Politics

June 26, 2008 saw the United States Supreme Court make a ruling on an issue near and dear to my heart – gun ownership. For those who don't care or simply were unaffected by the ruling, the issue that was being discussed was “does an individual have a right to own a gun in America?”

Conventional wisdom say “Yes” and for nearly two hundred years, Americans have been able to possess firearms, despite increasing regulation and red tape to obtain and carry them. In Washington DC, this regulatory nightmare came to a head. In DC, it was legal to carry a registered firearm if you had a permit. The problem? DC doesn't allow people to register weapons and issues no permits. Now, I object to the ideas of permitting and registration in general, but in this specific issue the combination of permit requirements and non-issuance of permits essentially amounted to an all-out ban.

Dick Heller, a security guard, sued the District of Columbia over this and the lower courts ruled that the US Second Amendment (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.) covered the “collective” “people” and not an individual. Since DC residents were “protected” by a military, the right was not being infringed. A higher court disagreed, saying individuals do have the right. The District of Columbia people didn't find this acceptable, so appealed the ruling to the highest court in the USA, the Supreme Court.

In short, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 ruling that gun ownership is in fact, an individual right. For the liberty-oriented like myself, the 5-4 numbers are scary. Is “shall not be infringed” really that hard to understand that it splits the court nearly evenly?

Conservatives and miniarchists declared the Heller case a victory because “the government still defends our rights”. Myself and others considered it a loss, because in the ruling they said specifically "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms."

In short, even though it's an individual right, the government people can still regulate it.

Now, all of the talk of the wording of the Constitution matters very little to me, I consider it a flawed document, built on a flawed premise. That said, a lot of people do cling to the thing as if it's a holy document and the government people have supposedly agreed to follow it's rules, so it's important in my mind to bring Constitutional issues to light to show “government” for what it is – a group of people doing business at the threat of violence.

The District of Columbia, rebuffed by the Supreme Court, has begun a gun registration program and granted amnesty for 180 days to encourage people to register their firearms now. One man, Dick Heller tried to do so this morning. Yes, this is the same Dick Heller who initiated the lawsuit and won. Now that the Supreme Court has overturned the DC ban, he stood waiting for the 7 am registration to open to register his .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol and a .22-caliber revolver, pretty standard fare firearms.

Mr. Heller was turned away.

An unnamed DC spokes-bureaucrat says that “the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.”

In a now-famous internet quip.... WTF!

The importance of this distinction is huge. With the exception of revolvers just about every handgun ever produced is a bottom loader. I'm no gun guru but I can't think of a single one that's NOT a bottom loader.

Much in the same way as the DC government people passed laws effectively banning handgun ownership by not issuing licenses, they are still, even after losing in the highest court in the nation, using deceitful methods to skirt around the issue, to comply without really complying.

Let this be proof to everyone who called the Heller decision a "win" that individual right to gun ownership has not, indeed, been protected. Dick Heller, the man who sued and won, is still not able to legally have his firearm.

Let this show the miniarchists out there: Even "winning" is a loss. The government people's actions are all directed towards control for one reason or another, and once they have control they do not give it up. It is the nature of government to expand and grow, not to shrink. Let this case show you, as cases over and over have shown, that you can not defeat government people oppressing you by turning to the government.

It was J.R.R Tolkien who says of his work, the Lord of the Rings, "You can make the Ring into an allegory of our own time, if you like: an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power".

I'm finding it hard to report on the police state in America now. Not because it's disgusting to see peaceful people having violence brought against them. It is disgusting. It's not because the public sits by and ignores or worse, rationalizes and endorses, this activity.

It's hard to report on the police state in America because no self-respecting police state article is complete without references to Nazi Germany. The problem is, the more I think on it, the more I realize that even the Nazi's left people alone if they cow toed. In general, you were permitted to live your life in Nazi Germany as long as you didn't speak or act against the military machine.

The Nazi's didn't jail people for having their grass too high. The Nazis, to the best of my knowledge, didn't turn SWAT teams on people for dancing without a permit.

Tom commented on this article to point me to the Swing Kids, a group of Nazi opposing dancers. Thanks Tom! Unfortunately, I'm not sure if this makes me say "Oh, okay, so maybe the American jackboots aren't worse than Nazis" or if it makes me say "Yep, there's proof. Both the Nazi's and the American jackboots do this.."

That's exactly what's happened in Detroit, Michigan. The Contemporary Art Institute of Detroit (CAID), an art exhibit and gallery that has been open for nearly three decades, was spinning music inspired by or created in Detroit. Detroit, once the motor capital of the world, also has a dazzling history of music, being the birthplace of Motown Records and the genre called “Motown”. Detroit is also know as the birthplace of the techno genre, but that wasn't being celebrated this night. As greats like James Brown, Aretha Franklin and The Meters played, patrons of Funk Night danced freely.

