I can't really make up any scenario in which a solitary/distributed "cyber-only" attack would result in more casualties and damage than 9-11.
How about disruption of 911 service? power outages at major nodes of the network in major cities? Mess with traffic lights at key intersections at rush hour? A virus in the computers at the NYSE? Remember the Y2K bug stories - even though hardly anything actually happened, a lot of the scenarios described were not that outlandish, and in fact a lot of near disasters were prevented.
(One in particular was noteworthy - in Los Angeles, a y2k test at a water reclamation plant led to some 4 million gallons of raw sewage spilling into the streets. Had this occurred on New Year's eve, there would have been 150,000 or so in that park for a millennium celebration. Hehe... 150,000 Angelenos covered in shit on New Year's eve....
Anthrax, no way. That has to be some kooky retired redneck general with keys to the lab, or, worse, someone who still works in the lab. The targets (Judith Miller, Sen. Daschle, Tom Brokaw) are hardly folks that would be high on al-Qaeda's list of most heinous infidels.... if anything, they are all more visible to and hated by elements of the American right. Interestingly enough, the attack on Daschle (which was perhaps an attack on all of Congress rather than him personally, who knows) came just as the patriot act was being debated on the Hill. Who would gain from spreading that particular kind of fear at that particular moment? Hardly Osama bin Laden. In fact, in papers found on a computer bought by a reporter in Afghanistan, an al Qaeda operative admits in a memo that "despite their extreme danger, we only became aware of [chemical and biological weapons] when the enemy drew our attention to them by repeatedly expressing concern that they can be produced simply."
(By the way let's not forget that al Qaeda's nuclear weapons plans included an internet spoof from the "Journal of Irreproducible Results"....)
These people may want to kill all Americans, but they are not the most sophisticated bunch, no matter how well orchestrated 9-11 was. That anthrax was home grown, and it was probably someone who still has access to a biodefense lab, and
his identity is possibly well known to a number of people around him who find him embarassing and dangerous but protect him anyway because they've known him for so many years.
Representative Howard Berman (D-Viacom) has introduced legislation which will legalize the use of pipe bombs and plastic explosives against photocopy machines to enforce the rights of copyright holders.
"I am a strong believer in the beneficial potential of photocopy machines," Berman stated, "but most people currently use them for unbridled copyright piracy. Billions of copied pages every month constitute copyright infringements for which creators and owners receive no compensation. Photocopy machine piracy must be cleaned up. The question is how."
Berman suggested that the solution to piracy involved many elements. He noted the importance of widespread, online availability of copyrighted works through lawful, consumer-friendly services, strong digital rights management, law suits by copyright owners, and prosecutions against the most egregious infringers.
"Technological self-help measures," he said, "could be yet another part of the solution. Copyright owners could employ a variety of technological tools to prevent the illegal distribution of copyrighted works over photocopy machines -- tools such as detonating explosives, pouring black paint over the lens, or simply smashing the machine to bits with a sledgehammer."
"Use of such self-help measures is nothing new," Berman pointed out. "Satellite and cable companies periodically employ electronic countermeasures to thwart the theft of their signals and programming. However, when such measures are used to thwart photocopier piracy, they may be illegal. Their use may run afoul of certain common law doctrines and state and federal statutes."
I'm not one to bitch about moderation, but how did the following BS get modded insightful?:
I am personally convinced that the various intelligence agencies prevent dozens of terrorist attacks per months, some of them probably of the 9/11 magnitude, without the public realizing simply because the government wants to keep those quiet (no need to shout wolf once the threat is defused).
If so then why have they been shouting wolf over and over again with the least amount of information? If they prevented so much as a bicycle accident they would be shouting it on every network in order to distract us from the bad press they've been receiving lately. The fact that they warn us to stay away from bridges that nothing happens to and they shout triumphantly that they have a "dirty bomber" in custody (as someone else said it well, this guy couldn't even hold a job at McDonald's). What crap.
though I can't be certain, I'd say I and millions of others in the Western world have benefitted more from it than we have been harmed
Ummmm, how? You don't even offer a credible scenario for how Echelon could have saved anyone from anything, and yet you say millions have benefited. I agree that basic violations of human rights are probably more important than Echelon, but they go hand in hand.
