US Marshals Service Selling 50,000 Stolen Bitcoins

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Bitcoin, Police, Police State, Rant | Posted on 19-11-2014

Tags: ,

The US Marshals Service is auctioning off 50,000 stolen bitcoin that they looted from Ross Ulbricht.

http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/2014/dpr-bitcoins/

US Marshals Service Selling 50,000 Stolen Bitcoins

US Marshals Service Selling 50,000 Stolen Bitcoins

Here’s a screenshot of the web page where they’re looking for people to sell their stolen property.

Criminality out in the open

Criminality out in the open

No convictions in yet, but still, they’re flogging off what they’ve stolen.

For those interested in what “steal” means:

What is stealing?

What is stealing?

What the US Marshals Service has done meets the definition of (for the transitive verb) #1, the intransitive verb’s #1 definition, and the noun form’s #1 definition.

While the web pages does say that Ross has agreed to this, it is very difficult to take that seriously as he is clearly under duress.

In this order, both the United States and Ross William Ulbricht agreed that “the United States, in its sole discretion, may sell any portion or all of these bitcoins, on a date or dates and in a manner to be determined by the Government.”

Yeah. Very believable.

The outright criminality of the FBI and US Marshals Service is mind-numbingly bold. The courts are complicit in the criminality, and too few people are speaking up to hold these thugs accountable for their crimes.

 

Why do people video other people getting murdered?

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Police, Police State, States | Posted on 19-07-2014

Tags: , ,

It’s pretty common to see videos of people idly standing by while someone is murdered. Here’s just one recent example from PINAC:

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/07/17/nypd-kill-man-video-breaks-fight/

There are about 10 cops hanging around while the poor fellow is murdered by cops.

What could anyone do to save him? If there were only 3 cops, someone might stand a chance. But what would they have to do? Pull the armed thugs off of the man? That wouldn’t end well.

About the only reasonable thing someone could do to save the man is to pull out a firearm and quickly kill each of the violent thugs. Given that they wear body armour, head shots would probably be a good idea. If you don’t get them quick enough, you are pretty much guaranteed that they’ll kill you. If you’re going to stop 1 of them, you need to stop them all. They’re pack animals.

But that would be the end of their life. Anyone who saved that man would be tracked down and punished with a demonic vengeance. Defending people against the state is not something that the state will ever tolerate.

With 10 violent gang members around, it’s unlikely that a single person could save that man.

I suppose that people video the cops murdering people in the hopes that the judicial system prosecutes them for murder. That doesn’t happen. But there is always hope.

Cop eRights Terms and Conditions Addendum

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Police, Police State, Politics | Posted on 02-06-2014

Tags:

I was mulling over a few ideas about writing an actual Terms & Conditions, and figured I’d throw up a quick draft. So, here’s the “Cop eRights Terms and Conditions Addendum” for your entertainment. (It could likely use a good amount of work, but this is still good for a possible chuckle/groan.)

Cop eRights Terms and Conditions Addendum

Version 0.1, 2014-06-02

Copyright 2014 Cynic.me

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed.

PREAMBLE

The “Cop eRights Terms and Conditions Addendum” is an addendum that may be attached to any existing “Terms and Conditions” or similar usage license or policy.

To add the Cop eRights Terms and Conditions Addendum to your Terms and Conditions, simply copy and paste it below your Terms and Conditions or otherwise link to a copy of the Cop eRights Terms and Conditions Addendum.

COP ERIGHTS TERMS AND CONDITIONS ADDENDUM

0. Definitions.

“This Addendum” refers to version 0.1 of the Cop eRights Terms and Conditions Addendum.

“The Parent Terms and Conditions” refers to the Terms and Conditions to which this Addendum is attached.

“The Service” refers to the service for which the Parent Terms and Conditions apply.

“Cop” means anyone or any computer employed in any facet of law enforcement.

“Government Welfare Whore” means anyone that directly or indirectly receives any form of remuneration or payment from any government or state. This includes subcontractors and government supported businesses, organisations and agencies that accept any form of remuneration, payment, subsidy, fee, grant, loan, aid, endowment, allowance, bounty, contribution, gift, reward, tribute, assistance or other financial or material consideration or that benefit from government legislation or regulation.

1. Permissions.

Permission to access any information, resource or service provided by the Service is explicitly forbidden for all Cops and all Government Welfare Whores, with the single exception of this Addendum for which permission to access this Addendum is given to access this Addendum one time and one time only; subsequent access to this Addendum is explicitly denied. Use of or access to the Service by any Cop or Government Welfare Whore constitutes theft of services and is a criminal offense punishable by fines and/or incarceration.

This revocation of permission in this Addendum supercedes any permission, explicit or implied, in the Parent Terms and Conditions.

None of this Addendum is intended to apply to anyone who is neither a Cop nor a Government Welfare Whore.

