I'm with you that there are a lot of kids involved who don't really care for anything beyond an option to show off.
But sometimes that's what you need. Young, angry men are what has driven pretty much every revolution in the history of man. Not all of them were too political.
And yes, many of the actions are juvenile. Hitting the CIA website with a DDOS attack does absolutely nothing to disrupt their operations. And for VISA, etc. it's an inconvenience. Hit their payment servers and you really hurt them.
But then again, this largely inconsequential actions is exactly what makes Anon activities more similar to civil disobedience than actual attacks, and in the long run that may yet prove to be an important difference.
If I were these guys... I'd be doing everything in my power to vanish and disassociate with the larger group.
Changing your behaviour is one of the red flags that law enforcement and TLAs are looking for when they try to identify who is involved. Just saying...
A fair number of the people in anonymous at this point might actually be government operatives posing as allied hackers.
First, I'm not so sure the CIA would be involved at this point. Acting within the US is something that has always caused a shitstorm when it was revealed, so they might stay clear of that. FBI, DHS, etc. are probably what you are looking for.
Two, both you and they are probably making the mistake of treating Anonymous as an organisation. But it isn't. It's total anarchy. There is no organisational structure. I could make and post an Anonymous video on YouTube and nobody would know whether it's "official" or not - and in fact that terminology and way of thinking isn't adequate at all.
Infiltrating Anonymous is like infiltrating/. - and even/. has more of a structure. Sure you can register and account and start posting. You can probably track relations (friend/foe), you can run statistics over the comments and moderation and probably figure out a couple "prominent" users, and with manual work identify "opinion leaders". But you can't destroy the community by making them disappear. Because we'd hardly notice. Because we don't think of the/. community in these terms. The opinion leaders are what they are because they can express themselves well and/or voice what many others think anyways. If they go away, someone else will take their place - most likely without even noticing his "promotion".
Perhaps to you. Also you might wish to investigate who Guy Faulks actually was, who he associated with, what his "ideals" where and what theat whole plan would have resulted in.
I have. But at this point, it doesn't matter. He has become a symbol and his original message has long since become irrelevant.
And there are a hell of a lot more people on the internet working toward change that have absolutely no interest in the methods of anon let alone participate or support them than are just being connected via the web.
Again, you are right but real life is bigger and more complicated.
For the past 20 years or so, those of us who had an interest in civil rights in the Internet sphere had been doing much fighting against windmills. I used to work with the EFF, tried to found a EFF Europe, got into a few lawsuits, even gained a little bit of publicity. I also watched how the lobbyists and corrupt politicians steamrolled over us without a second thought because we were few and couldn't compete in the bribery. I've heard the tales from the other folks about how the EFF once tried to enter the lobby circus in Washington DC and the only thing it got them was burning out their own people.
You can't say I didn't try. And I still believe in the EFF et al. - but I also think they don't have the resources nor abilities to mobilize masses of people and on their own they wouldn't have been able to put a stop on ACTA.
Anonymous - for whatever reasons of coolness and movie cliches - reach people and get newspaper and TV news coverage. When's the last time you've seen the EFF mentioned in the evening news?
We definitely need both. Someone who can mobilize people to go on the street and give the TV news the footage they want to put your issue into the evening news, and someone who fights in the courtrooms and can provide expert talks to the news.
It doesn't matter where the inspiration comes from, if it inspires.
The V character is secondary. What works is the Anonymous image/mask, because the movie (and probably comic, didn't read that) got one thing right: Masks still serve the same purpose they always have, and we had only forgotten about it except during carnival.
The principle of Anonymous is to hide the people behind the purpose and focus on the purpose. That there are no leaders in Anonymous is more than just a strategy to avoid arrest. It also makes the movement immune to attacks on its leadership, because anyone can replace it. The persons don't matter as much as the purpose.
And that is a lesson it has in common with the Arab Spring. There were no leaders there. A couple people got quoted or gave speeches more often than others, but the movement could not be stopped because it had not head to cut off - a strategy that tyrants employ regularily against uprisings.
Anonymous' structure is exactly that of your standard terrorist organization
Of course it is. Not because it is evil, but because that structure is effective.
