Feds Overstate Software Piracy's Link To Terrorism

Lucas123 writes "Attorney General Michael Mukasey claims that terrorists sell pirated software as a way to finance their operations, without presenting a shred of evidence for his case. He's doing it to push through a controversial piece of intellectual property legislation that would increase IP penalties, increase police power, set up a new agency to investigate IP theft, and more. 'Criminal syndicates, and in some cases even terrorist groups, view IP crime as a lucrative business, and see it as a low-risk way to fund other activities,' Mukasey told a crowd at the Tech Museum of Innovation last week."

Well duh

[Slimee (1246598)]

When has the government ever presented a shred of evidence for any of their radical claims and crusades?

Re:Well duh

[mrbluze (1034940)]

Attorney General Michael Mukasey claims that terrorists sell pirated software as a way to finance their operations

Who needs to sell pirated software when you can get it for free? And what does the government say to the claims that its secretive services launder money and participate in the illegal drug trade to.. er.. spread freedom and er.. prosperity and.. what's the other one? Democracy, that's right. You launder money and poison my kids, and call everybody a criminal and terrorist, and I get to vote for you - that's sweet. Nawww, not a shred of truth in it Mommy!

Re:Well duh

[blhack (921171)]

Who needs to sell pirated software when you can get it for free?

Now, most people YOU know would probably know how to get warez for free. Most people I know know how to get warez for free, but most PEOPLE don't.

DO you think the type of person that requires help moving their computer from one room to another would be able to figure out how to work an FTP client, or what a "tracker" was?

This is why my sister always asks me for a copy of Photoshop for her birthday. She has no idea how to get it for free online.
SHHH!!!! Don't tell her I have been secretly slipping her copies of the GIMP all these years.

Kids, if you like a piece of software...BUY IT!

Re:Well duh

[Oktober Sunset (838224)]

Most people don't know how to get warez for free, even more people don't know where to buy warez either. Where the fuck do you buy a pirated copy of photoshop?

Dodgy bloke on the corner? No, he just has shitty DVD's.
That shifty looking geyser at the pub? Nope, All he has are the latest chart singles's and the last few Now! CDs.
My mates cousin nobby? Nah, he can chip my Xbox and sell me pirate games, but no Photoshop here.

I've seen pirated software at computer fairs a long time ago, in the days of dialup, but these days, no chance. The common way for someone who doesn't know where to get it online, is the old CD passed about, you only need 1 nerd to download it, then hte CD can go round dozen of thier mates.

the only pirate stuff I've ever seen actually sold anytime recently are console games sold to chavs with no PC. I've not seen anyone selling a pirate PC game or software since like 1996. Even back in the days of the Amiga, all the pirate stuff we had was copied off mates, either you bought the real one, or you copied a mate's real one, no-one bought a copy, all the dodgy market stalls sold fuzzy-pictured VHS, never computer games or software.
Seriously, do you know any shop, market stall, or random bloke at all who would sell you a pirate copy of photoshop, or any other PC software?

Re:Well duh

[Ryan Mallon (689481)]

You may not even know if software you are buying is pirated. A few years back a friend lent me a cd folder full of games. All of them had the game logos on the cds, and most of them had full colour booklets with them. I ended up asking my friend how much he had spent on the games in the folder, and replied: hardly anything, they are all pirated. He bought them somewhere in Asia. They take piracy a bit more seriously over there, you don't just get a blank cd with the games name scribbled on it in felt pen, you get a full colour box, authentic looking cd, the works.

The bigger problem for game companies than people downloading torrents, is illegal factories which are producing pirated versions of games (and other types of software) which can be sold at lost cost, are hard to tell apart from the real deal. Many people who buy these games are unaware that they even have an illegal copy.

Re:Well duh

[Slashdot Suxxors (1207082)]

Judging from the high quality of his videos, it should be clear to anyone that Osama obviously uses cracked versions of Adobe Final Cut. We don't need the government to tell us that.