Many patrons here come for the atmosphere. Unlike bars and nightclubs, visitors to CAID are interested in music, fun and dancing. A night out is for the enjoyment of it, not hopes of “hooking up”. CAID patrons tended to be more educated, more intelligent and more artistic than the nightclub crowed shunned by many.

The night's revelry ended as military equipped police kicked the door in, ordered patrons “On the floor!” as they panned the crowd of dancers. As CAID patrons complied, police used their feet to push questioning dissenters into the floor.

After terrifying the dancers, police began issuing tickets for “loitering where alcohol was being served illegally”, 130 tickets total. Outside, unknown to the patrons, police tow vehicles were moving cars to the impound lots in scores. Forty-four cars in total the police seized, charging the people $900 each to reclaim their own property, “generating” $39,600 in “revenue” for the city police department, ignoring entirely the windfall the county will take in if and when those loitering fines are paid.

The reason for the raid? Police raided for “dancing without a permit.” According to Aaron Timlin, a man who walked from Detroit to New York wearing a cardboard box to promote an art exhibition and current executive director of CAID, the police visited him on May 30th and informed him dancing would require a permit.

"Everyone thinks it's ridiculous we have to have a permit for dancing," said Timlin. In response to the raid, the tickets and the theft of vehicles, Timlin is organizing an 8-day long festival with live music and dancing. "We're going to dance without a permit. If we get a ticket, we'll fight the ticket and change the law. People should be able to dance where they want.”.

All too frequently I find that most people greatly misunderstand the philosophies of liberty. Perhaps those of use who love liberty are guilty too – very often it seems we are “anti-government” rather than pro-liberty. But as much as those overused cliches are tossed about, I think they still miss the greatest point, one that as a liberty lover even I am just beginning to see is the whole POINT.

Voluntaryists are positive people. We don't dislike the government because they're “big” and we're weak. We don't advocate personal responsibility because we believe we're better suited to survive than others. We don't believe we'd be better off if we had to “cut the dead weight” that many accuse us of believing since we stand opposed to welfare programs.

Voluntaryists are optimists, not pessimists.

Hard to accept? How can someone who believes that we'd be better off without government? How can someone who finds fault in so much be a positive person? Let's dig deep and evaluate our outlook.

Without government, most people think the world would turn to chaos, where the “strong” picked on the “weak”. This assumption believes that without forced order, people want nothing more than to harm other people. They can't explain why they believe this, really. Very few people who use this argument are eager to bash my face in and steal my property, they're good people, it's “the other people” who they fear. A survey of the entire world would find the vast majority of people are good people, but assume everyone else is not. Do you really WANT a society to prosper when you live in fear of “everyone else”?

Voluntaryists reject the idea that “law” is what keeps people “in order”. We love order, just not law. Voluntaryists believe that human beings have specific natural traits – we all must eat, for instance. We all walk in a certain way unless we have a disability. To be human means that certain traits are always inherent. Even our dispositions are affected by our natures, throughout history almost every human being has found ways to communicate with other humans, is this just chance or is there something in our nature that brings this about?

As humans we recognize that each person is inherently different. One individual may be taller, another shorter. One may have red hair, or black or no hair at all. One may be social, another socially awkward. One may be mathematically smart or totally inept at the abstract concepts. There are, for every human being, weaknesses we have and strengths we possess. I, for instance, do poorly with physical and spatial assessment – I can't put a basketball through a hoop with any frequency; I find visualizing complex structures or estimating distance to be difficult. Even my best guess is often “way off”. I have an uncanny ability to recall information. I possess higher abstract reasoning skills than most people I associate with. I'm not better or worse for any of these things, I am merely different.

Those differences are key. Because I can't visualize structures very well, it's difficult for me to build them. Even if I managed that, it would be difficult to make a structure (like my house) sturdy. Because of my weaknesses, I rely on other people in order to prosper. Our differences as human beings are what makes wealth inherent in all of us – from the richest like Bill Gates to the poorest farmer in Africa. To be different is to be valuable.

In building my house, I seek out the value of my neighbor who can visualize and produce elaborate structure. He in turn taps the wealth of the logger who has a green thumb and can make wood, the trucker who can navigate well, the numerically adept accountant who handles the money, the skillful risk analyzer of the bank that financed my home and so on. The differences between humans, and the desire to increase individual wealth means that we must turn to our neighbors. Even the most selfish person gains very very little by hurting and destroying other people.

Humans need not pass laws to ensure order and protection – no law dictates that you hold the door for someone as you're exiting a building, but you'll see this with surprising regularity if you only look. For anyone who doubts the capacity of humans to interact on a voluntary basis, to find exchanges that are mutually beneficial, examine your own daily routine. You'll see the majority of all daily interactions are nothing but these exchanges – my abundant wealth (computer skill, for instance) for your abundant wealth (advertising prowess, for instance) where we BOTH feel we gain in the end. Very few humans fuel their daily routine with violence. Even on an extended network, how many people does the average person know that fuel their daily lives by violence? Voluntary interaction is by far the most common kind, covering the vast majority of our lives.