However, there is one mistake in your analysis. It is not "exactly", it is like/ - there are differences. For example, the leadership issue is more tricky, there is likely not one central core, but several. And there is no authority, so the core could never prove that it really is the core.
Like the fools at political rallies who throw bottles at police and overturn cars, they actively _discredit_ the political causes they occasionally espouse.
Life rarely is that simple.
They have also given a face (literally) to the protest that could not express itself so far, because it is general unhappiness with a lot of things that are going wrong. And the only people who have been doing that kind of protest so far were the punks and anarchists that most people, even young adults, don't want to be associated with.
Anonymous gives this a much cooler and more respectable image. Yes, I said "respectable" there - look at the surface. Compare the character from V with a random street punk. Neither are exactly the good guy in the white vest, but V is a lot more likeable.
So while there is some discrediting involved, there is also a lot of mobilizing. Many people are now protesting, who would not have protested at all otherwise.
If they were competent enough to actually raid corporate email or financial records and get them to Wikileaks, then I'd take them far more seriously.
The problem with all of this is that it's a hassle to keep that data updated.
For most of us, the most valuable data we have - our personal records, source code, etc. - is constantly changing.
If anyone here knows of a small, battery-powered, wireless (i.e. WLAN) device that can be used as a hidden data container, please post a link and I'll very likely buy one today. My personal threat model is more burglars than police, but from a risk perspective there's little difference between the two.
Yes, I know off-site storage to a server would work. But here's the thing: Hassle. My iMac can do fully-automated backups using Time Machine to any local or remote drive, but not over the Internet.
Seriously, someone said it very well recently: He thinks Anonymous is a small group of really capable people, surrounded by lots of wanna-be-hackers and teenagers wanting to be cool, basically the script kiddies of today.
My guess is they've arrested a couple of the later. There are lots more where they came from, and we've been doing this dance with the police ever since the first (floppy-disc) copying parties.
I was once in the opposite position: Having to take over. So maybe this is worth something to you:
Situation: dot-com company, the 3rd party that had been running the servers decided they wanted to do something else and gave us notice within the contracted time frame. So we had about 3 months in total.
What we did was make an agreement about a transition period. For 3 weeks, the two of us who had been selected (from an available pool of Unix admins of... us 2, so it wasn't much of a selection) to take over went to work at the other company, sitting next to them, watching them, getting everything explained to us, making lots and lots of notes, and gradually taking over with them watching us.
This kind of smooth transition - after the first week we started to do a few simple things, by the end of the second week we were doing most of the day-to-day things, and during the third week we ran a few of the more arcane scenarios (server crash, etc.) still with the old admins watching us - was the best experience in that area that I've had.
This transition period was not at the very end of their contract, so even after we had taken over running things, they were available for questions and in case we ran into problems. Sure, the company was essentially paying them doing nothing for a few weeks, but the risk of not having them available in an emergency was bigger.
Do not base your view of the damage caused by substance abuse solely upon the number of headlines you see.
I don't. There are studies on this. Now you can probably say that these also miss many of the victims who are below a threshold of suffering. But that is also true for the many small damages that drunk people do. The fights they get into that get never reported, the people they vomit on, etc. etc.
If you drink to the point where it has negative consequences, how is that not abuse?
It's a matter of definition. I believe you need to have a certain regularity in order to be qualified an alcoholic, but there are various definitions.
Nobody said anything about a lawyer on speed dial. That's a strawman.
But it does help to have some way to contact a lawyer if you need one, and some way to pay him. Just like you have the same for doctors. Because, as with having an accident or falling ill, when it happens you won't be in the mood for searching for one.
Horrible! Just like, say, the oil industry. Guaranteed income! As long as people need to drive, they will have to buy fuel! Oh the socialism! We need to revolt right now!
A truly novel solution (not that I'm suggesting this) would be something like "Kill someone while drunk driving? Spend the next 18 months cleaning puke off the toilets in bars."
I'm sure that would make the family of the person that died sooo much happier.
Because anecdotes are not statistically significant evidence.
There are also cocain users who do more damage to others than to themselves. But, like your aunts, they are the exception and not the rule.