Re:Well duh

[Slimee (1246598)]

Ok let me be more specific, when in this post 9/11 world, has the government presented evidence in its claims and crusades.

Re:Well duh

[Lemmy Caution (8378)]

The Republicans are the ones who tarnish critics of the expansion of executive power as anti-American and traitorous. The Democrats have generally failed to oppose this tendency adequately, but let us be under no illusions about where the real engine for this growth of policing state power is coming from.

I call bullshit

[z80kid (711852)]

I call bullshit

Yeah, the current administration is guilty of that crap.

What about the last administration and it's wagging the dog wars in Somalia and Kosovo - where there was NO US interest at all let alone oil interests? When groups [findarticles.com] opposed to the administration suddenly found themselves audited [findarticles.com] by the IRS? Where hundreds of FBI files on political opponents turned up in the White House (can you say Nixon?)

The parent poster was right. The democrats will violate your rights just as quick as the Republicans. They will just feed you a story you can swallow, instead of one the Republicans can swallow.

Re:I call bullshit

[by Anonymous Coward]

The democrats will violate your rights just as quick as the Republicans.

This may be true but you have to admit the Republicans are a lot better at it.

Re:I call bullshit

[Curunir_wolf (588405)]

The democrats will violate your rights just as quick as the Republicans.

This may be true but you have to admit the Republicans are a lot better at it.

Don't be so sure. If compare, say, Nixon vs. Clinton, or Bush vs. FDR, you would have to conclude that at least Democrats are better at getting away with it.

Re:I call bullshit

[Lemmy Caution (8378)]

Like I said above, I protested against Clinton's military adventures. But none of the things you describe amount to the pervasive expansion of federal police power under the Republicans - from the creation of a "Department of Homeland Security" (my God, what an Orwellian phrase) to the defense of torture, extraordinary renditions, no-fly lists, etc. By creating institutions like DHS, these changes are built into the government, rather than being rogue operations of otherwise reasonable organizations.

This isn't even really a left/right thing (well, the right as an actual cultural force, if not as the political expression of conservatism, is closer to the cultural of nationalist values and bellicosity, but..) It's what the Republicans have chosen to exploit for political capital. I attribute it to Rove's neo-conservatism, not to the historical Republican party. But them's still the facts on the ground. (And Rove, Rumsfeld, etc all share origins in the Nixon administration's realignment of the Republican party.)

Re:I call bullshit

[Lemmy Caution (8378)]

Gingrich is kind of a weirdo hybrid and not really a major player. Rush is a circus sideshow who makes a cheap buck by stirring up the cheap seats.

You really know nothing about the conservative movement you think you are part of.

Re:I call bullshit

[greg_barton (5551)]

What about the last administration and it's wagging the dog wars in Somalia and Kosovo

Somalia and Kosovo?

Somalia and Kosovo?

After the last seven years, all you have to say is fucking Somalia and Kosovo?

Yeah, all administrations wag the dog.

The Bush administration wagged the whole fucking planet.

Please.

Re:I call bullshit

[DaedalusHKX (660194)]

Calm down little buddy... the Bush Administration didn't wag shit. Those who consented to be ruled, those who willingly paid taxes and didn't even complain, those who registered to vote, those who joined the military and any and all others who helped are ALL complicit. We're all guilty of this, even the victims are guilty of it to some degree. To say otherwise is to have a naive outlook on things.

True, ALL governments are merely thugs who passed power down to their buddies (Clinton and Bush the elder vacation together, when they're not on TV)... but the peons who uphold said governments seem to think that a whole bunch of FALLIBLE MORTALS can rule over a bunch of FALLIBLE MORTALS who seemingly are more fallible and cannot be trusted to run their own lives.

You people amuse me beyond any measure. All who clamor government is necessary seem to think that governments provide justice, peace, honesty or some other measure of virtue. They must've missed the courts that rarely side with the truth, courts that rule against their own laws (even that so called "law of the land") courts that require you to have massive cash flow to even keep up with the case, nevermind actually win... am I missing anything?