Those exchanges are the “invisible hand”. The very differences that make us unique create the marketplace.

Why then, do we hate governments? Keeping in mind that all humans have inherent wealth, we look at governments with scorn because governments commit violence and destroy wealth that we can (and indeed, must) tap. When governments pass a law prohibiting the use of drugs, for instance, they're prohibiting a drug dealer from tapping his wealth in a manner that he chooses to. “Surely this man could be growing rice to feed the poor?”. Perhaps he doesn't want to – Richard Stallman could certainly be told to work at Microsoft and it would produce a more stable Windows operating system. But Richard Stallman won't, doesn't want to and should not be forced to give his wealth to Microsoft – he should be free to enter it into the marketplace as he sees best. No person derives their wealth from a single point, either. The only person able to say what would be the best way to enter that wealth into the market is the person who possess it. Remember that the marketplace requires both sides to find benefit in the exchange in such transactions. Would a drug user find the same value in a small baggie of rice? This creates a distortion in the natural balance of wealths possessed by each individual, and artificially devalues certain kinds of wealth.

A single mother, who raises her children in a safe home could create wealth as a babysitter or daycare provider. Because she cares about her own child it is likely that she has the capacity to keep other children safe. This woman possibly can cook as well, and may have some level of capacity as an educator (reading to children is a good thing and does stimulate brain function). Governments “regulating” this

by mandating a certain number of adults to children, a certain width to the doorways (which a residence would always fail), licensing and so on does nothing but make it harder for her to enter her value (she probably has much more time than money) into the marketplace in a manner that would provide her beneficial return. After renovating her home, getting licensing, having inspections and funding all of this, it's likely that she'll not be able to compete price-wise which artificially inflates the wealth-value ratio (called “price”) of her service and devalues her incentive to enter the marketplace at all. Governments, when they aren't actively using violence, diminish and distort wealth.

Sadly, governments tend to use violence as well as the ever-present threats of violence. If a person chooses to exchange his fairly earned (by mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services among willing parties) for a bag of cannabis and smokes it in the privacy of his own home, the government frequently uses force against him. Frequently governments use force to put cannabis smokers in prison or kill them

when they do not cooperate. Imprisoned carpenters are not able to exchange their value, preventing others from tapping it. More so, governments frequently impose theft on non-destructive people in the marketplace, again shifting the natural flow of goods and services artificially, limiting the amount of wealth people in the marketplace can use to build on their existing wealth and in turn reintroduce to the marketplace.

Voluntaryists hate governments because governments initiate violence to back up everything they do. Voluntaryists hate violence because violence harms people. Voluntaryists condemn the harming of other people because free people always produce value. Even when one is stealing from the rich to give to the poor, wealth is destroyed but in the process wealth (be it time, raw materials or human value) is consumed which in the end deprives the marketplace more than the gain that was desired.

We don't dislike the government because they're “big” and we're weak. We dislike governments because we believe everyone is strong and they prevent people from realizing it. We don't advocate personal responsibility because we believe we're better suited to survive than others. We advocate self responsibility because we believe everyone has value and if it be tapped would sustain them. We don't believe we'd be better off if we had to “cut the dead weight” that many accuse us of believing since we stand opposed to welfare programs. We believe that welfare programs simply create excuses not to tap the wealth that people possess. Nobody needs a handout because nobody is valueless.

Freedom is about honoring the choices of our neighbor. Using force and violence against our neighbor because we don't like their choice stands against this idea. In the United States, a land proclaimed by a large portion of it's people to be the “land of the free” it has become more and more clear that the choices of our neighbor are indeed, not respected at all.

I've written before of the growing police state in the USA, which mimics the police state found in the United Kingdom and elsewhere around the world. When I read this story, however, I was taken aback even knowing what I know.

Canton, Ohio, USA has unanimously passed a new bill into law. This bill makes a certain lack of action a criminal offense. First time offenders will be fined $150 and second time offenders can be given fines of $250 and given jail time of 30 days. What is this new crime, you ask?

Failure to mow one's lawn.

Yes, that's right. In today's society, a man who works his days at a reputable job and purchases land and a home in portions of the United States can not choose the height of grass that he finds acceptable for his own land.

It's the type of action needed, says Canton City Mayor William Healy, “in order to clean up our neighborhoods and our city."

Respect for our neighbor's decisions has literally become such an alien concept that failure to mow your lawn can put you in jail. How long until people wake up, drop the “land of the free” platitude and begin to take action.

First they came for the drug dealers and I was quiet because I didn't like drugs.

Next they came for the immigrants and I was quite because I was a natural born citizen.
Then they came for the “religious cults” and I was quiet because I didn't like their way of life.
Later they came for the people with long grass and I was quiet because I thought it unsightly.
Now they're coming for me and there's nobody left to object!