Viewed on the level of a population, alcohol largely damages others, because the majority of damage is not in the alcoholics, but in the "recreational drinkers", who then get into fights, or drive drunk. And yes, drunk drivers routinely take out others. Not every car accident involves two cars, you know? A major issue is that alcohol slows your reaction times, so you'll run that kid right over that a sober driver would have avoided.
Can you guys please hire a few european editors, who might have half a clue on things this side of the pond?
The "right to be forgotten" doesn't even get touched by this nonsense lawsuit. First, it's not yet a law, so how could it? Second, it is about your own data and information. Think FaceBook no longer being allowed to ignore that you deleted your account and keeping your data anyways.
Supposedly Evi will be continue to be allowed on iOS if it alters its interface to be dissimilar enough from Siri to placate Apple.
Which is not an entirely unreasonable request. Apple's strength is massively in brand recognition, so making sure your customers aren't confused about what is and what isn't an Apple product makes a lot of sense.
Plus they didn't just pull it, they apparently told the developers what they were concerned about and asked for their cooperation.
I fail to see where the news story is in this one.
Sorry, is this a new concept anywhere on the planet?
I have something called "Rechtschutzversicherung" in my native german. A translation would be "legal costs insurance". It's like any other insurance: I pay a yearly fee and if I need it, it covers my legal costs, especially the lawyer. They also have their own lawyers to handle small matters.
So basically, if you threaten me with a lawsuit, I'll say "sue me" and call the lawyer of my choice.
Don't tell me you don't have something like that in your country. That would be insane.
Regardless, you seem to be under the (albeit sincerely naive) impression that all those things you list are still working in your favour, and that those in political and corporate power are beholden to your interests. They aren't. You're thinking is about 50 years too late - those were the 'good ole days' of benevolence and spirit, working against common enemies and using whatever means necessary to triumph.
The thing that has changed is the enemy. This is really old wisdom, literally 2000 years at the least. If a country lacks outside enemies, it starts to find inside enemies. And since we don't do that christian/jew/black/whatever persecution thing anymore, it turned out that simply considering everyone else an enemy and taking the whole capitalist everyone-for-himself mantra seriously was the easiest solution.
Like all dogmas, once you take things too seriously, they start to go downhill.
"Get a lawyer. Get him now" Your zeal and your words sound very attractive and righteous -- but then there is reality..
I happen to live there. I try to sort my own matters out without lawyers, if possible. But I also have enough experience with the legal system to know when to get a lawyer. This is where you want a lawyer.
Oh yes, I do assume that the poster has an insurance covering his legal fees. If not: Why the fuck not? It's the common man's equivalent of the corporate legal department. I've probably paid more for my insurance over the years than they paid in lawyers fees, but I am glad I have it exactly because it allows me to call for a lawyer when I need one.
and tie him up in court for who knows how long.
A good lawyer minimizes the time his client needs to spend. I retained a lawyer just last week for something that needs sorting out mostly because I am busy with my own company right now and can't afford the time to worry about it myself.
Get a lawyer. Get him now, because there are deadlines and the law takes deadlines very seriously. Ask the EFF or ACLU, they often love cases like these, and they have a couple really good lawyers.
Have your lawyer send them a cease & desist letter. You will need that later.
From what you describe, you should start in small claims court, which will very likely result in a default judgement in your favour, because most companies don't bother with defending themselves. If they cease&desist, sue them for whatever ad revenue they illegally made. If they don't c&d, sue them for the lot.
With the default judgement in hand, escalate. Sue them for copyright infringement, fraud and whatever else your lawyer comes up with.
Don't forget that copyright infringement is a criminal offense, too. And thanks to the content mafia, the penalties are considerable.
The one thing you shouldn't do is lie down, do nothing, or delete your video. On the contrary, why didn't you post the link? A quick/. effect later and there'd be many thousand views and the damages for your case would be there.
Unless, of course, the wars for which we don't have serious numbers are vastly overstated. Note that many of these wars occurred in China and are based on census data which could be very inefficient in the chaotic period after a war.
That's why there are usually both low and high estimates listed.