I hope it got a few smiles out there. Or that it sent a few people into a foaming at the mouth, profanity laden rage. Either works for me!

What Nobody Noticed About the Bundy Ranch Protests…

1

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Logic, Police, Police State, Politics, Sovereignty | Posted on 21-04-2014

Tags:

BLM is already there. Protesters show up. People get tased, assaulted, and arrested.

More protesters show up. A lot more. Some have guns. Nobody gets tased, assaulted, or arrested. Nobody gets hurt.

Something to think about.

Killing Cops is OK. Sometimes.

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Cynicism, Philosophy, Police, Police State, Politics, States | Posted on 08-09-2013

Tags: , ,

V is for VoluntaryThe topic of violence really sets a lot of people off. Those that love it, get upset when you point out that they participate and endorse it. Those that abhor violence, get testy when the topic of defense comes up.

The first of those is easily seen in any discussion of tax with a statist. Lots of those out there, and not hard to find.

The other case, where people advocate violence for defense (outside of the state), isn’t so common. But there are 2 good examples out there.

The first, and best known, is Larken Rose’s “When should you shoot a cop?” (Video at CopBlock)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cElTyqJkMEw

He raises some good questions.

A more recent phrasing of the question is by Chris Cantwell in his article, “Concord Police, Go and Get Your Bearcat“.

Chris says the obvious when it comes to defending yourself:

So what to do? It’s a terribly unpopular thing to say, but the answer, at some point, is to kill government agents. The government agents know that, and that’s why they want a tank.

There really isn’t anything very controversial about what they’ve said, i.e. If the state initiates violence (aggresses) against you, you are well within your rights to defend yourself or resist that violence with violence.

If someone is trying to kill you, or attacking you and could kill you, you’re a complete moron if you refuse to use lethal force to save your own life (or that of another person).

Rudolph Rummel is a political scientist that has done a great deal of research on democide (governments murdering people).

He estimates that in the 20th century alone, about 262,000,000 people were murdered by various states/governments.

Those 262,000,000 people stand as a testament to the moral validity and moral imperative of defending yourself and/or other people with violence, and with deadly violence if necessary.

To put that somewhat into perspective, the Nazi murder of Jews represents about 2% of the total number of civilians murdered by government. About 50x more people were murdered that people never talk about.

Ignoring the topic of using violence against the state because violence is detestable, is simply irresponsible. Those that say, “it can’t happen here,” are most likely the ones that most need to discuss the topic. Larken Rose goes over the topic in detail in his video, “It Can’t Happen Here“.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ebudnWlh4

The debate on the topic needs to happen. People need to think about defensive violence against the police and the state.

Nobody is saying, “Run out and kill the first cop you see.” Nobody is saying, “Kill every cop you can.” Nobody want to run around killing people. Well, that’s not really true – it appears that our governments love killing people and really get off on it, but let’s assume we’re talking about sane people – you know – voluntarists and anarchists. 😉

Concentration Camps Coming to a City Near You!

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Police, Police State, Politics | Posted on 05-05-2012

You simply can’t make this shit up. Get ready. Someone is going to be knocking at your door very soon. Think I’m kidding? See this video here:

Video from:

http://endthelie.com/2011/12/09/smile-you-are-a-civilian-internee/

The original report and PDF is available at Public Intelligence here:

http://publicintelligence.net/restricted-u-s-army-internment-and-resettlement-operations-manual/

Here’s the summary…

The US is a police state worse than the Nazis or Stalinist Russia or Maoist China. And they’re going to come for you.

I strongly recommend reading the Public Intelligence report.

The US is only the beginning. If you don’t think it can happen in your country, think again. Because countless millions of murdered civilians thought the same thing.

Peace,

Ryan

 

Getting Around Internet Censorship: Internet Freedom

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Internet, Police, Politics, Security, Solutions to Problems | Posted on 06-10-2011

Tags: , , , , ,

There is no better way to set me off into a mindless fury of profanity and obscenity than to censor me. I loathe censorship. It sets me off. So, here’s how to get around censorship in repressive police states like Belgium…

The Belgian Anti-Piracy Federation (BAF) has urged all Belgian ISPs to block Swedish freetard site The Pirate Bay after a higher Antwerp court ordered Belgian cable company Telenet and telco Belgacom to make the site inaccessible to their subscribers. (Source)

It is not the job of a supposedly free government to ban or block access to information. That is the job of the police state. The subject matter does not matter. Whether it’s about how to knit patterned sweaters, or how to build and deploy improvised explosive devices (IEDs), blocking access is blocking access. Censorship is censorship.

I previously posted about getting around censorship where I mentioned iPredator. I’d also posted this graphic: iPredator That still holds true. You can also use Privacy.io. One benefit to Privacy.io is that you can still send email via port 25, which is blocked with iPredator. Other than that, iPredator and Privacy.io are about the same. I should note that I have tried both, and have found that Privacy.io seems to be faster than iPredator. I could be wrong, but that’s what I’ve perceived anyways.