And you all PAY for this, vote for this, and have even come under the impression that these thugs have your best interests in mind.

Wow. Just... wow.

Re:I call bullshit

[greg_barton (5551)]

You people amuse me...

...you all PAY for this...

Wow. Just... wow.

You speak as if you're above us all. You talk like the elite claim to disdain.

Sanctimonious prick.

It seems clear, it's about power.

[elucido (870205)]

This looks to me, to be a move by the current head of the fbi to either attack the internet, or control it.

First we saw wikileaks get shut down by the courts, something completely unheard of, but it happened.

Then we see the story of the illegal hyperlinks and fbi stings.

Now we have the story of the fbi claiming that the terrorists are also software pirates.

I'm waiting for them to say the terrorists run linux and post on Slashdot. Also combine this with the battle over network neutrality.

Can someone piece together the big picture? Am I seeing a conspiracy where there is no conspiracy? Is this just about the fbi trying to increase it's power? Is this part of a strategy to attack the net? What exactly is going on?

Re:Well duh

[Lemmy Caution (8378)]

The DMCA was bullshit. But it wasn't pushed on the pretext of a war on terror, it was pushed on the pretext of possible economic harm to certain industries. And it didn't result in widespread surveillance, imprisonment without habeas corpus, torture, no-fly lists, fingerprinting at the border (I'm married to a non-US citizen: coming into this country has become a ridiculous hassle). I actually protested - on the streets, with banners and all - Clinton's Kosovo escapades, so don't accuse me of partisanship.

And which of the parties' presidential candidates is beating the drum of war and playing the security-panic card? I think that would, again, be the Republicans.

Re:You forgot the word "Yet"

[Lemmy Caution (8378)]

I think you have to look why many principled conservatives are now supporting Obama: people like Andrew Bacevich, [amconmag.com] Lew Rockwell, and Douglas Kmiec. I really believe that only a neo-conservative administration - and except for Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, all the neocons are Republican and the majority of Republicans are neo-con - would have gotten us into Iraq.

Douglas Kmiec's basis for supporting Obama is an interesting one, as well, because it seems he is one of the few people who actually has been listening to what Obama has been saying and watching what he has been doing. Obama is a Democrat who tells the underclass to stop relying on the state, being particularly critical of the culture of dependence that has harmed the African American poor over the past several decades. This doesn't make Obama a conservative. He's not. But then, who is? Certainly not McCain.

Re:Well duh

[Chris Burke (6130)]

Which president signed the DMCA into law?

Which Congress passed the law? Which President was burning his political capital for too many other things to risk a fight with Congress by using his veto?

Not that I'm saying he didn't support it, I'm saying you do have to look at who passed the law *first* because the veto is not an option most Presidents just wield willy-nilly. Yes, Bush signed USAPATRIOT, but I mostly blame Congress who passed the law without even reading, much less debating, the fucking thing.

Re:Well duh

[Lemmy Caution (8378)]

What checks Congress at this point? The almost meaningless, yet incredibly powerful phrase "Support the Troops!" Which goes to prove my original point: that critics of the war and its related expansion of domestic policing powers are held captive by accusations of anti-patriotism and treason.

Re:Well duh

[Reziac (43301)]

Yeah... it's all "Think of the Children!" and "Prevent Terrorism!" Why aren't you supporting this bill? You must hate children and support terrorism!!

So long as politicians can be un-elected by such accusations, the problem will continue. :(

Maybe we need a new slogan:

Won't anyone think of the Citizens??!

Re:Well duh

[Malevolyn (776946)]

What checks Congress at this point?

Interesting point, actually. I'd say the system of checks and balances is pretty much moot anymore, considering how much power the judicial system has gotten in the past 10 years. And not to mention private groups (hell, Mr. RIAA) getting nearly the power of a government body, when it comes to controlling citizens. Or trying, anyway.

