Who’s This Guy?  And What Has He Done With My President?


Earlier this week, President Obama officially approved the release of Cryptowars II: Cryptkeeper’s Revenge by approving legislation that would (basically), require “back doors” be placed in all encryption programs (like Tor, for example), that would otherwise prevent online activities from being tracked by prying eyes.

Mr. Potato Head…MR. POTATO HEAD!

But why would people want to cover their online tracks anyway? People who use that kind of encryption are probably shady anyway!

One answer?

Journalists.

Been IMing the folk on WikiLeaks I see… Let’s have a chat about that upcoming article of yours….at our place.

Have a seat, Nosey Parker.

Another?

Politicians.

Let’s say there’s a Republican neo-con who also happens to be a quietly gay. Give one party the power to access everything that our closeted politician says online (while in the privacy of their home), and just how long would the decision of if/when to step out of the closet remain his or hers?

Yet another?

Lawyers.

Preparing a lawsuit against us, are ye? Well, let’s just have a look at what areas of the defense you’re most concerned about, shall we?

And all this leaves out the very real likelihood of these security exploits being, you know, exploited by people who aren’t in the Government. Install a door with a hundred locks, and someone will find a way to take the hinges off.

Then I find today that Obama is all-in on the execution without trial of accused terrorists.

I realize this puts me in rather strange territory, alienating both sides of the political spectrum, but that simply isn’t how we do things ’round these parts. People get trials. Remember that whole Guantanamo thing?
Or, you know, that funny-looking document that you spent years in law school studying? The one that says, “No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

Testimony.

Court.

Important words.

Nowhere does it mention legal assassination/vigilante justice. And I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be awesome if it did…but it doesn’t.

And now there’s this:

The Minitrue Pentagon has snatched up 10,000 copies of a newly-released book on the grounds that it reveals State secrets.

The publisher has since released a second round of copies with the offending lines blacked out.

Granted, this whole thing smacks of a publicity stunt to stir up controversy, just to sell a few more copies of chest-pounding rhetoric that isn’t worth the tree pulp it’s printed on. However, the fact remains that it simply isn’t okay with me that our gub’mint would do such a thing.

They could be baking s’mores over copies of Glenn Beck’s “Common Sense,” and I’d still have issue.

Once again, it seems the Baby(Boomer) ducklings in office are spreading their little wings in a desperate attempt to stop the current of the river they’re swimming in. I give it roughly 2 days before an un-edited copy of the book gets converted into .pdf format, and released onto the torrents. And thus into the hands and minds of thousands of people who would never have bothered to read the damn thing to begin with.

That is, until you told them they couldn’t.

Winner = publishing company.

Loser = Censors.

As a personal anecdote as to how this works, “Cop Killer” is one of the most retarded songs that has ever been recorded in the history of music. And it should be obvious to most who know me that I might take offense to Ice-T screaming, “I know your family’s grievin’…fuck ’em!” when discussing the joy he finds in killing police officers.

Meanwhile, back on the Ranch o’ Reality, I’d break Ice-T’s old ass hip if he even thought about pointing a gun at a cop, nevermind one I happen to be related to.

And yet, I keep a copy of his affront to auditory aesthetics on the very computer that I’m typing this on. (Torrented, of course…I’m not giving that sensationalistic moron any of my money for his tripe.)

Why would I do such a thing?

Because it’s a very personal 4-minute-and-40-second reminder that we must support not just the free speech that we agree with, but the speech we’re morally and fundamentally opposed to.

j.s.

Leave a Comment