But all that isn't the point. I don't really care about a few million casualties more or less. We have many millions of deaths caused by wars after WW2, so clearly the world at large is not in all-happy-hippies peace.
That depends entirely on whether you are living in the real world or in lala-land.
Minor parties are changing the system all the time. In my country, the existence of the green party has put issues of environmental protection, peace, critical re-evaluation of atomic power, etc. etc. onto the agenda of all the major parties. When they started getting a seizable share of the votes, the other parties realized they can't ignore these issues anymore.
The same is happening with the pirate party right now. The fact that they solidly beat out one of the old major parties in a recent election shocked all the old parties, and suddenly they are starting to listen. ACTA was stopped in my country by a minister of the very party that lost its seats in that regional parliament to the pirate party. She's one of the smarter politicians, and she's understood that listening to the people is the only ticket her party has for survival.
Sure, it is much slower and nuanced change than a revolution, but it also has a lot less death and destruction. And yes, I agree that "honest politician" is something you see once in a million.
But unless you have a realistic, proven proposal for a better system, all the rhetorics is just bullshit, anger expressed in words, but ultimately not constructive.
Because the first step in changing reality is accepting the current reality for what it is.
They are, and still programming a VCR does not need detailed technical knowledge of how the thing works, only how to set the timer. And VCRs are a clear-cut case of the most sucking user interface one could design if it were a contest for maximum inconvenience.
We know that the user doesn't have the technical knowledge - because he doesn't need to, shouldn't have to. So it is our task to explain to them what they need to know in terms they understand.
Good doctors, btw., can do that. They can tell you what the symptoms are, how it will feel like, if you don't take this medicine. You don't need to know how the medicine works, only what the consequences of your actions one way or the other are.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with you that there are a lot of kids involved who don't really care for anything beyond an option to show off.
But sometimes that's what you need. Young, angry men are what has driven pretty much every revolution in the history of man. Not all of them were too political.
And yes, many of the actions are juvenile. Hitting the CIA website with a DDOS attack does absolutely nothing to disrupt their operations. And for VISA, etc. it's an inconvenience. Hit their payment servers and you really hurt them.
But then again, this largely inconsequential actions is exactly what makes Anon activities more similar to civil disobedience than actual attacks, and in the long run that may yet prove to be an important difference.
If I were these guys... I'd be doing everything in my power to vanish and disassociate with the larger group.
Changing your behaviour is one of the red flags that law enforcement and TLAs are looking for when they try to identify who is involved. Just saying...
A fair number of the people in anonymous at this point might actually be government operatives posing as allied hackers.
First, I'm not so sure the CIA would be involved at this point. Acting within the US is something that has always caused a shitstorm when it was revealed, so they might stay clear of that. FBI, DHS, etc. are probably what you are looking for.
Two, both you and they are probably making the mistake of treating Anonymous as an organisation. But it isn't. It's total anarchy. There is no organisational structure. I could make and post an Anonymous video on YouTube and nobody would know whether it's "official" or not - and in fact that terminology and way of thinking isn't adequate at all.
Infiltrating Anonymous is like infiltrating /. - and even /. has more of a structure. Sure you can register and account and start posting. You can probably track relations (friend/foe), you can run statistics over the comments and moderation and probably figure out a couple "prominent" users, and with manual work identify "opinion leaders". /. community in these terms. The opinion leaders are what they are because they can express themselves well and/or voice what many others think anyways. If they go away, someone else will take their place - most likely without even noticing his "promotion".
But you can't destroy the community by making them disappear. Because we'd hardly notice. Because we don't think of the
Perhaps to you. Also you might wish to investigate who Guy Faulks actually was, who he associated with, what his "ideals" where and what theat whole plan would have resulted in.
I have. But at this point, it doesn't matter. He has become a symbol and his original message has long since become irrelevant.
And there are a hell of a lot more people on the internet working toward change that have absolutely no interest in the methods of anon let alone participate or support them than are just being connected via the web.
Again, you are right but real life is bigger and more complicated.
