, arrest, and fines.
Actually effectively delivering your message via a gimmick; fine, told to stop, arrest if you refuse (under 'obstructing traffic, or public nuisance)
Chanting your slogan fine, told to stop, arrest if you refuse (under 'obstructing traffic', or public nuisance)
Essentially protesting, even peaceful protesting, is now a fine-able or arrestable offence.
Perhaps it's a competitor (or ex-girlfriend, or anyone else with a grudge) trying to get that company's site added to various blacklists. I'd think posting to Slashdot would be an above average site for doing that.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Protesting in a way that results in a fine is not something you are supposed to do at all
When the government doesn't respect your right to peaceably assemble, how else are you supposed to protest?
The only protests worth participating in are the ones that could actually change something. Those are the protests that the government will fight with all of its power. That power includes arresting protesters for simply protesting. This is what we saw happen last fall from NY to Oakland.
Think of it this way, if Mubarak had tried to forcibly clear Tahrir square with the excuse of "health and safety", the international community wouldn't have bought that excuse for a second. Yet the US is allowed to get away with claiming "health and safety" as a reason to break up peaceable assembleys like Occupy. And nobody bats an eye.
If you could trust the government to follow the rule of law, you'd have a point. But we're far, far past that point.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Some things in your story don't pass my BS test as an immigrant from Canada preparing to Naturalize in a year or so...
naturalized, but not US citizens
Naturalization means to become a citizen of a country other than by means of birth. Hence, you can't naturalize and not be a citizen by definition. Did you mean they were / are lawful permanent residents?
becoming citizens would mean swearing an oath to defend the US, which they will not do as pacifists.
From the USCIS Guide to Naturalization (PDF links in page, quote is from Chapter 5):
Waiver or Modification of the Oath of Allegiance.
In certain circumstances there can be a modification or waiver of the Oath of Allegiance. These circumstances are as follows:
If you are unable or unwilling to promise to bear arms or perform noncombatant service because of religious training and belief, you may request to leave out those parts of the oath. USCIS may require you to provide documentation from your religious organization explaining its beliefs and stating that you are a member in good standing.
If you are unable or unwilling to take the oath with the words “on oath” and “so help me God” included, you must notify USCIS that you wish to take a modified Oath of Allegiance. Applicants are not required to provide any evidence or testimony to support a request for this type of modification. See 8 CFR 337.1(b).
USCIS can waive the Oath of Allegiance when it is shown that the person’s physical or developmental disability, or mental impairments, makes them unable to understand, or to communicate an understanding of, the meaning of the oath. See 8 USC 337.
Frankly, USCIS is remarkably accepting here, and if it was brought up to an immigration officer I'm certain they'd advise your parents of the possibility of a modified Oath. So either your parents don't know about this, are assuming it can't be modified, and haven't tried, or your whole story is fabricated.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Facilitating murder is just as bad as murder. That you don't wield the weapon yourself is no excuse.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
A small technicality, but if have "naturalized" in the US, you are a naturalized US citizen. If you have not become a US citizen, but have the visa to live in the US on a permanent basis (via a "green-card"), you are technically called a permanent resident.
When I hear about situations like this (e.g., permanent residents that do not wish to return to their country of origin, nor become US citizens). I don't really feel sorry for them. Like everyone in live we make choices and many times, those choices have consequences, and sometimes it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Very few groups respond positively to criticism from outside, why not join us and complain from the inside? I say to such folks, you live in one of the few countries in the world where it is fairly easy (although slowly) to become a citizen. If you really want to own your life, join with us. Then you can gripe with us about our government and vote your choice, rather than scold us with one foot out-of-the-door with a "holier-than-thou" chip on your shoulder...
If someone objects to taking the "modified" oath (as allowed by law and listed below), then I suggest that they don't believe in our constitution, have no desire to support the people of our country more than a typical random joe in a random country in the world, or more likely are just being difficult on purpose to set themselves apart for some personal reason... That's a choice you are free to make, but don't expect the US to help...
I hereby declare, and solemnly affirm, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
There's no difference between being a citizen and a permanent resident in terms of facilitating.
So that's completely irrelevant. Not to mention that the oath was the problem not the citizenship since the kids who are citizens without swearing an oath are all fine and dandy.
I hope he did the math better when he did the encryption scheme.