"This man is one of the most honorable men of character," said Robert Wall, CEO and president of World Black Belt, a martial arts training firm.

Another witness described how [the man] had helped train personnel from 33 airlines on safety techniques after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, without seeking pay or media attention.

In 1999 an armed gang began demanding payment from a man in a fashion similar to the mafia. While not stated implicitly, the message was clear. Pay up or bad things will happen to you. Being a man of honor he refused to pay. In 2006 this armed gang decided enough was enough. They claimed that by living in their territory, the man had accruded a debt of roughly $15 million dollars, money that (in the hands of the gang) would be used to fund the slaughter of foreigners, train assassins, invade the privacy of innocent people and sustain a regime of brainwashing and intimidation.

Despite the man's offerings of $5 million dollars and pleas to "have mercy", the gang reacted.

[This] should send a loud and crystal clear message to all [..] defiers that if they engage in similar [...] conduct, they face joining him, said Nathan Hochman, a spokesman for the gang. There's no secret formula, he went on to say. Pay up in a timely manner of face their reaction.

***

It plays like a Hollywood movie and conjurs up images of smoky speakeasies and men with bad accents. Men concerned with the fear that the public has seen someone "get away with it".

But the sad, disgusting reality is that this scene didn't take place in a movie that one could get up and walk away from if they found it distasteful. This scene happend in a federal courtroom.

Wesley Snipes, a world-reknowned actor who stared in films such as "Murder at 1600" and the Blade trilogy, was sentenced to 3 years in prison today for refusal to pay taxes. Taxes which would go to fund the war in Iraq, wiretapping of American subjects and the "War on Drugs" which uses violence against people who set plants on fire.

The fact that the gang call themselves "the government" matters very little in the end. The threats, the violence and the intimidation are VERY real. Pay up, or suffer our wrath. The fact that they call their bribe money "taxes" matters little, for a man who harmed nobody will spend the next three years deprived of his livelyhood and seperated (by fear of being shot) from his family.

A crowd stood by as Mr. Snipes exited the court room and said "Wow!" but this crowd was not enough to change the situation. Letters from some of the nations social elite made recommendations to the court for leniency but the only think in the minds of the government thugs was the impression their actions would make on the populace.

On you.

What impression WILL it make? Will you sit by and doublethink this action away, calling the man a "criminal" for refusing to pay blood money? Will you quietly reflect on the fact that 'it wasn't me" and move on?

Will you take a stand and say "This isn't right!". Will you add your voice to that crowd, and do exactly what those goons feared?

Will you say 'You have no authority over me!"?

For the past several years, I've been a proud supporter of the Free Software Foundation. The ideals of Free Software have always rung true to me, and I've not only adopted Free Software solutions in my home (even my wife runs GNU/Linux) but advocated for others to evaluate what they find important and adopt free software themselves.

So when I pulled my funding last month from the FSF, I was asked "Why?" from some friends. "Do you not care about free software anymore?"

I still care deeply.

Free Software is, at it's most very basic for me, a matter of property rights. To me, it is an affront to property rights to sell or give something someone and enforce conditional restrictions upon them. If Oster sells you a toaster, they have NO right to prevent you from taking that toaster apart, studying it, adapting it and using those adaptations in the marketplace. Free Software then, has ALWAYS been about me holding my right to study that which is mine - and affirms that everything on my computer is in fact MINE.

Due only in part to Free Software, the activist nature within me has been awoken. Even more than with free software, I feel it's important to stand for what I beleive in and make decisions that reaffirm that believe. The newest belief if that government, in some way shape or form, is the cause of most of the day-to-day gripes I have. That isn't the point of this blog entry though...

What has become clear to me is that the Free Software Foundation is not truly comitted to user freedom. Furthermore, they're quite willing to use the guns of government to enforce their "freedom". Freedom is free market freedom. Freedom is, at it's very base, the right to choose. I'm still firmly comitted to the ideals of Free Software, but I stand against the Free Software Foundation, as I stand against anyone, who feels it's morally justifyable to use the guns of government to enforce compliance with ANYTHING.

If free software is better, free software will stand it's own ground, and hundreds of men with military weaponry can't part with it. Bad ideas, however, don't seen the threat of violence to be abandoned, as it makes no sense to continue with it. Free Software stands and fights it's own battles, using only consumer opinion to oppose Microsoft and Apple and Adobe. I'm quite content to leave it there, and in order to do that I found it necessary to pull my funding of the Free Software Foundation.

Viva Libre!

As a child going through the schools setup, administrated and funded by the US Government (which in turn gets it's money by taxes) I was taught to hate Nazi Germany. Not only did they burn Jews for being Jews but their police state laid waste to all of the values that people faught for and died to protect. Soldier-police could barge into a person's home to carry out searches under the guise of searching for closeted away Jews. This pretense, however, was abandoned as the soldier-police were granted the power to arrest on suspicion that someone had comitted a crime. Asking the solider-police "Why?" was forbidden and would put you on a list of "Enemies of the State".

