Tag Archives: Big brother

Senate passes bill that removes the most basic human right AND reminds us: only Americans are human.

Capped this last night (source: bit.ly/tRP0Vr):

“The Senate on Thursday passed a giant defense bill that includes a new policy for detaining and trying suspected al Qaeda terrorists”

That was CNN’s simple explanation of the bill, but if you continue to read a few paragraphs in you get to see, not only how the US Senate is pissing the US Constitution down their leg, but also how the media is still just repeating what they are told and not actually doing any challenging of our leaders. Hell, they don’t even question things in the article where no politician can directly challenge them back–but I’m getting ahead of myself. Here’s a cutting from the article that shows us how the US Senate agrees that if you’re not American, you’re not human:

“This country is special because we have certain values, and due process of law is one of those values,” Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-California, argued on the Senate floor.  ”I object to holding American citizens without trial. I do not believe that makes us more safe.”

Pretty neat, huh? Feinstein, a Democrat, does not object to holding non-Americans without trial despite our founding documents declaring that all humans are created equal. I guess Senator Feinstein believes that if you’re not American you’re not human. Why else shouldn’t all people have the right to be free from unlawful imprisonment?

More from the article:

“You have people on the left who hate saying ‘the war on terror,’” responded Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina. “They would never ever use the military and always insist the law enforcement be used because they don’t buy into the idea that we’re at war. They want to criminalize the war.”

HA! The phrase “criminalize the war” is laughingly nonsensical enough but the straw-man argument Graham spins is laughably typical. As though the legal system is somehow inadequate for keeping Americans safe. Apparently, the FBI and the cops and the judicial system sucks so much ass, America would fall apart if it was trusted with going after terrorists. No, WE NEED A WAR!

It’s politicians like Feinstein and Graham that totally miss the point of OUR FOUNDING PRINCIPLES and make me want to give up on “America” as a concept. I mean, seriously–what the ability to hold anyone indefinitely does is remove the first human right (essentially) ever established: the right of Habeas Corpus. Going back as far as the 1300s, Habeas Corpus is the right that everyone needs guaranteed because it allows a prisoner to challenge their detention. And EVERYONE needs this right, not just Americans–why? Because of mistakes.

Let’s say Diane Feinstein or Lindsey Graham were mistaken for Canadians who inadvertently supported a pro-Palestinian terrorist group. How would they be able to challenge their detention?

Read more about Habeas Corpus on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

Read the rest of the CNN article to see how wonderful a job they do of contextualizing this bill in a way that allows you to see how unConstitutional it is: bit.ly/tRP0Vr OH WAIT, they don’t do that at all, instead, completely ignoring it’s obvious conflicts with our founding documents.

Just a quick reminder: 1 in 2 adult men will get cancer. The craziest, most extreme Al Qaeda guy only wishes he was that effective. How about a War on Cancer, Senators Graham and Feinstein, hmmm? I’m totally down with indefinite detention of cancer tumors, in fact, let’s kill them on sight.

Posted in ThePoliticalPete, Website666, You Should Give a Crap | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Just a reminder: The USG likes to trump up Terrorist threats, like that last one.

I spotted this tweet two weeks ago and opened it in a tab but then forgot to blog about it. Basically, it’s proof, once again, that the USG doesn’t like to bother with actual terrorists. Instead preferring to pretend people with intent but without means deserve to be arrested for wrongthinking and being stupid enough to trust an FBI plant who is pretending to be someone he isn’t.  So, here’s the tweet:

From @BreakingNews: “More: US officials say their assessment of some Iranian leaders’ plot knowledge is based on history, analysis, not hard evidence – @Reuters”

Original tweet is here.

See, evidence is that thing you need to convict another human of a crime since all humans are guaranteed certain rights regardless of nationality, gender, religion or sexual preference.  At least, I thought that was the case before American citizen Al-Awlaki got blown up by a drone.  So apparently, you don’t need a court OR evidence to decide someone is a terrorist.

Read more about the case the tweet refers to in a post on my blog.