I definitely heard this too, also from a sketchy type. Thing was, this dude had collected every strip he could tear out of a bill (recirculating the bills), and this was about 6 or 7 years ago, when very few bills had these things to my knowledge. He had stacks of little strips and was talking about how he was going to collect thousands of dollars worth and walk through customs somewhere with these in a piece of wadded up paper, just to see if it sets off an alarm. I don't understand why someone would want to provoke the search that would ensue, but even more sad, I doubt this guy ever made enough money to get enough strips to ever set off the alarm in any airport anywhere....
around one fifth of the US dollars floating around Europe were not printed at the US mint.
Interestingly though a good portion of real US currency is out of circulation (being horded somewhere, under a mattress, or in a hardened bunker on a desert islant). So perhaps this evens out in some way...
This is bullshit too. Many of them, including their grand wizard, were spoiled Saudi party boys gone wrong. Their leader's main beef is supposedly US military hardware and personnel in Saudi Arabia, even though he trained on American military hardware with American personnel in Afghanistan against the Soviets... he didn't really discover the Palestinians until after 9/11. These people claim to be orthodox Muslims but they carouse in strip clubs, get drunk, and shoot guns off in trailer parks. They claim to have read the Q'uran yet they leave copies of it in cars they rented in their own names as well as in strip clubs that they frequented. They claim to be waging jihad - which even in its most violent forms presumes a tradition of justification not far removed from the Christian just war tradition - and yet they killed many innocents (many Muslims included) to strike a nebulous symbolic blow to a dying empire that will now destroy many more innocents (most of them Muslims) in its final paroxysms (while Europe, Russia, and China wait in the wings to see who will rule the ruins of the dying American empire, on the backs of millions of people, many of them Muslims). These people have as much right to call themselves activists as they have to call themselves Muslims.
They are not an independent media by any means, but just another outlet for leftist liberal bullshit.
Even if you're right, "leftist liberal bullshit" hardly = "terrorist" (are any of us really that dumb? or scared?). But beyond that, how many outlets do you know of for "leftist liberal bullshit" that are both up to date and in depth? Sure, there are a few, but hardly as many as there are for mainstream bullshit, whether you consider it "liberal" or "conservative." And with none of the resources.
As an American I am grateful for and proud of the existence of right wing kook news sources like the Washington Times (Moonies) and newsmax (loonies) because they manifest both the power and price of democracy. Indymedia kicks both their asses, with none of the funding, you may not like them but if you can't respect their oppositional stance you either don't understand them or you don't understand democracy.
Heh, I never claimed to be a friend of the Bush dynasty. Glad you enjoy the site; too bad it hasn't been updated in forever. But you can read "back-issues" at http://nofuncharlie.com/archive
Perhaps, but it's not an uninformed opinion; it's easily confirmed by looking at (for example) the PATRIOT Act, or the military's attempt to define the Constitutional rights of "combatants" out of existence, or the new powers recently given the FBI... In case you forgot, hijacking planes and blowing shit up was illegal long before Sept. 11.
What about the freedom to live from fear, the freedom to be able to make your choices without having options imposed upon you by faceless terrorists?
I don't mean to come off too obnoxious, but it is pathetic to me that someone expressing such cowardice would sign his posts "A True American Patriot" (I know your sig refers to "Russian Radical" writer Ayn Rand, but still). So these assholes hit a couple of our buildings, and may hit more. I'm far more worried about "options being imposed on me" by the likes of John Ashcroft than any terrorist. Don't get me wrong, terrorists are a threat in a very real sense, but they can't take our liberties away - we can only give them away. The sad thing is people wrapping themselves in the American flag as they give them up without even a freakin' fight.
Freedom is nothing without security, because without security you cannot truly be free. Therefore freedom is dependant upon security, and for you to argue otherwise is nonsense. Our Founders understood this; just look at the Second Amendment for a fine example of how they saw the need for security as being paramount!
First off, there's a reason the first Amendment comes first. Second, there is no tradeoff between liberty and security - these are abstract constructs that only make sense in real world situations. In the real world, there may be a tradeoff between a specific liberty (my right to drive a plane into a building) and a specific aspect of security (my ability to go to planes and/or buildings without being incinerated), but to say "you can't have liberty without security" is nonsense. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of restrictions on liberty we are being asked to endorse under the banner of the "war on terrorism" won't do a damn thing to address any real security threat. I am all for taking away people's right to hijack airplanes or blow things up. But we're being asked to give up a lot more. To simply endorse a "no liberty without security" position is to say you're willing to give up any old liberty in order to create whatever damn illusion of security your leaders happen to be waving in front of your face at this particular moment.