This invasion of a person's home, lives and livelyhood was evil, something all vigilant Americans shouldn't tolerate.

On the flip side, we chanted the Pledge of Allegiance in a symbol of blind patriotic faith. Once done, we'd sit down and study about how the American patriots rose up against British tyranny to found "the best nation in history". Part of this indoctrination includes the premise that the checks and balances created a nation in which a police state couldn't form.

In that false sense of security, the majority of the population stopped being weary.

April 11th 2008 saw what some media outlets are calling the "largest regional crime crackdown ever taken". Large is an understatement. This undertaking, given the US Military-style name "Operation Sudden Impact" included agents from 53 federal, state, municipal and local agencies to apprehend terrorists.

Terrorism, huh?

Channel 5 News in Memphis, Tennessee reports Federal agencies raided several Memphis businesses in a coordinated effort to find information about possible terrorism ties.

The operation has been named known as "Sudden Impact."

At the same time, it is also being reported that The 100 sheriff's deputies working Saturday night and Sunday morning also recovered 12.2 grams of heroin.

What this says is pretty clear: Drugs are terrorism in the eyes of the police. Futhermore, with the police now working with the military (the National Guard was one of the 53 agencies involved) to "fight crime" AND "fight terrorism" it's pretty clear that under the eyes of the soldier-police crime itself it terrorism.

They issued citations for 202 traffic violations.

Speeders are now terrorists. If there was any doubt that the soldier-police were here in America, armed and ready to act, this should eliminate it all. Speeders are terrorists. "What we have found traditionally is that terrorists are involved in a number of lesser known type crimes," said Mark Luttrell, Shelby County sheriff.

Like the Nazi Ghestapo, all pretense of fighting a public enemy has even gone. The FBI along with hundreds of officers said they are looking for anything out of the ordinary. This statement from a national news outlet (CBS) has a two-fold impact. Firstly, doing something "out of the ordinary" itself constitutes police-soldier attention and secondly, but NOT attaching outrage and disgust to this statement, that it's already become common practice.

Welcome to America, with liberty and justice for all.

This way please.

Andy's blog said "everyone was doing it" so I have to too.

history | awk '{a[$2]++}END{for(i in a){print a[i] " " i}}' | sort -rn | head

On my work computer, as my non-root user (kevin) I get:

96 ssh
66 su
30 cd
29 sux
29 rm
23 screen
22 time
21 ls

17 /opt/cinderrat-2008-03-28/bin/firefox
15 apt-get

Also on my work machine, I get the following as root:

181 apt-get
84 /opt/dfu-util/bin/dfu-util
45 nano
32 ls
24 mount

19 cd
10 apt-spy
7 rm
7 modprobe
7 iptables

For those who don't know, dfu-util is the application used for flashing Openmoko images to the phone. Cinderrat is a CVS build of Mozilla's Firefox browser (which ends up being called Minefield anyway, defeating the point of rebranding).

What does your history say about you?

There's an adage that states "A picture is worth a thousand words". I've had many experiences before where I agreed, but today... Today, I have that experience in the way it was meant to be. I've seen a picture that brings to mind a thousand words that I can't possibly put to paper (so to speak).

This monument was made in New York, USA. It was shipped to the southwest United States and erected on a concrete circle to stand proudly as a symbol of the American friendship with the bordering nation of Mexico. Clearly, the monument was designed to stand tall and allow people to look at it from all sides, walking along the concrete circle and crossing into both the USA and Mexico to see it entirely.

There is another adage that springs to mind, shaded in tones of irony and disdain...

"Good fences make good neighbors."

Elizabeth Cromwell, Public Relations Manager for the Frederick County Library responded to my e-mail and I'm finally getting around to posting it.

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for contacting Frederick County Public Libraries regarding downloadable content. Public libraries try to make content as freely available as possible. We are not always satisfied with the restrictions vendors may place upon end users, and vendors are well aware of our concerns.

Many librarians are involved in this issue through advocacy groups such as the American Library Association, Maryland Library Association and a variety of other organizations. These organizations exist to take on broad issues of national or international impact. The concern you have raised fits perfectly within the parameters of these advocacy groups.

Frederick County Public Libraries is a local government agency, not an advocacy group. Our mission is to provide access to as much information and cultural/learning experiences as our limited budget can offer. Our team of people that work on our website and online content represent about 2 percent of our staff. The vast majority of our staff assists with the running of our facilities to serve the people of Frederick County.

I applaud your efforts to make sweeping changes and take on Microsoft. You'll find a lot of library staffers in this country and abroad in your corner. Feel free to share your expertise with the advocacy groups I have mentioned, and keep us posted on your efforts.

As for us, we will continue to share our concerns with vendors. With a growing demand from our users for more, not less, of these products, I don't anticipate doing away with them at this time.