Re:Well duh

[Stalyn (662)]

Bullshit. Every time someone says "the democrats and the republicans are the same" I think back to 2000 when I said something similar.. "Bush or Gore... eh it doesn't really matter, both parties are the same". And boy I don't think I've ever been so wrong about something in all my life.
 

Re:Well duh

[Alcoholic Synonymous (990318)]

Then maybe you need to open you damned eyes and read quite a bit more.

Maybe you should go back to the 80s when Mr. Gore allowed his wife and her friends in the PMRC to have special senate hearings aimed at *BANNING* or censoring certain artists they deemed too explicit. Mr. Gore was more than willing to let his wife have her moraliztic diatribe at your expense, to attempt to restrict and control your freedom of choice.

Corporate State or Nanny State, this is what you are voting for.

Re:Well duh

[Atario (673917)]

Mr. Gore allowed his wife and her friends in the PMRC to have special senate hearings

"Allowed" her to? What was he supposed to do, beat her till she stopped? And was he also supposed to beat the other three founding biddies -- er, members -- of PMRC?

Also, for the record, they were never advocating "*BANNING*" (bolded, asterisked, all-caps, or otherwise) anything. It was mostly a bunch of silly visibility-reduction tactics (that would, of course, only increase the sales of the targeted albums via heightened cachet...) and, of course, the parental-advisory stickers we see to this day (that the industry adopted before the hearings were even held).

Believe me, I never had any love for the PMRC, but out-and-out misinformation isn't going to help anything -- except an attempt to smear Al Gore. And that's not at all what you were trying to do...right?

Re:Well duh

[Chris Burke (6130)]

If Gore was president, we wouldn't be in Iraq. That "grass" is real, and it's fucking green enough for me.

Re:Well duh

[Ralph Spoilsport (673134)]

Sure - while ignoring the reasons for their attack in the first place. Japan was hellbent on becoming a major industrial power. To do that you need oil. Tojo learned THAT little fact touring the state of Texas in the 1920s. The closest/best oil to Japan was in Indonesia, which was under the bootheel of British Imperialism, and to get there you need to go through the Phillipines which was under the bootheel of American Imperialism. So, the only way to fuel their industrial empire was to get the political impediments out of the way, and that meant either appeasing, lulling, or attacking the USA and UK.

They settled for something very similar to George Bush's strategy of "Pre-emptive Attack" and attacked a naval base on an island in an illegally stolen territory within the American Regional Empire. Their strike was an obvious contingency, so the valuable ships (spanky new aircraft carriers) were all sent out to sea, leaving behind (mostly) relatively older battleships and cruisers.

For more facts on this, I would recommend Daniel Yergin's "The Prize". [amazon.com]

You are not insightful. You are more of an ignorant troll.

RS

Re:Wait, excuse moi?

[Reziac (43301)]

And considering that the vast majority of pirated software being SOLD is sold in China and various third-world countries, explain to me how laws covering U.S. soil and U.S. citizens would have the slightest impact, even IF sales of pirated software funded terrorists??

Re:Well duh

[Lemmy Caution (8378)]

The long campaign against Nicaragua (dating back all the way to William Walker!); the annexation of Hawaii; the Philippine war; the invasion of Grenada; the fall of Mossadeq; support for Pinochet's coup, the Uruguayan junta, and early support for the Argentine military dictatorship. This is just off the top of my head.

"Genuine" Windows Vista...

[PlatyPaul (690601)]

... Suicide Bomber Edition.

Putting the "death" back in BSOD.

Warning, buzzword overload !

[DrYak (748999)]

They just forgot to find a way to somewhat also cram the "child pornography" keyword together with "terrorist" and "pirate".

No shame

[Hatta (162192)]

I can't believe how shamelessly politicians are using the terrorist bogeyman, and how easily people fall for it. Well, yes I can. But really, what's next? I'd like to say it can't get any more ludicrous than this, but I bet it can.