I was as devastated as anyone by the WTC collapsing, but after all the smoke cleared, we were hit by 20 people, who killed far fewer people than we as a society openly sacrifice in cost-benefit analyses every time we build a new highway (not to mention deaths we tolerate as a result of the alcohol and tobacco industries), and they hit us in a scheme that was clever but that just about everybody involved has practically admitted that they should have seen coming. The people we've caught - Reid, Massaoui, Lindh, Padilla - these are some fucked up people, no doubt, but are these really people we can't destroy without turning into a police state? Are we so afraid of a bunch of fanatical and fucked-up twenty-somethings who light their shoes on fire that we're willing to throw the Constitution out the window?
Indymedia are terrorists? Please explain with evidence, Mr. A.C. I know this thread is a troll, but all the responses so far defend free speech without defending indymedia. Indymedia was instrumental in getting news out about the WTO protest in Seattle as well as alternative news regarding the war in Afghanistan. To my knowledge they have never, as an organization, advocated violence or terrorism. You may not agree with their perspective, but it is cowardly to put down one of the few alternative voices on the corporate media landscape. The protection of dissenting voices is the hallmark of a free society.
I'd expect to see underground webcasting stations pushing unknown bands grow common, and then some of them (both stations and bands) will grow increasingly popular.... The end result will be the decline and fall of the record companies....
They'll stick around long after we want them dead. I think you're right about unknown music gaining in popularity in the long run with the few webcasters who are willing to stick it out on the internet with independent music introducing listeners to new bands, but where do you think the RIAA will be looking to find the next superstar? They're smart enough to keep things fresh, at least minimally, while trying to keep their old business model intact. Until musicians can make as much money bypassing the RIAA as they can going through it, I don't expect things to change too much in that regard.
sure they're a possibility, still much more remote than simple bombs or hijacked aircraft. They need weapons they can easily get from within the country or that they can easily bring into the country.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a cool map and all, but it really needs a big red arrow that says "You Are Here."
Not prison camps. MSCE Reeducation Centers.
...that Bob's guy at the Post is already doing a story on it. Bob, be sure to say that Frank's guy at the Times is doing the same.
How about disruption of 911 service? power outages at major nodes of the network in major cities? Mess with traffic lights at key intersections at rush hour? A virus in the computers at the NYSE? Remember the Y2K bug stories - even though hardly anything actually happened, a lot of the scenarios described were not that outlandish, and in fact a lot of near disasters were prevented.
(One in particular was noteworthy - in Los Angeles, a y2k test at a water reclamation plant led to some 4 million gallons of raw sewage spilling into the streets. Had this occurred on New Year's eve, there would have been 150,000 or so in that park for a millennium celebration. Hehe... 150,000 Angelenos covered in shit on New Year's eve....
Anthrax, no way. That has to be some kooky retired redneck general with keys to the lab, or, worse, someone who still works in the lab. The targets (Judith Miller, Sen. Daschle, Tom Brokaw) are hardly folks that would be high on al-Qaeda's list of most heinous infidels.... if anything, they are all more visible to and hated by elements of the American right. Interestingly enough, the attack on Daschle (which was perhaps an attack on all of Congress rather than him personally, who knows) came just as the patriot act was being debated on the Hill. Who would gain from spreading that particular kind of fear at that particular moment? Hardly Osama bin Laden. In fact, in papers found on a computer bought by a reporter in Afghanistan, an al Qaeda operative admits in a memo that "despite their extreme danger, we only became aware of [chemical and biological weapons] when the enemy drew our attention to them by repeatedly expressing concern that they can be produced simply."
(By the way let's not forget that al Qaeda's nuclear weapons plans included an internet spoof from the "Journal of Irreproducible Results"....)
These people may want to kill all Americans, but they are not the most sophisticated bunch, no matter how well orchestrated 9-11 was. That anthrax was home grown, and it was probably someone who still has access to a biodefense lab, and his identity is possibly well known to a number of people around him who find him embarassing and dangerous but protect him anyway because they've known him for so many years.
It gets hella hot with the amount of pr0n you can fit on a terabyte!