Thanks again for raising the issue. We are always happy to receive valuable input from our consumers.

Regards, Elizabeth Cromwell

I found an old document today; a tattered piece of paper with some fanciful caligraphy on it.

This paper spoke of lunacy; of freedoms and rights. Of protections, and a government the devises it's power from the People, rather than making demands of the people.

It is a thing of legends and dreams, a true utopia of ethical government.

I like this part, specifically: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The document is the Constitution; it is still a valid document and it is a ruling document.

I have the right to worship Jesus, or Allah, or nobody. I have the right to march for immigration reform, or to ban abortion or to support gay marriage. I have the right to tell my Senators that I dislike smoking bans and I want them removed. I can tell my Representative to allow Trans-fats! I can say George Bush is a moron! I can say that the answer to Life, The Universe and Everything is 42! I can say "there is no spoon!"

I can also fire off random numerical strings, like 4564764168735435435, 1111111111111111111110010101110. I can wear them on T-Shirts, or Bumperstickers or have them tattooed to my face if I like.

And in the USA, I can post 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0 to my blog. I need not say what it does, and in fact I will not. But I stand firmly that posting this string is protected by my Constitutional Rights as a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

I encourage ALL Americans to spread this number freely. Because that's what it's always about with me, Freedom.

Think of it as "Free Speech" not "Free Beer". And once more, I love Free Speech!

In a disgusting affront to Free Speech, a man in China was restrained and placed under arrest for urging people to "oppose the Microsoft monopoly". The man raised a sign saying "Free Software - Open Source" and was quickly taken into custody.

In China, the values are spreading... Can the world help to let this man be heard?

Robert X. Cringely wrote on his site some ideas a friend (perhaps a colleague) has regarding the internet, and solutions to the problems of today.

Allow me to provide my insight to these things.

As usual, text in italics is quotation from the article.

David, who is not American, sees the U.S.-controlled Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as an imperialist tool, which is also pretty much the way the Bush Administration sees it, too, though the Bushies are proud rather than upset.

I truly love the anti-American sentiment the world has. ICANN is very heavily US controlled and it does need to be abolished. In addition to being "evil", it's also highly inefficient, which can pose just as mnay problems. I AM an American. The fact that David is not is irrelevant to his points, you'd do better to leave them out.

If users want to participate in the Inet, they have to accept the Inet's Terms and Conditions, which say that ICANN has no authority here, thanks.

Already, I'm not liking this Inet idea. I'm one of the people who read every letter of the Terms of Service from my ISPs, and have rejected most of them. I've combed through every licensing agreement provided to me by Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, Macromedia and rejected them ALL.

Some terms are useful. But it needs to be understood very clearly that networks must not be aware of the traffic going through them. I'll get more into this later, as the point was raised. But needless to say, I'm not willing to put my time or money into a system that can (and there for, potentially MIGHT) distinguish between one kind of traffic and another.

A free browser patch would install a virtual switch. Click on the switch, and you route your calls through the Inet DNS Filter, and if appropriate, Inet's own DNS system.

Problem #1. Your use the term "free" which you probably mean to be "no cost". I point you to The Free Software Definition. Any software, to be useable, must be freely distributable. This means the source code must be accessible.

Problem #2. Browser patches are bad because they attempt to catch traffic at a browser level. What about non-HTTP traffic? A new DNS system would mean browsers (ALL OF THEM!), MUAs (ALL OF THEM), RSS readers (ALL OF THEM) would need to be patched. If you're arguing to make a substantial network change, this change must take place as a network stack level, NOT an application level. Furthermore, you've not mentioned ANYTHING about where(and if) the specifications for this system would be. Without specifications, the Free Software and Open Source communities wouldn't be able or willing to incorporate these changes and I'm sure even MCSE and proud Windows users would fear any network infrastructure developed by Microsoft.

During this time, any reputable domain name holder owning an Internet domain could ask for free registration of those same domains on the Inet system.

Here is the first of several strong hangups I have about this entire system. Value judgements. You say any reputable domain owner, how is this decided? What's reputable? If Microsoft has any say in this, all Linux related domains would be "disreputable", except perhaps Novell's for now. Microsoft claims Linux infringes IP owned by Microsoft. Let ICANN decide what's reputable and Inet itself gets blocked. The MPAA and RIAA would certainly consider warez and Torrent sites to be "disreputable".

Even activity that is ILLEGAL can fall clearly into the "reputable" situation. I'm not sure how much the American DMCA frightens Windows Professionals, but I'd consider several of those sites offering illegal downloads quite a bit of reputability.

Who then, sets the standard of "reputable"?

This costs a nominal fee for private individuals, and a slightly larger fee for commercial entities.

This sounds a lot like Microsoft's broken "licensing" fee concept. That the SAME software, doing the same thing in a DIFFERENT setting is somehow more valuable? What makes the registration of a domain more expensive for a business than an individual?