Re:No shame

[Gat0r30y (957941)]

It really is quite shameful, I've seen software pirates. They are the dudes on the side streets of Shanghai selling "Genuine Windows Vista" DVD's for a dollar (about 7 RMB). They most certainly are not terrorists.
And to answer your question, next the government will claim terrorists are raising funds through an elaborate cheese laundering operation. First stealing US Gov. Cheese, then selling it on the black market at fantastic profit margins. Everyone, please turn in your local Dairy Farmer (he's undoubtedly in on the operation)!

Re:No shame

[waveman (66141)]

I have been looking at the evidence over the years and it seems that terrorists are more likely to get funding from making and selling illegal drugs than from marginal activities like copying software.

The total spend on illegal drugs in the US alone is over $1 trillion!. This money goes to organized crime, gangsters, crooked police and politicians, and to terrorists.

Have a look at Afghanistan, which is currently supplying a large percentage of the world's heroin trade. The funds are then used to fight the US, NATO and other allies in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Just another cost of the "war on drugs". Current US drug policies, which are also forced on the rest of the world, are widely recognized to be counter-productive. And why? The side-effects of heroin are constipation and the risk of overdose. Overdose is a problem caused by erratic potencies, which is a result of illegality.

However certain people make a lot of money from the war on drugs. Thus the policy does not change.

Well then

[Drooling Iguana (61479)]

It's a good thing sites like thepiratebay.org are making the sale of physical copies of pirated media much less profitable. Get those Torrents running for Uncle Sam!

Utter lies

[TheMeuge (645043)]

Normally I am very reserved when it comes to political commentary. However, this time I simply cannot help but note that the show has certainly reached a new low, and we should all be ashamed of ourselves.

It is absolutely despicable that we've become so fat and complacent, that we allow our government to pull these sorts of stunts. Looking at the proposed legislation, one should note that IP infringement might be punished more severely than rape, if these laws are to become real. Actually, we should see the whole thing as a rape... the rape of our Constitution, and every value that made our society ever so slightly better than the regimes we like to fight so much.

Re:Utter lies

[jamstar7 (694492)]

Thing is, raping a citizen only harms the citizen. Raping a corporation harms a campaign contributor. Which way do you think your Congresscritter is gonna vote?

Why do you think campaign financing reform is drastically needed, but will never happen? When the government puts the needs of corporations before the needs of its citizens, it's already way too late. Hope you have your bug-out package and bribe money to get a coyote to pass you through the border...

I like buying software from terrorists...

[realmolo (574068)]

My copy of Windows XP doesn't just *crash*, it crashes into *buildings*.

oh, how convenient

[vajaradakini (1209944)]

Everything that's illegal and/or generally not approved of by the US government "supports the terrorists".

Smoke locally grown pot (as most pot in the US is): you're supporting the terrorists!
Download your music through a peer to peer network: you're supporting the terrorists!
Pirate your software: you're supporting the terrorists!

It's the red scare [wikipedia.org] all over again, but with a different enemy, isn't it? "Don't forget to go spend all your money on things you don't need and can't afford. If you don't spend more than you make and support our corporate buddies, you clearly want the terrorists to win."

Oh no I'm confused!!

[commodoresloat (172735)]

But I just got done learning that Open Source is terrorism [theobjectiveobserver.com]. Now we are told that terrorists pirate commercial software? Why would they do that if they have free alternatives? Help! I don't know who to hate!!

They are a little bit right

[blhack (921171)]

They're throwing the word "terrorism" around a bit too much here, but at least a BIG part of the movie bootlegging scene is rooted in Russian Organized crime. Telecine machines are really expensive and, believe it or not, bootlegging movies can be very profitable.

No, i'm not talking about grabbing the latest RLS off of Usenet, or racing it across FTPs. I'm talking about large scale DVD pressing facilities that are selling to the guy who is, in turn, selling to people on the street corner. Groups get to release high quality stuff, the Mob gets their source for a DVD. Its very simple.