Representative Howard Berman (D-Viacom) has introduced legislation which will legalize the use of pipe bombs and plastic explosives against photocopy machines to enforce the rights of copyright holders.
"I am a strong believer in the beneficial potential of photocopy machines," Berman stated, "but most people currently use them for unbridled copyright piracy. Billions of copied pages every month constitute copyright infringements for which creators and owners receive no compensation. Photocopy machine piracy must be cleaned up. The question is how."
Berman suggested that the solution to piracy involved many elements. He noted the importance of widespread, online availability of copyrighted works through lawful, consumer-friendly services, strong digital rights management, law suits by copyright owners, and prosecutions against the most egregious infringers.
"Technological self-help measures," he said, "could be yet another part of the solution. Copyright owners could employ a variety of technological tools to prevent the illegal distribution of copyrighted works over photocopy machines -- tools such as detonating explosives, pouring black paint over the lens, or simply smashing the machine to bits with a sledgehammer."
"Use of such self-help measures is nothing new," Berman pointed out. "Satellite and cable companies periodically employ electronic countermeasures to thwart the theft of their signals and programming. However, when such measures are used to thwart photocopier piracy, they may be illegal. Their use may run afoul of certain common law doctrines and state and federal statutes."
Come on, it was a joke! jeez....
PS *I* even listen to techno!
The real reason Moby isn't selling is explained in the new Eminem album:
"you're too old, let go, it's over. Nobody listens to techno!"
Then again, the original ghetto slashdot has got to be Afrodot
I just can't believe the title. Gnome asks for abuse. Can you believe it? Blaming the victim, as usual. Fscking patriarchy....
No, but I can imagine keeping peanut brittle clusters cold with these.
I am personally convinced that the various intelligence agencies prevent dozens of terrorist attacks per months, some of them probably of the 9/11 magnitude, without the public realizing simply because the government wants to keep those quiet (no need to shout wolf once the threat is defused).
If so then why have they been shouting wolf over and over again with the least amount of information? If they prevented so much as a bicycle accident they would be shouting it on every network in order to distract us from the bad press they've been receiving lately. The fact that they warn us to stay away from bridges that nothing happens to and they shout triumphantly that they have a "dirty bomber" in custody (as someone else said it well, this guy couldn't even hold a job at McDonald's). What crap.
Ummmm, how? You don't even offer a credible scenario for how Echelon could have saved anyone from anything, and yet you say millions have benefited. I agree that basic violations of human rights are probably more important than Echelon, but they go hand in hand.
I definitely heard this too, also from a sketchy type. Thing was, this dude had collected every strip he could tear out of a bill (recirculating the bills), and this was about 6 or 7 years ago, when very few bills had these things to my knowledge. He had stacks of little strips and was talking about how he was going to collect thousands of dollars worth and walk through customs somewhere with these in a piece of wadded up paper, just to see if it sets off an alarm. I don't understand why someone would want to provoke the search that would ensue, but even more sad, I doubt this guy ever made enough money to get enough strips to ever set off the alarm in any airport anywhere....
Interestingly though a good portion of real US currency is out of circulation (being horded somewhere, under a mattress, or in a hardened bunker on a desert islant). So perhaps this evens out in some way...
Personally, I hate Canadian food. But then again... oh, wait..... nevermind.
This is bullshit too. Many of them, including their grand wizard, were spoiled Saudi party boys gone wrong. Their leader's main beef is supposedly US military hardware and personnel in Saudi Arabia, even though he trained on American military hardware with American personnel in Afghanistan against the Soviets... he didn't really discover the Palestinians until after 9/11. These people claim to be orthodox Muslims but they carouse in strip clubs, get drunk, and shoot guns off in trailer parks. They claim to have read the Q'uran yet they leave copies of it in cars they rented in their own names as well as in strip clubs that they frequented. They claim to be waging jihad - which even in its most violent forms presumes a tradition of justification not far removed from the Christian just war tradition - and yet they killed many innocents (many Muslims included) to strike a nebulous symbolic blow to a dying empire that will now destroy many more innocents (most of them Muslims) in its final paroxysms (while Europe, Russia, and China wait in the wings to see who will rule the ruins of the dying American empire, on the backs of millions of people, many of them Muslims). These people have as much right to call themselves activists as they have to call themselves Muslims.