My quickie estimate (2mm computers, otherwise as specified by him) says 5 seconds on average, not 1000 years.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Got to learn to check my units. Five HOURS, not seconds...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
What's really bad is that this is all true only for some protesters, and not others. If you're protesting a politician or some big politically-connected corporation or something, then the above is what happens to you. However, if you're picketing at a soldier's funeral and saying he deserved to die because "God hates fags", then you're A-OK and the cops won't bother you at all. If the cops are going to harass protesters, they could at least have the decency to harass the Westboro assholes too.
That power includes arresting protesters for simply protesting. This is what we saw happen last fall from NY to Oakland...Think of it this way, if Mubarak had tried to forcibly clear Tahrir square with the excuse of "health and safety"...
Look, I'm all for the right to protest, and I'm all for civil disobedience that might get you arrested to bring attention to an injustice. The Occupy protests were still stupid, and the police was in their right to remove them.
Here's how you make the determination. If it's illegal to do something (like putting up tents and sleeping in an area where this is generally not allowed), it doesn't suddenly become legal because it's part of a protest. That doesn't mean you don't do it, like I said, I'm in favor of civil disobedience as a form of protest. What you are protesting must be related to the laws your are disrespecting however.
Case in point, when Rosa Parks refused to get up to allow the white passengers to sit, she broke a law. That was, however, the law she was protesting against. The law itself was unjust. The only way that the civil disobedience of the Occupy protesters would have been valid would be if they were protesting laws against trespassing or the health codes that prevented them from being there. If they are in favor of those laws being enforced for people who are not protesting, then it is not legitimate for them to disobey them in a protest.
Just about every location gave them the right to protest, just not sleep there. They could go home and come back the next day, just not set up tents. They just felt it was more dramatic to put up tents and not move. Well, it's also more dramatic to set buildings on fire, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it to make their point. Unless they think arson laws are unjust, that is.
> Protesting in a way that results in a fine is not something you are supposed to do at all
True, but that doesn't mean it's morally wrong. The fine may be unjustly imposed, for example, like the police who steered the protest onto the Brookyln Bridge and then arrested the protesters for protesting on the Brooklyn Bridge.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Please. Police were ALSO going after Occupy protesters who were NOT squatting in tent cities, littering, urinating in public, using drugs, assaulting, etc.
The reason for the difference in treatment between Occupiers and Tea Partiers has everything to do with the groups' messages: Occupiers protest corporate power, Tea Baggers support corporate power. That's why one group gets to open carry and make death threats, and the other group gets truncheons and tear gas canisters to the face when they hold up signs.
I will say the US is not like Egypt where people are literally starving.
However, the people protesting are not just some stoned college students who are angry at life because they have a 32GB iPhone 4S and not a 64GB model.
When I graduated high school, it didn't matter what you majored in college. You got your degree in underwater fart-lighting, and you could get a decent job somewhere.
Recently, I was at a college job fair. The people there were a bank or two looking for low end tellers. The US embassy system was looking for some diplomats from the political science majors. The FBI was there recruiting from the criminal justice majors.
The computer science and STEM majors? There was the Army recruiter who would happily give them the rank of PFC as soon as they got out of Basic training. Of course, if they wanted in, they would get MOS 11X because the Army needs infantry.
The ONLY way a STEM major can find work is if they have an internship. If someone doesn't have either the social networking or has been an intern, they will be out on the streets with their degree pounding the pavement indefinitely.
First, job positions these days are not made public.
To boot, most employers run a NCIC check on resumes before they even hit interviewers. If someone has an *arrest* (not conviction) for anything, their resume gets tossed. This is extremely common.
Don't forget Facebook access, either as a friend or a demand for the username/password.
So, for a 20-something to get a job, they have a lot of hurdles to get through. They couldn't have been tossed in the drunk tank during a frat party. They have to have a fake and hoky Facebook account. They had to get the news of the opening through a friend or a network.
So, it isn't just spoiled trust fund babies not getting their CEO job. Where I live, even McDonalds gets people actually writing resumes and 20 applicants for one position.
I wanted a stamp in my passport and they just wanted to wave me through. It took some convincing to get them to find the stamp and stamp my passport. Damn Czechs, so relaxed, they can't even have a violent revolution and civil war, just peacefully transfer governments and split the country.
Is this not an opportunity to compromise his devices? If they were mine, I'd probably bin them on the spot.