Or did you all really think that guys were risking serious jail time and throwing down thousands on Telecine machines because it was "fun"?

Now, i don't know much about the warez scene, but I would imagine that its a very similar situation.

Organized crime != terrorism. But a lot of the really large scale operations are certainly not being run by a rogue group of 16 year olds.

Republican Legacy

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

I would like to thank the millions of people who voted for Bush twice (in no more than two elections), and for Congressional Republicans for something like seven or more times, for making our country both safer and freer, and operated with more integrity, just like y'all said it would be.

But I can't, because that would be a lie.

This isn't the only lie Mukasey's told

[ClamIAm (926466)]

Wow, the Bush Administration has picked some real winners for that ol' Attorney General position. I really hoped they would replace Gonzales with someone who has a little more integrity. Unfortunately for the nation, it seems they're more interested in lapdogs who will parrot the Administration's version of reality, no matter the cost.

Moving on to Mukasey specifically, this little fib isn't the only time he's tried to distort reality. Just a few days ago, he stated [sfgate.com] there had been "a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."

The interesting thing about this comment is that it's impossible to know whether it's true. This supposed call was not referred to after 9/11, nor during the 9/11 Commission hearings, nor at any other time until last Thursday.

However, even if we give them the benefit of the doubt, his arguments that draw on this statement are lies. This is because he made this comment in support of increased surveillance, and also to support the despicable circumvention of the justice system with regard to telecom companies.

The lie is that "we knew about this call but we weren't able to do anything because only with this new, super-powered law can we do that". The surveillance laws at the time he says this call took place absolutely allowed the government to listen in on it. They didn't even need a warrant, as even under the older FISA law, warrants were not needed for calls that comes into the US from outside it.

He lied again when he voiced support for putting telecom companies above the law. Even though Mukasey was a federal judge, he claimed that the telco lawsuits would let the whole world know how our intelligence organizations operate.

Fellow Slashdotters, I hope you join me in saying: what the fuck?! We can't continue to let these clowns get away with shit like this. I admit I've been as lazy as most "concerned citizens" in the US seem to be lately, but seriously, I cannot allow my democracy to be flushed down the toilet by a bunch of arrogant fucks who think they can get away with whatever they want.

Re:Gotta correct that bold part

[Chris Burke (6130)]

You've got a good grip on the situation, so I have to fix one factual error:

They didn't even need a warrant, as even under the older FISA law, warrants were not needed for calls that comes into the US from outside it.

Yes they were. FISA explicitly spells out when a warrant is not required, and it is only when it is believed that no "U.S. Person" is a party to the call. A "U.S. person" basically means a U.S. citizen no matter where they are, or a non-citizen who is legally within the U.S. So that means any call with one end in the U.S. (where it isn't known the party in the u.s. is here illegally), or even a call that takes place entirely in a foreign country that includes a U.S. citizen, requires a warrant.

However that said, the argument that they needed a new law is BS because here is what they could have done perfectly legally: Tap the call in question immediately, and then any time within the next three days showed up before the FISA court to ask for a retro-active warrant. And as FISA's record clearly shows, if they had any reason at all to believe the call was suspect, FISA would have granted the warrant.

In other words, and this is important because it applies to all the recent surveilance too: The only reason not to get a warrant is if they had no reason at all to believe that the call is of any interest, not one tiny scrap of hearsay to suggest that it's a terrorist call. It means that as far as they knew, it was no different than the billions of other calls made daily.

So remember, whenever they say they need a new law to let them listen in on certain phone calls, that law would ONLY allow them the new power to listen to calls that are, as far as they could possibly tell, COMPLETELY INNOCENT.

sneak-and-peek

[TheGratefulNet (143330)]

today I had a non-fun experience with my landlord (I rent).

for the last 2 yrs or so, they have been sending out letters saying there is an 'annual apartment inspection' and that I have to let the landlord in.

the thing is, I've read as much as I can about calif civil codes and there is NO provision for 'annual inspections'. hmmmmm.

so today when the maintenance guy came by (he was 'checking' every single apartment for god knows what) I told him NO!. I refuse.