Posted in none, Website666 | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Yet another supposed “terrorist plot” has been “foiled.”

One thing I’ve noticed about the various terrorist plots foiled by the USG is that they’ve all involved undercover USG-types posing as Al Qaeda or someone else.  When those dudes in Florida wanted to blow up the Sears Tower, they were to get everything from weapons to boots (BOOTS!) from their Al Qaeda guy.  Their Al Qaeda guy was actually FBI.  Turns out they had zero means to do what they wanted to do.

Likewise, that kid who wanted to leave a bomb at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon (I think) a year or two ago–he was a kid who was dealing with, who he thought was an Al Qaeda guy, but was actually an FBI guy.  This was a kid who had no means to commit his act of terror.

And again, recently with this supposed Iranian plot.  Check out what Reuters reported:

U.S. court documents accuse Arbabsiar, a naturalized U.S. citizen with an Iranian passport, of paying $100,000 to an informant, who had posed as an associate of a Mexican drug cartel but in fact worked for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and alerted the authorities to the plot.

Now, there aren’t enough specifics here to say it’s essentially a case of entrapment (like we can say about the previous two examples), but if the USG is sticking to form, we can certainly consider it a strong possibility until we know for sure.  But seriously, we really shouldn’t be surprised if suddenly this story drops out of the media entirely in a few days like those previous stories I mentioned.

It’s just another example of this trumped up (non-)war on terror.

Posted in You Should Give a Crap | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

My Take on the latest Facebook Mess (The one where it tracks you even if you’re logged out)

I posted a variant of this post earlier on Website666.com. Check it out if you want more context, but my commentary is more meaty here.

So, even if you log out, Facebook can still track you through the magic of cookies–those little “bread crumbs” that websites leave on your computer with info about your behavior on that site or other sites.

Well, this doesn’t surprise me too much.  After all, every one of us should be aware that we’re not Facebook’s customers. Facebook’s customers are advertisers.  We are Soylent Green fed to the advertisers–aka, what advertisers pay Facebook for is made of people. Our eyes, our traffic, our behavior patterns are what Facebook customers pay for.  This is how big brother really works.  It follows you where ever you go and knows whatever you do (online).  But it’s not government watching your every move, trying to control you and manipulate you, it’s big business.

If you don’t mind having your every move tracked and exploited by Facebook, they’ll be happy to provide you with a place to connect with friends and family and a place to post links, pictures and video that you can share with said friends and family and play really stupid, time-wasting games.

I hate to sound jaded, but I don’t know if Facebook being all KGB on our asses is that big of a deal.  I mean, so what? We’re being exploited.  So?  I mean, it’s lame we don’t get a bigger piece of Zuckerdouche’s financial pie (we just get the services Facebook offers, which are easily found elsewhere), but in the end, what are we losing?

I’m not saying we’re not losing anything, it’s just that I’m honestly not sure what it is.

I know I don’t like the feeling of being exploited, but capitalism already does that to us.  When we buy a $3 cup of coffee at Starbucks, we’re not just paying a mark-up, we’re paying a HUGE mark-up that has allowed Starbucks to expand around the world and its executives to get very rich.  I don’t blame vendors for mark-ups to cover costs and salaries, but Starbucks (and many other companies) don’t charge what they need to, they charge MUCH more.  How do you think Apple ended up with so much cash laying around?  Because they only charged you for what that iPhone in your pocket cost to make?  Hell no.

We’re all being exploited every day.  Personally, I don’t like it.  But what can I do? Capitalism is everywhere.

Ha! I almost typed “capitulationism” just then.  Well, I guess that sort of fits. :\

Speaking of business, buy my book, wouldja? Thanks!

Posted in TheBusinessMindedPete, TheFinancialPete | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Live in the UK? Becareful where you point that camera! It might be against the law.

OK, so, ages ago, I had heard on DemocracyNow that the UK had made it illegal to photograph police officers. I mentioned this to a couple of British friends and they denied it, certain it wasn’t true.  Well, thanks to a tweet from a different “the Pete”, I am now aware that it is effectively illegal to photograph a police officer or, really, anything in public.