When you register a trademark as a domain on Inet, you automatically get all of the global alternatives in one go.

The problem with international things is that they often don't have international law to stand on. For instance, every nation in the world has trademark laws that define what can and can't be trademarked, and these laws vary. Furthermore, a trademark in one nation is not always recognized in another. To make this even worse, who gets the domain if two companies, in different countries, each have the same trademark?

Also, how do you plan to contend with the lack of domain names? Every dictionary word in English has been registered on the .com site, as well as all three and four letter combinations. Chances are, most of those have a trademark somewhere. Adding new top level domains would be useless because according to the global concept, adding .globe would just give trademark.globe to the holder of the Trademark, rather than creating new possible domains.

It seems this system is business oriented at it's very core, and while I have no problems with business, the greatest thing about the internet was that it leveled the field and gave small individuals equal footing in a global economy and social sphere. This comes, simply, because in the beginning the internet banned commercial activity at ALL. This system caters to it, and it scares me how easily people dismiss the implications of this.

Domain squatting would not be permitted, either.

This is another value judgement, though, I'm not sure it was intended to be.

I work for a marketing and webhosting company. Typically, when you hear those two terms together, you instantly assume spam. :D What we do is design web pages for small businesses who have no web presence at all. We handle everything, from domain registration to hosting. When we register the domains, we do them through our registrar, and take full control of the domain. Our terms of service state that at the customers' request, we'll transfer to domain to the customer. We're honest and reputable with this.

The problem comes 6 months into a contract when a company goes out of business, or refuses to pay us. We then have a domain registered and paid for that we don't use. Typically, we'll park the domain, or put some kind of advertising on it to cover the loss and let the domain expire at the end of the year. But sometimes, we get meaningful offers for the domains.

Would you consider us a squatter? If so, I disagree with this term of service. We don't intend to own domains we don't utilize, but in real world situations, it happens and I don't think there's a problem with it at all. If you DON'T consider us a squatter, what makes us different than any other company that owns domains they don't use?

Again, I go back to the point that a network shouldn't know the content that it transmits. The internet doesn't care about the intention of owning a domain and it's impossible to determine if something is legitimate without looking into "Intent".

Domain dispute resolution would be rapid: one week for evidence presentation, 24 hours to decide, and 24 hours for appeals. At which point the Inet DNS system would block the loser.

That sounds great in theory. The problem with that is in the real world, the more criteria you place on something, the harder it is to make fair rulings about it. If the terms say "First come, first serve" it's easy, look at the time stamp. But if you begin making concessions for business versus personal, intent, trademark (which varies nation to nation) and if something fits with a long terms of service.

The answer to those issues isn't setting a 24 hour time limit, but making the rules flexible enough and simple that disputes CAN'T arise in the first place.

All domain activity would operate through Inet, not be farmed out to resellers, since the system is too important, and has proved to be difficult to police on the Internet.

I really wish this had been two sentences. It would have been much easier to respond to. First off, I very much like the idea of centralized registration. Quite simply, there's no reason we need three layers or more to register a domain. Having recently lost a domain to Enom because (at realizing they were going to lose this my domain) pulled control from the registrant and locked the domain until it expired. Enom claims it doesn't happen, but it does and they did.

However, I disagree with your "policing" the internet. To me, it's a matter of efficiency and fluidity that the resellers detract from. It's not mine, your or anyone else's place to police the internet.

Inet domain holders would be expected to maintain control over the content of their users on sites with Inet domain registrations. Repeated failures to rapidly do so would result in the temporary or permanent loss of their Inet domain.

Again, I question the validity, privacy and fairness of a network (or in this case, system) that distinguishes between the traffic on it. Even worse, I fear a collective body that feels it is ethical to determine "validity" when dealing with thousands of jurisdictions and hundreds of cultures.

Inet DNS registrants would have a real name, address, and contact details (not a PO Box), and any communication from the Inet DNS system to the named registrar must be answered within 24 hours or the registration would be terminated.

At first glance, this means all child pornographers would be easily identified. It means all phishers could be identified. I, however, ask two questions.

#1. How will this system encourage and protect anonymous whistleblowers?

For instance, an intern was raped by a politico campaigning for the Presidency. John (a security guard) has access to the camera that can prove this, but GETTING that tape out, and to the public is illegal and may end his career (and possible other things, should the candidate become violent). John registers a domain and posts the video anonymously. If you don't think this is a viable reason to not want your name and address known, fine. It exmplifies why I'd not use such a system.

#2. How would inet actively verify this information, and assure that it's protected at ALL time from freedom infringing use?

Pornography sites could only register using the .xxx top-level domain scuttled not long ago by ICANN.