For the past 20 years or so, those of us who had an interest in civil rights in the Internet sphere had been doing much fighting against windmills. I used to work with the EFF, tried to found a EFF Europe, got into a few lawsuits, even gained a little bit of publicity. I also watched how the lobbyists and corrupt politicians steamrolled over us without a second thought because we were few and couldn't compete in the bribery. I've heard the tales from the other folks about how the EFF once tried to enter the lobby circus in Washington DC and the only thing it got them was burning out their own people.
You can't say I didn't try. And I still believe in the EFF et al. - but I also think they don't have the resources nor abilities to mobilize masses of people and on their own they wouldn't have been able to put a stop on ACTA.
Anonymous - for whatever reasons of coolness and movie cliches - reach people and get newspaper and TV news coverage. When's the last time you've seen the EFF mentioned in the evening news?
We definitely need both. Someone who can mobilize people to go on the street and give the TV news the footage they want to put your issue into the evening news, and someone who fights in the courtrooms and can provide expert talks to the news.
It doesn't matter where the inspiration comes from, if it inspires.
The V character is secondary. What works is the Anonymous image/mask, because the movie (and probably comic, didn't read that) got one thing right: Masks still serve the same purpose they always have, and we had only forgotten about it except during carnival.
The principle of Anonymous is to hide the people behind the purpose and focus on the purpose. That there are no leaders in Anonymous is more than just a strategy to avoid arrest. It also makes the movement immune to attacks on its leadership, because anyone can replace it. The persons don't matter as much as the purpose.
And that is a lesson it has in common with the Arab Spring. There were no leaders there. A couple people got quoted or gave speeches more often than others, but the movement could not be stopped because it had not head to cut off - a strategy that tyrants employ regularily against uprisings.
Anonymous' structure is exactly that of your standard terrorist organization
Of course it is. Not because it is evil, but because that structure is effective.
However, there is one mistake in your analysis. It is not "exactly", it is like/ - there are differences. For example, the leadership issue is more tricky, there is likely not one central core, but several. And there is no authority, so the core could never prove that it really is the core.
Maybe a better comparison is not a terror network, but a resistance network. The French Résistance didn't need a central authority, but it certainly had its (local) leaders. Other resistance movements likewise. Very often, even when a public figure emerges, the actual power he has over the movement is exaggerated.
Like the fools at political rallies who throw bottles at police and overturn cars, they actively _discredit_ the political causes they occasionally espouse.
Life rarely is that simple.
They have also given a face (literally) to the protest that could not express itself so far, because it is general unhappiness with a lot of things that are going wrong. And the only people who have been doing that kind of protest so far were the punks and anarchists that most people, even young adults, don't want to be associated with.
Anonymous gives this a much cooler and more respectable image. Yes, I said "respectable" there - look at the surface. Compare the character from V with a random street punk. Neither are exactly the good guy in the white vest, but V is a lot more likeable.
So while there is some discrediting involved, there is also a lot of mobilizing. Many people are now protesting, who would not have protested at all otherwise.
If they were competent enough to actually raid corporate email or financial records and get them to Wikileaks, then I'd take them far more seriously.
Stratfor
The problem with all of this is that it's a hassle to keep that data updated.
For most of us, the most valuable data we have - our personal records, source code, etc. - is constantly changing.
If anyone here knows of a small, battery-powered, wireless (i.e. WLAN) device that can be used as a hidden data container, please post a link and I'll very likely buy one today. My personal threat model is more burglars than police, but from a risk perspective there's little difference between the two.
Yes, I know off-site storage to a server would work. But here's the thing: Hassle. My iMac can do fully-automated backups using Time Machine to any local or remote drive, but not over the Internet.
...for the next Anonymous statement.
Seriously, someone said it very well recently: He thinks Anonymous is a small group of really capable people, surrounded by lots of wanna-be-hackers and teenagers wanting to be cool, basically the script kiddies of today.
My guess is they've arrested a couple of the later. There are lots more where they came from, and we've been doing this dance with the police ever since the first (floppy-disc) copying parties.
I was once in the opposite position: Having to take over. So maybe this is worth something to you:
Situation: dot-com company, the 3rd party that had been running the servers decided they wanted to do something else and gave us notice within the contracted time frame. So we had about 3 months in total.