The following comes from a FAQ at askthe.police.uk:

It is not illegal to take photographs or video footage in public places unless it is for criminal or terrorist purposes.

Uh-huh. Don’t be so sure. After they explain the civil ramifications of taking photos of individuals (you are open to a lawsuit) check out what else they say:

…it is a specific offence to elicit information (which would include photographs) about members of armed forces, police officers or the intelligence services, which is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or publishes or communicates information of that kind. The law does not state that the person who gets the information has to use the information for terrorism purposes, just that the information is likely to be useful to a terrorist.

I’ve emboldened the shocking bits.  That keeps things pretty free for the cops to arrest pretty much whomever they damn well please, doesn’t it?  As an American, I already know that cops can trump up anything in order to arrest you—I’ve been harassed by cops on many occasions just because they decided I looked suspicious. But to see it codified in this way is scary.  BUT, predictably enough, there’s MORE:

Photographers need to be aware of this provision and be cautious when taking such photographs. The sort of occasion when it could cause a problem may be, for example, at an anti-war protest, when there may be a number of counter terrorism and intelligence operatives working in the area.

Why would there be “counter terrorism and intelligence operatives” working in the area of an anti-war protest?!?! Does the UKG not understand the concept of “ANTI-war”?? I’d like to make a pithy comment about how this is no surprise coming from the “land of George Orwell’s birth” here, but I’ve seen American cops make the same illogical leap. 

It’s truly absurd for the UKG or any other government to think they can (or should) prevent intelligence from getting to terrorists.  Stopping people from taking pictures in public places in this way is quite literally an example of how the UK has become a subtle police state.  How any Brit can consider themselves “free” but live in fear of being arrested simply because they happened to take a snapshot at the wrong time of the wrong person is beyond me.

I have a hard enough time feeling “free” in my own country for similar reasons and I live in the alleged land OF the free!

What is going on with this world?

Posted in none | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Internet user arrested for linking to other websites

Internet user arrested for linking to other websites

This is thanks to a Clinton Era law, by the way:

Brian McCarthy ran a website, channelsurfing.net, that linked to various sites where you could watch online streams of TV shows and sports networks.

From Demand Progress:

A couple months ago, the government seized his domain name and on Friday they arrested him and charged him with criminal copyright infringement — punishable by five years in prison.

It’s against the law to link to sites that allow circumvention of digital copyright protection.  Yep—that’s the equivalent to linking to a website that teaches you how to pick locks.  It’s called the DMCA.

Posted in none | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Big (Corporate) Brother: Wireless carriers openly considering charging per service — Engadget

Big (Corporate) Brother: Wireless carriers openly considering charging per service — Engadget

thetechpete:

Imagine paying extra to visit Facebook. Imagine not being able to check your tweets with your smartphone while on the go.  Imagine wireless carriers charging us to do even more stuff that costs them little extra to do (like they already do with texting).  This is horrible and they’re thinking about considering it.

I remember back in the AOL days when AOL used to charge X amount of dollars for X amount of hours online. Ridiculous, right? Of course. Well, it seems like wireless carriers may be thinking about going backwards. In fact, in some ways, they already have with their $60/mo-for-1GB-style plans. Now they want to micromanage what they let us do on their connections.

This is ridiculous.  Please clock the link above and read more about this nightmarish scenario.

Posted this on my tech blog and thought that posting it here, too, would be a no-brainer. 

Posted in none | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

EFFYOU.ORG: EFFYOU to alleged terrorism fighters who don’t go after ACTUAL terrorists.

EFFYOU.ORG: EFFYOU to alleged terrorism fighters who don’t go after ACTUAL terrorists.

effyouorg:

All of the folks out there that are going after Al Qaeda or other extremist-types with the actual means to cause physical harm, GOOD ON YOU!  Keep up the good work!!  All the other folks out there who go after pissed off kids and other losers who have precisely zero means to commit the acts they say they want to commit: EFF YOU.