The reason this failed was because it's impossible. First, there are a hundred definitions of pornography, choosing one would catch things that aren't porn, or allow porn to not be caught. Second, does the .xxx apply ONLY to sites designed to "operate for the sole existance of porn"? My local radio station occasionally puts porn on their website. Not because it is porn, but because it's relevant to the entertainment industry when a celeb's home videos get leaked. Would then that radio station need to have a .xxx domain? Would MY site, primarily about software and Freedom, be .xxx because it has a picture of a graphic sexual act?

And third... You yourself SAID that if someone registers a trademark they get ALL domains associated with that. So, walmart.xxx would exist right alone with riaps.xxx. It works the other way around too. When a porn company registers their trademarked name, they also get the .com. You're going to say Wal-mart can use all of their domains, but Lemonade Cash can not? If you think that is fair, acceptable or both, your system is doomed.

Inet’s Terms and Conditions would prohibit child pornography, phishing, fraudulent commercial services, spam, denial of service attacks, and zombie networks.

As with regular porn, chiuld porn is almost impossible to define. While most people have a vague idea of what it is, there are some fringe cases. For example, this case of a teen couple charged for taking pictures of themselves.

One man's spam is another man's marketing. I've noticed that AOL uses user feedback to determine the legitimacy of spam. The problem with this is that when people agree to join mailing lists, they ARE soliciting for the messages. But 6 weeks down the road, they're sick of the messages and begin flagging them as spam. I have done this myself, set filters on my inbox that instantly delete things I willingly agreed to receive. How then, does one determine if a message actually IS spam?

The answer to fixing the problems of the internet isn't simple. EVERY protocol has issues that need to be addressed, but at the same time, we need to preserve the ideals of the internet, preserve Freedom and keep the internet as level as possible.

If anyone had a duty to protect Julie Doe, it was her parents, not MySpace.

This quote comes from a Texas judge in a ruling in favour of MySpace yesterday. In this case, several families of sexual assault victims sued MySpace, claiming they have a duty to "protect the children".

Firstly, to the victims of sexual abuse, you're not alone. I'm a survivor of sexual abuse too. Secondly to the families of sexual abuse victims, you have our support.

Thirdly, about damn time! There's an age old adage that says "Don't talk to strangers". I remember in school seeing videos of gruff old men pulling up in beat up cars offering little kids candy.

Are those videos still around? Despite the horrible (and dangerously wrong!) assumptions made about sex offenders, they did instill a sense of caution in children. You don't talk to strangers! Don't give your address to them. Don't give your phone number to them. Don't get in their car!

The same thing applies in the modern world, just, perhaps a bit differently. There ARE ways to form relationships with people online. I do, and have done it, seveal times. In fact, the relative safety of the internet makes such relationships MORE productive. Telling the truth is much easier when there's a "Quit" button. :)

That said, kids are dumb. Kids think they know what they're doing, what they're about, how the world works. It is a parent's place to teach their children the skills needed to make those distinctions, and to ensure that they don't have to use those skills until they're honed enough to be useful when needed.

The parents who allow their kids on MySpace without talking, teaching and listening are just as stupid as the parents who allow their kids to run off with unknown "friends". Parents should have a desire to know what happens in their kid's lives, those that don't fail at parenting.

And that's a bigger issue that MySpace will ever be.

I'm sitting here waiting for my download of GNU/Solaris to finish, and suddenly I remembered the hours I spent yesterday reading the second draft of the GNU General Public License, Version 3 and more specifically, the comments.

I won't phrase anyone here, because I'm not singling anyone or any specific comment out, but it seems very obvious to me that people commenting on some aspects of this license fall firmly into the "Open Source" camp, and NOT the Free Software philosophy.

Terms like "adoption" make a false and dangerous assumption; namely "We want people to use our code more than we want out code to be Free." If Freedom is less important to you, do not use the GPL v3. It became crystal clear to me last night what the intent of the FSF is with this reworking; "Make a CLEAR distinction between Open Source and Free Software."

This goal will be met by creating a license that, more than providing access to source code, ensures that given that code, users will still be able to have fully functioning, unencumbered software. DRM, while it might be disturbing to users of Open Source software, is "really a matter of choice. If vendors want to use it, that's their choice." That last phrase spits in the face of the ideals of Free Software; if you're not willing to license your code in a way to prevent it being perverted by DRM, then you are not writing software intent to be Free.

GPL v3 will seperate the "FOSS" community firmly in two. Those that want access to the code (and will use the GPL v2, the BSD and MPL license) and those who want their software to be Free, which requires access to the code, but doesn't stop there.

Alan Cox has applied for a patent on "Right management systems" which effectivly, are all forms of software based DRM.

WHile this seems a step in the wrong direction at first glance, consider this... Cox's employer, Red Hat has pledged not to license this patent should it be granted.

This means that Windows, and the iPod and all other forms of DRM would be illegal in the US, as it infringes a patent held by Red Hat.

Lets hope they keep their word, and let's smile. For once, I'm happy to post some DRM news. :)

More on the patent itself can be found here.