What we did was make an agreement about a transition period. For 3 weeks, the two of us who had been selected (from an available pool of Unix admins of ... us 2, so it wasn't much of a selection) to take over went to work at the other company, sitting next to them, watching them, getting everything explained to us, making lots and lots of notes, and gradually taking over with them watching us.
This kind of smooth transition - after the first week we started to do a few simple things, by the end of the second week we were doing most of the day-to-day things, and during the third week we ran a few of the more arcane scenarios (server crash, etc.) still with the old admins watching us - was the best experience in that area that I've had.
This transition period was not at the very end of their contract, so even after we had taken over running things, they were available for questions and in case we ran into problems. Sure, the company was essentially paying them doing nothing for a few weeks, but the risk of not having them available in an emergency was bigger.
Do not base your view of the damage caused by substance abuse solely upon the number of headlines you see.
I don't. There are studies on this. Now you can probably say that these also miss many of the victims who are below a threshold of suffering. But that is also true for the many small damages that drunk people do. The fights they get into that get never reported, the people they vomit on, etc. etc.
If you drink to the point where it has negative consequences, how is that not abuse?
It's a matter of definition. I believe you need to have a certain regularity in order to be qualified an alcoholic, but there are various definitions.
Yeah, I was being over-the-top on purpose.
But you entirely missed the validity of the point. We also have mandatory first aid boxes in cars. The car works perfectly fine without.
The corporations that make these tests are laughing all the way to the bank
I doubt that. This is not exclusive enough, and the total profit margin is pretty small.
Nobody said anything about a lawyer on speed dial. That's a strawman.
But it does help to have some way to contact a lawyer if you need one, and some way to pay him. Just like you have the same for doctors. Because, as with having an accident or falling ill, when it happens you won't be in the mood for searching for one.
Horrible! Just like, say, the oil industry. Guaranteed income! As long as people need to drive, they will have to buy fuel! Oh the socialism! We need to revolt right now!
A truly novel solution (not that I'm suggesting this) would be something like "Kill someone while drunk driving? Spend the next 18 months cleaning puke off the toilets in bars."
I'm sure that would make the family of the person that died sooo much happier.
Because anecdotes are not statistically significant evidence.
There are also cocain users who do more damage to others than to themselves. But, like your aunts, they are the exception and not the rule.
Viewed on the level of a population, alcohol largely damages others, because the majority of damage is not in the alcoholics, but in the "recreational drinkers", who then get into fights, or drive drunk. And yes, drunk drivers routinely take out others. Not every car accident involves two cars, you know? A major issue is that alcohol slows your reaction times, so you'll run that kid right over that a sober driver would have avoided.
Another misleading /. article.
Can you guys please hire a few european editors, who might have half a clue on things this side of the pond?
The "right to be forgotten" doesn't even get touched by this nonsense lawsuit. First, it's not yet a law, so how could it? Second, it is about your own data and information. Think FaceBook no longer being allowed to ignore that you deleted your account and keeping your data anyways.
Supposedly Evi will be continue to be allowed on iOS if it alters its interface to be dissimilar enough from Siri to placate Apple.
Which is not an entirely unreasonable request. Apple's strength is massively in brand recognition, so making sure your customers aren't confused about what is and what isn't an Apple product makes a lot of sense.
Plus they didn't just pull it, they apparently told the developers what they were concerned about and asked for their cooperation.
I fail to see where the news story is in this one.
Sorry, is this a new concept anywhere on the planet?
I have something called "Rechtschutzversicherung" in my native german. A translation would be "legal costs insurance". It's like any other insurance: I pay a yearly fee and if I need it, it covers my legal costs, especially the lawyer. They also have their own lawyers to handle small matters.
So basically, if you threaten me with a lawsuit, I'll say "sue me" and call the lawyer of my choice.
Don't tell me you don't have something like that in your country. That would be insane.
Regardless, you seem to be under the (albeit sincerely naive) impression that all those things you list are still working in your favour, and that those in political and corporate power are beholden to your interests. They aren't. You're thinking is about 50 years too late - those were the 'good ole days' of benevolence and spirit, working against common enemies and using whatever means necessary to triumph.