Could be a defensive cyberwarfare tactic, they're not so much interested in him but whom he may find himself talking to.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
Just like that Facebook investor that renounced his citizenship just prior to the IPO to avoid taxes, these people want the benefits that America has to offer, but deny the costs associated with those benefits.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
However, if you're picketing at a soldier's funeral and saying he deserved to die because "God hates fags", then you're A-OK and the cops won't bother you at all. If the cops are going to harass protesters, they could at least have the decency to harass the Westboro assholes too.
Yeah, but don't forget that these Westboro shitheads are basically the real life equivalent of internet trolls. As such, the proper response if you want them to go away (and I think we do) is to ignore them. Arresting them just makes them martyrs and puts their name in yet more papers.
I'm not saying that ignoring them is the morally right thing to do here, just the smartest.
Occupy has destroyed protesting for at least the next 4-5 years. Yes, they had some noble causes, but look at the idiocy reported daily, and compare it to the Tea Party protests:
1: Occupy* protesters trashed parks. The TP protesters actually left areas cleaner than before they came.
2: Occupy* protests are chaotic and disrupt daily life in a city. The TP protests had the permits, followed the rules, and left, allowing local businesses minimum downtime. Now, who would a politician listen to? A mob on the verge on rioting where the police are starting to arrest them versus an organized, pre-arranges protest with well-dressed protestors who have had zero brushes with the law?
3: Taking over parks was completely unjustified. It got Occupy* attention, but not good attention.
4: The Tea Party had a sharply focused message. Occupy* just was a general anti-government disturbance.
5: The Tea Party protests in virtually every place have had zero arrests. Yes, zero. You didn't see a "teabagger" defecating on a police car.
6: Most importantly, The Tea Party protests ended on schedule and as per the permit. The local riot police didn't have to bring a fleet of paddy wagons.
What is so sad is that had the Occupy* people decided to actually obey the law and get parade/protest permits (which are handed out regardless of cause -- hell, the Nazis get them), they actually would have left a dent in the political landscape. Now everything left of center is lumped in with that idiocy, and only the right and far right have the ears of the politicians because of this.
I travel from country to country all the time and have never been detained for longer than about 45 minutes, and that was just queuing. I stopped going to the US when they started treating travelers like convicts some years back. As far as I can tell instead of getting better the situation just keeps getting worse.
That ("treating travelers like convicts") is exactly what I thought I was seeing when I last entered the US, just over a year after 9/11. I, too, decided not to visit the country any more unless its officials seemed to be returning to standards of civilized behaviour. I think those US officials and agencies are betraying their fellow-citizens, many of whom are very civilized and are perhaps unaware of what is being done in their name.
-wb-
Well folks, IMHO it's no longer safe to carry electronics of any kind across the border anymore. Leaving yourself open to either confiscation or the border guards "finding something" makes it just too risky. Better to carry just yourself, your clothes, and _maybe_ a paperback.
When the government doesn't respect your right to peaceably assemble, how else are you supposed to protest?
The only protests worth participating in are the ones that could actually change something. Those are the protests that the government will fight with all of its power. That power includes arresting protesters for simply protesting. This is what we saw happen last fall from NY to Oakland.
Think of it this way, if Mubarak had tried to forcibly clear Tahrir square with the excuse of "health and safety", the international community wouldn't have bought that excuse for a second. Yet the US is allowed to get away with claiming "health and safety" as a reason to break up peaceable assembleys like Occupy. And nobody bats an eye.
If you could trust the government to follow the rule of law, you'd have a point. But we're far, far past that point.
This was by far the best post in the thread, and one of the best I've ever read on Slashdot.
Quoted for truth and emphasis.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
One word: pagerank
Experience means different things to different people ... '22 years computer experience' could mean, 'I used an Apple ][e when I was in elementary school, and we got to play Oregon Trail', vs. 'I ran my own BBS back in the day'.
If they were on Prodigy, Compuserve or AOL, it might've just mean that he knows how to send email:
--The IT Crowd, 'Yesterday's Jam'
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Depends which Occupy camp you mean. Some were not peaceably assembling. And why is a city government allowed to put up restrictions about sleeping or defecating in a park which apply to individuals but somehow don't apply if it's a group with "Occupy" on their banners?