Among the principles the United States was founded on, none of them encourages or condones the arrest of people who would LIKE to harm others but can’t actually do it.  In fact, one of the most basic concepts behind our country is the idea that every human is entitled to freedom of thought.

What happens when you find a 21 year-old guy or a 19 year-old kid who are pissed off at the government and dream of killing people?

Nothing.

Well…

Read the rest at effyou.org

Posted in none | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The USG trumps up threat then tells us how they’re protecting us from it.

This is something I’ve noticed the USG and the FBI doing for a while.  See if you can notice what’s wrong with the following cutting from a November 28, 2010 article at LATimes.com reporting on a 19 year-old naturalized American (originally from Somalia) who wanted to blow up a bunch of Americans (I’ll add italics to make it obvious):

The threat was very real,” said Arthur Balizan, special agent in charge of the FBI in Oregon. “Our investigation shows that Mohamud was absolutely committed to carrying out an attack on a very grand scale.”

According to the FBI, they arrested Mohamud after he dialed a cellphone that he thought would detonate a huge bomb — six 55-gallon drums, diesel fuel and a large box of screws — in a large white van parked near the tree lighting.

But the bomb was a fake built by the FBI, and the packed crowds who enjoyed a youth choir and a symphony orchestra at Friday’s holiday celebration at Pioneer Courthouse Square were never in danger, authorities said.

Let me break this down for you:

The FBI finds this teenager who’s pissed at the USG, builds a pretend bomb for him, hands him the detonator and then arrests him when he activates it.

Where’s the crime there, exactly?

I mean, sure, he’s “wrongthinking” like in the Orwell novel, 1984, but wrongthinking isn’t illegal (yet). 

On top of that, this guy had no obvious means to make a bomb to kill anyone on his own.  He’s a kid.  I remember how moody and obnoxious I was when I was 19! (If you think I’m bad now!) 

Why is it that we only hear about these toothless tigers and not actual threats being foiled by the FBI?  Hell, the Times Square Bomber from earlier this year failed in his attempt to blow up a bomb only because he was a complete and utter fucktard.  The FBI didn’t catch him beforehand and nearly lost him as he tried to flee the country. 

Seems the FBI can only catch a terrorist if they arm him and supply him first. It’s like a literal version of the “Straw Man Argument” where you, effectively, make a false statement and then prove it wrong to show how cool you are.  This time, they prop up this kid as a terrorist and then brag about it when they take him down.

There’s something deeply wrong about this.

Posted in none | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Apple Inc.: A prominent new reason we need a pro-Net Neutrality Law

I posted this over on website666 and thought it would fit here, too.

website666com:

I noticed this over the past few weeks as I read various coverage of iPhone apps that Apple was and was not letting get through.  Check out these headlines:

Radio Station Apps: No Longer Welcome in the App Store

Apple Bans Android Magazine From The App Store

Why Does Apple Make Donation Apps So Hard?

In short, Apple seems to be using it’s position to stop certain information from getting onto it’s devices.  Want to listen to your favorite local radio station now that you live in a different city? Sorry, you won’t be able to on your iPhone.  That’s a shame since it’s just a little station with a tiny budget and not much ability to reach a national audience. Now, thanks to Apple, a great (and inexpensive) channel for reaching a national audience is gone.

Then, we’ve got Apple deciding whether or not you can read about competitors to Apple on Apple devices.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t like Apple telling me what I can and can’t read on my iDevice.  Sure, I can always pull up that Android magazine’s website in Safari, but then, what’s the difference between Safari and an app?

Finally, that last article I link to above talks about how Apple has stopped accepting apps that allow in-app donations to charity orgs (or anyone else).  Why is this? It sure seems like it’s because it means money passes through Apple’s infrastructure without them getting a cut.

Over all, I feel that it’s this kind of “walled garden” mentality that makes us less free as consumers.  When we start accepting limits on what content we are allowed to consume and how we consume that content, I think we become less free as a people, too.

You don’t really appreciate how important Net Neutrality is until you don’t have it anymore.

Posted in TheTechPete | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off