I then asked what they were looking for and he blew me off saying that since I won't let him in, I won't get to know! sheesh!

a few yrs ago there was an 'idea' by asscroft (may extreme shit be upon him) to create something called TIPS:

http://www.havenworks.com/gov/operation-tips/ [havenworks.com]

and today during a web search, I came across this link:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/brimmer1.html [antiwar.com]

which also pointed to this TIPS thing.

I'm curious, any other /.ers find that the place you are renting from is NOW, suddenly, starting to do 'inspections' ?

clearly this is a sneak-n-peek but just not done directly by cops. they get our own citizens to rat on each other.

the TIPS thing was supposed to be cancelled in 2002 or so. you don't really believe it was cancelled do you? it just went more underground.

I mention this because the current administration is running a-foul of the law of the land and he's trying to write his own 'king' ticket. they know that by getting citizens to spy on each other, that will keep the climate of fear alive.

anyway, hopefully hearing about TIPS and the 'annual apartment inspections' (that are quite illegal by my reading of section 1954 of the calif civil code. any lawyers here want to comment on that?) will get you clued in and aware of what is really going on in our country.

if the apartment manager wants to 'see your place' they should have an URGENT and real reason and not just to 'check for code violations'.

the story they used on me was they wanted to 'check outlets, the carpet, the balcony, general condition and plumbing around the apartment'. sure sounds like a FISHING EXPEDITION to me. what do you think?

I told them no and they wrote 'refused' on my form. how much you want to bet this ends up in some DC filing cabinet next to my name?

wonderful country we now have, here ;(

Oil

[Lost Engineer (459920)]

That's where terrorists get their money. And/or drugs depending on which terrorists we're talking about. Why in the hell would you sell pirated CDs for a profit of what a dollar per disc when you can just a) wait for a rich sympathizer to give you money or b) run protection for a drug trafficker for untold millions.

In other news Timothy McVeigh sold bumper stickers and so the Feds have launched a task force to crack down on bumper sticker trademark slogan piracy.

There's a shock

[PingXao (153057)]

One of the biggest problems modern free societies face is an alleged free press that doesn't bother to check the facts about anything. If they had bothered to check the facts in this case, it should naturally lead them to the next logical question: What else is being claimed as fact with no evidence whatsoever? There's a whole lot of mis- and dis-information out there (not to mention outright lies and propaganda) and no good way for the general public to recognize it when it's spoon-fed to them. God knows the press/media isn't doing its job anymore.

Windows?

[commodoresloat (172735)]

I thought you were serious until the bit about the IRA in 1986. Windows 3.0 was introduced in 1990. I think Windows 1.0 existed in 1986 but who would go through the trouble to pirate that? It wasn't until Windows 95 that operating systems really had any currency as a commodity (thanks to a ludicrous advertising campaign that changed the computer industry forever); the idea of someone hawking Windows 1.0 alongside illegal VHS tapes is pretty bizarre, to say the least.

Re:Tired of all this 'terrorism' rhetoric.

[jamstar7 (694492)]

Perhaps it is because I am outwith the USA and not properly indoctirnated, but 'the home of the brave' seems to be afraid of shadows these days, at least at a government level. Do the USA citizens really go along with all this?

No, the government really isn't afraid of terrorists, but making sure the citizens are allows them to expand their budgets, clamp down harder on John Q Citizen's movements and basic Constitutionally-recognised freedoms, and allows it to ignore international conventions to the point where the US has already been declared an outlaw nation. Geedubya has already told us the 'War on Terror' will last over a hundred years. That's 100 years of increased taxation, failing economy, and increased repression strictly for the gain of the politicians and their corporate masters. Our money is nearly worthless now, and it's just going to get worse as the government keeps pouring money down the Iraq/Iran/Middle East rathole. Welcome to our wonderful 21st Century, and don't forget to pray.