Of course a lot of this is illegal, and the protesters _know_ this is illegal. If it were legal it would not be "civil disobedience"! The whole point of many protests is to break the law in order to force the opposition into an uncomfortable stance (do nothing and appear impotent or overreact and lose credibility with the public).
Naturalization == US citizen. The only difference is that they would have become US citizens by virtue of naturalization and not birth. If they are naturalized then they will already have sworn an oath.
I think you mean that your relatives are 'Permanent Residents', in other words they have green cards. Being a permanent resident is not the same as becoming naturalized.
"A citizen of the United States loses U.S. citizenship by becoming a citizen of a foreign country unless a special exception is made by the State Department. A person can also lose U.S. citizenship for serving in the armed forces of, or holding office in, a foreign government. U.S. citizenship can also be taken away from people who have been convicted of a major federal crime, such as treason. But people cannot lose their citizenship for something they were forced to do. A person who is forced to serve in a foreign army, for example, will not lose U.S. citizenship."
See http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/government/civics5.htm
This is revisionist it seems. There have been Tea Party protesters with police presence, only they did not keep an ongoing protest for weeks before police moved in. For the Occupy Wherever people the police did not use truncheons and tear gas on day one when the protesters were being peaceful. Tea Party people go in for a day of naive protesting; Occupy people go in for weeks of naive protesting and 24 hour partying. Tea Party had organizers and leaders and thus an orderly protest; Occupy rejected any idea of leaders and ended up disorganized and with unclear goals and objectives and were easily hijacked by people wanting to cause trouble and commit vandalism.
I do not like the tea party. But I can tell you which of the two groups gains the most credibility with the general public and which makes more ground swaying public opinion.
I don't know about that. Internet trolls have a different motivation: they want attention. I think there's a saying something like "negative attention is better than no attention"; we see it with children all the time, they'll misbehave just to get attention if their parents aren't paying any attention to them. Internet trolls are basically like children this way (and in fact, many are children/teenagers). If they can stir up a bunch of angry responses to their troll post, they've done their job. I remember doing something like this when I was much younger, back when IRC was popular and the web didn't exist: I'd sign onto some IRC forum like "hotsex", post a message that said, "hey everyone, type '/sign naughtypicture.gif' to see some cool pics!', and then sit back and laugh as a dozen people would suddenly sign off the forum. (It didn't work so well when I tried it in a computing forum; they'd just /kick me.)
The Westboro people aren't just kids looking for attention or just to stir things up for fun. They have crazy religious beliefs that God actually wants to punish America because it tolerates homosexuals instead of rounding them all up and exterminating them. Taking away the attention isn't going to change their crazy beliefs; they really think they're on a mission from God, much like the Al Qaeda terrorists thought they were on a mission from God. They spend quite a lot of money sending their members on trips all over the country to make asses of themselves, even though they're actually a pretty small church, so I don't think ignoring them is going to change anything; they'll keep doing it until their demands are met.
This is revisionist it seems. There have been Tea Party protesters with police presence, only they did not keep an ongoing protest for weeks before police moved in.
Tea partiers didn't need to be disruptive to get the attention of the powerful. Their message -- complete and utter corporate control -- was already on the lips of every Republican on the hill. Even the very first Tea Parties were broadcast on national cable networks.
Occupy on the other hand was ignored by the media for weeks before the media realized that an alternative message was gaining traction among the people. Then they went into full character assassination mode.
For the Occupy Wherever people the police did not use truncheons and tear gas on day one when the protesters were being peaceful.
No, they tried to wait it out, and then when they realized that protesters wouldn't stop protesting until their demands were met, brutally violated their first amendment rights to peaceable assembly.
I do not like the tea party. But I can tell you which of the two groups gains the most credibility with the general public and which makes more ground swaying public opinion.
Only because corporations have complete and utter control of the American propaganda system.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I am not trying to troll here and somewhat see you're point, but what would you suggest is the correct way to protest against money grabbing bankers and a government that bails them out?
Like I said, I think they had all the right in the world to be there peacefully protesting for the whole day just like they were, then go home at night, and come back the next morning. It's the setting up tents and just living there that's a problem.
And people peacefully protesting without breaking laws are often harassed by the police. Under those situations, I'll side with the protesters every time. The occupy movement really did give the police a legitimate reason to remove them, however. There really are real health and safety issues.