(PS: IANAM - I am not a Muslim)
Even if you're right, "leftist liberal bullshit" hardly = "terrorist" (are any of us really that dumb? or scared?). But beyond that, how many outlets do you know of for "leftist liberal bullshit" that are both up to date and in depth? Sure, there are a few, but hardly as many as there are for mainstream bullshit, whether you consider it "liberal" or "conservative." And with none of the resources.
As an American I am grateful for and proud of the existence of right wing kook news sources like the Washington Times (Moonies) and newsmax (loonies) because they manifest both the power and price of democracy. Indymedia kicks both their asses, with none of the funding, you may not like them but if you can't respect their oppositional stance you either don't understand them or you don't understand democracy.
Heh, I never claimed to be a friend of the Bush dynasty. Glad you enjoy the site; too bad it hasn't been updated in forever. But you can read "back-issues" at http://nofuncharlie.com/archive
Perhaps, but it's not an uninformed opinion; it's easily confirmed by looking at (for example) the PATRIOT Act, or the military's attempt to define the Constitutional rights of "combatants" out of existence, or the new powers recently given the FBI... In case you forgot, hijacking planes and blowing shit up was illegal long before Sept. 11.
I don't mean to come off too obnoxious, but it is pathetic to me that someone expressing such cowardice would sign his posts "A True American Patriot" (I know your sig refers to "Russian Radical" writer Ayn Rand, but still). So these assholes hit a couple of our buildings, and may hit more. I'm far more worried about "options being imposed on me" by the likes of John Ashcroft than any terrorist. Don't get me wrong, terrorists are a threat in a very real sense, but they can't take our liberties away - we can only give them away. The sad thing is people wrapping themselves in the American flag as they give them up without even a freakin' fight.
Freedom is nothing without security, because without security you cannot truly be free. Therefore freedom is dependant upon security, and for you to argue otherwise is nonsense. Our Founders understood this; just look at the Second Amendment for a fine example of how they saw the need for security as being paramount!
First off, there's a reason the first Amendment comes first. Second, there is no tradeoff between liberty and security - these are abstract constructs that only make sense in real world situations. In the real world, there may be a tradeoff between a specific liberty (my right to drive a plane into a building) and a specific aspect of security (my ability to go to planes and/or buildings without being incinerated), but to say "you can't have liberty without security" is nonsense. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of restrictions on liberty we are being asked to endorse under the banner of the "war on terrorism" won't do a damn thing to address any real security threat. I am all for taking away people's right to hijack airplanes or blow things up. But we're being asked to give up a lot more. To simply endorse a "no liberty without security" position is to say you're willing to give up any old liberty in order to create whatever damn illusion of security your leaders happen to be waving in front of your face at this particular moment.
I was as devastated as anyone by the WTC collapsing, but after all the smoke cleared, we were hit by 20 people, who killed far fewer people than we as a society openly sacrifice in cost-benefit analyses every time we build a new highway (not to mention deaths we tolerate as a result of the alcohol and tobacco industries), and they hit us in a scheme that was clever but that just about everybody involved has practically admitted that they should have seen coming. The people we've caught - Reid, Massaoui, Lindh, Padilla - these are some fucked up people, no doubt, but are these really people we can't destroy without turning into a police state? Are we so afraid of a bunch of fanatical and fucked-up twenty-somethings who light their shoes on fire that we're willing to throw the Constitution out the window?
Indymedia are terrorists? Please explain with evidence, Mr. A.C. I know this thread is a troll, but all the responses so far defend free speech without defending indymedia. Indymedia was instrumental in getting news out about the WTO protest in Seattle as well as alternative news regarding the war in Afghanistan. To my knowledge they have never, as an organization, advocated violence or terrorism. You may not agree with their perspective, but it is cowardly to put down one of the few alternative voices on the corporate media landscape. The protection of dissenting voices is the hallmark of a free society.
They'll stick around long after we want them dead. I think you're right about unknown music gaining in popularity in the long run with the few webcasters who are willing to stick it out on the internet with independent music introducing listeners to new bands, but where do you think the RIAA will be looking to find the next superstar? They're smart enough to keep things fresh, at least minimally, while trying to keep their old business model intact. Until musicians can make as much money bypassing the RIAA as they can going through it, I don't expect things to change too much in that regard.
sure they're a possibility, still much more remote than simple bombs or hijacked aircraft. They need weapons they can easily get from within the country or that they can easily bring into the country.