The thing that has changed is the enemy. This is really old wisdom, literally 2000 years at the least. If a country lacks outside enemies, it starts to find inside enemies. And since we don't do that christian/jew/black/whatever persecution thing anymore, it turned out that simply considering everyone else an enemy and taking the whole capitalist everyone-for-himself mantra seriously was the easiest solution.
Like all dogmas, once you take things too seriously, they start to go downhill.
"Get a lawyer. Get him now" Your zeal and your words sound very attractive and righteous -- but then there is reality..
I happen to live there. I try to sort my own matters out without lawyers, if possible. But I also have enough experience with the legal system to know when to get a lawyer. This is where you want a lawyer.
Oh yes, I do assume that the poster has an insurance covering his legal fees. If not: Why the fuck not? It's the common man's equivalent of the corporate legal department. I've probably paid more for my insurance over the years than they paid in lawyers fees, but I am glad I have it exactly because it allows me to call for a lawyer when I need one.
and tie him up in court for who knows how long.
A good lawyer minimizes the time his client needs to spend. I retained a lawyer just last week for something that needs sorting out mostly because I am busy with my own company right now and can't afford the time to worry about it myself.
Get a lawyer. Get him now, because there are deadlines and the law takes deadlines very seriously. Ask the EFF or ACLU, they often love cases like these, and they have a couple really good lawyers.
Have your lawyer send them a cease & desist letter. You will need that later.
From what you describe, you should start in small claims court, which will very likely result in a default judgement in your favour, because most companies don't bother with defending themselves. If they cease&desist, sue them for whatever ad revenue they illegally made. If they don't c&d, sue them for the lot.
With the default judgement in hand, escalate. Sue them for copyright infringement, fraud and whatever else your lawyer comes up with.
Don't forget that copyright infringement is a criminal offense, too. And thanks to the content mafia, the penalties are considerable.
The one thing you shouldn't do is lie down, do nothing, or delete your video. On the contrary, why didn't you post the link? A quick /. effect later and there'd be many thousand views and the damages for your case would be there.
Best reply so far.
In legal cases, it never hurts having more ammo. If only to threathen them back if they try to play hardball with you.
Also, check in with the EFF and ACLU. They may want to support you and get a precedent set. They love clear cases like this one.
Unless, of course, the wars for which we don't have serious numbers are vastly overstated. Note that many of these wars occurred in China and are based on census data which could be very inefficient in the chaotic period after a war.
That's why there are usually both low and high estimates listed.
But all that isn't the point. I don't really care about a few million casualties more or less. We have many millions of deaths caused by wars after WW2, so clearly the world at large is not in all-happy-hippies peace.
That depends entirely on whether you are living in the real world or in lala-land.
Minor parties are changing the system all the time. In my country, the existence of the green party has put issues of environmental protection, peace, critical re-evaluation of atomic power, etc. etc. onto the agenda of all the major parties. When they started getting a seizable share of the votes, the other parties realized they can't ignore these issues anymore.
The same is happening with the pirate party right now. The fact that they solidly beat out one of the old major parties in a recent election shocked all the old parties, and suddenly they are starting to listen. ACTA was stopped in my country by a minister of the very party that lost its seats in that regional parliament to the pirate party. She's one of the smarter politicians, and she's understood that listening to the people is the only ticket her party has for survival.
Sure, it is much slower and nuanced change than a revolution, but it also has a lot less death and destruction.
And yes, I agree that "honest politician" is something you see once in a million.
But unless you have a realistic, proven proposal for a better system, all the rhetorics is just bullshit, anger expressed in words, but ultimately not constructive.
Because the first step in changing reality is accepting the current reality for what it is.
Technical things are technical,
They are, and still programming a VCR does not need detailed technical knowledge of how the thing works, only how to set the timer. And VCRs are a clear-cut case of the most sucking user interface one could design if it were a contest for maximum inconvenience.
We know that the user doesn't have the technical knowledge - because he doesn't need to, shouldn't have to. So it is our task to explain to them what they need to know in terms they understand.
Good doctors, btw., can do that. They can tell you what the symptoms are, how it will feel like, if you don't take this medicine. You don't need to know how the medicine works, only what the consequences of your actions one way or the other are.