Don't ignore the fact that there was a considerable effort made to paint the Occupy movement in a bad light. With corporate/Right Wing political pressure (same thing in many ways) on the police to end the protesting, it wasn't quite the same situation. The Tea Party "protestors" were in fact supporting the political right, supporting corporations and corporate power etc. When you support the ruling elite, they usually don't mind if you are quite visible. They leave you alone.
When you protest those in power, you tend to get crushed by the system.
That said, its very unfortunate that all of the serious protestors in the Occupy movement got subsumed by so many people who were more about protesting and less about the issues being protested.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Funny, since Tea Parties across the nation challenged and even defeated incumbent Republicans, who were their main target. This was doing so well that the Democrats planted fake Tea Party candidates in several states to split the fiscally conservative vote.
No, more like when protesters started breaking the law and became a public menace. I'm sure the vandalism during various protests had a lot to do with police response.
Corporate fat cats such as George Soros and Dave Fenton financed the Occupy movement from the beginning. Meanwhile, the Tea Party movement did start grassroots, and was never centrally controlled. Big money did come in afterwards to support some of the protests though.
I dont' think any Tea Partier has ever advocated for complete corporate control. That's not their message at all. Instead their goal is less government at all levels, which possibly implies less regulation, which possibly implies less corporate accountability, which possibly implies more corporate control. But in that case blame them for being naive dupes of the corporations instead of assuming that they willingly want a plutocracy.
Tea Partiers who are in congress are taking actions that could actively undermine the economy (such are not approving higher debt ceiling) and thus are acting against the best interests of corporations.
At least the US has free speech as a basic right. Good luck on that in say, Europe.
I have relatives in the US in a similar position [...]
If these people were to swear to defend the US they could become citizens. Then if someone demands they actually do some defending they explain they are pacifists and they'd be OK. Nobody would force them to fight because US laws on conscription etc. recognise conscientious objector status.
In other words, the arm of the US government concerned with demanding violence from its citizens (the military, etc.) doesn't mind them declining to commit acts of violence, but another arm of the government (the citizenship authorities) does mind because it feels obliged to protect the interests of the first arm. The second arm is being overly zealous, providing assistance beyond what the the first arm wants or needs, and causing unnecessary side effects in the process.
The moral of this story is that there's a bug in the citizenship procedure. Conscientious objector status ought to extend to the citizenship laws as well - someone who can prove conscientious objector status, to the same standard as demanded by a conscription board, ought to be allowed to swear a citizenship oath that does not demand defence, at least not in a violent way.
Caveat: Assuming the parent's information is all accurate.
http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/child-hunger-facts.aspx Child hunger rates in the US
With your vote, of course. Last I checked the American government still generally respected your right to do that. If you don't agree with the laws on peaceful assembly, or with the enforcement of same, you can always vote in new representatives who pledge to amend, repeal, and/or better enforce those laws.
I think you should maybe check your math again. Kaliski used to work at RSA, and the quote above is from "Handbook of Information Security" by H. Bigdoli, page 577. I think they checked the math twice before putting it in print.
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
You seriously think any effort had to be made to paint them in a bad light? With the trash, feces, urine, sexual assaults, vandalism, and major disruption to the lives of the average people living there for months, all any news outlet had to do to paint them in a bad light was report what was going on. An Occupy Cleveland organizer and four other members were even involved in a plot to bomb a bridge as part of their protest. You think that takes effort to dig up when the FBI arrests them?
If you want to look for concerted effort to paint a group in a bad light, look at the Tea Party. Unsupported claims of racism were constantly raised by the media. The media tried to create a huge uproar over many of them legally carrying weapons and even selectively edited a black guy carrying a gun to make it look like it was a white guy who was carrying it. A black guy carrying doesn't go with the media line that the Tea Party is just a bunch of racist white gun toters.
Show me a picture of a Tea Partier crapping on a police car, and you may have a point.
The Tea Party got several of the Republican "ruling elite" kicked out of office. They were far more a danger to incumbent Republicans in 2010 than Democrats.
In the end, a movement is defined by those in it, and you had a very large number of rather unsavory types involved in the Occupy movement. Congratulations, that's what your message attracts.
Clearly not because they've decided the cost isn't worth the benefit and hence are staying in a status that is not as beneficial to them. Which is strange because the cost doesn't actually exist, but to each his own.