So, the difference between iPredator and Privacy.io is pretty much nothing as far as censorship goes. Only the name changes. Here’s that same diagram from above adjusted for Privacy.io:

Privacy.io and censorship

But I’d like to add one thing to the above method for getting around Internet Censorship though: DNS servers. Here’s an illustration of how you could still encounter problems if your ISP filters some sites via DNS filtering, and how you can solve that problem for a complete solution:

Privacy.io and DNS Server Solution to Censorship

So, you can also change your DNS servers to something else other than your ISP’s DNS servers. By doing this, and using a VPN, they won’t have the faintest clue what you are doing. You can surf the web freely and anonymously.

Some DNS services include Google’s free DNS resolution services or any other DNS service. Keep in mind though, that whoever is doing your DNS resolution knows what sites you are requesting DNS resolution for… So you might want to investigate that further, and look for a DNS resolution service that has a solid privacy policy and one that doesn’t keep logs.

Here’s how DNS filtering works…

You want to visit a site, like the Pirate Bay. But “thepiratebay.org” doesn’t mean anything to your computer. Only special numbers work. Those numbers are called “IP addresses”. DNS servers match human-friendly names, like “thepiratebay.org” to those numbers, IP addresses. When your computer sends a request to your ISP’s DNS servers, your ISP can look at your request and say, “Oh… he wants to visit a site that we don’t want him to… Let’s give him a fake DNS record (IP address) or nothing at all for that site so that he can’t visit it.”

So there you have it. How to get around censorship on the Internet.

And if your ISP blocks you before you can even make a connection to iPredator or Privacy.io, there are more VPN services out there that you can connect to. They can’t block them all.

Cheers, and happy FREEDOM surfing!

Ryan

Bizarre Law Enforcement in Victoria

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Australia, Police, Politics, States | Posted on 01-02-2011

Tags:

Australian law enforcement continues to baffle me. Harsh penalties for nothing, and slaps on the wrist for violent offenders. I don’t get it. Victorian law enforcement seems to be particularly nutty sometimes.

While reading some news at The Age I came across an article: Experts pan public mobile speed camera plan

The last paragraph struck me as odd, and quite frankly, a dangerous step along a slippery slope:

The police also announced yesterday that they had begun enforcing 40km/h speed limits in school zones, despite the fact classes do not begin for most schools until Friday.

Those speed limits are enforced only during school days and only during specific hours, i.e. the times in the morning when kids get to school, and the times when they leave school, with a sufficient margin around them for early comers and late comers.

But enforcing laws outside of their mandated domain seems like a very dangerous thing.

Imagine being arrested for indecent exposure while you are in your own home. Or for not paying your taxes before they are due. Or… Whatever it is, it’s bad policy to arbitrarily make up the law as you go. Laws and law enforcement need to be reasonable and they need to be predictable.

It’s an ongoing thing that I see though. Not just here in Victoria, Australia, but elsewhere as well. Governments act with total disregard for their subjects.

Police Send Negative Messages About Australians

4

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Alcohol, Australia, Police | Posted on 06-01-2011

Tags: , , ,

The Victoria police and Victoria Roads really know how to send some negative messages. Looking at their billboard ads, Australia, or at least Victoria and Melbourne, has some horrible problems, including drinking and driving. It really seems like people just don’t know how to behave properly. It’s not like other places don’t have problems with impaired driving, but the problems here just seem much more exacerbated.

Take for example some Victoria Roads public service ad billboards like these two:

3000 Police.
No warning. No escape.

3000 Police No Warning No Escape

One million drivers will be breath-tested before New Year.

One Million Drivers TestedThe second one seems basically informative. The message is well phrased and informative. It lets people know that the police will be out in force to breath-test drivers and check for impaired drivers. That’s a good thing. It lets me know that the police are out there to help keep the roads safe for me to drive on. It reassures me that during the holiday season, I don’t need to worry about whether or not I’m going to make it to my destination in one piece. It’s a positive message and treats the reader with some respect. It doesn’t assume that the reader is drinking and driving and it doesn’t assume that the reader is a low-life or criminal.

The first, however, is an entirely different story.

The first public service ad is a blatant threat with the assumption that the reader is a low-life or criminal. There’s no attempt to inform the reader at all. It’s entirely an appeal to force and fear. (See ad baculum and ad metum.) That says a lot though. It says a great deal about the police in Victoria, and it says a lot about the people of Victoria, or at least they way the police of Victoria perceive the people of Victoria.

To me, as a non-Australian, the first billboard sends a few messages to me:

  1. Australians are bad behaved
  2. Australians drink and drive regularly
  3. Australians have no respect for law or order
  4. Australians are basically criminals
  5. Blah blah blah.

Now, let’s be clear about what I just said. “The first billboards sends a few messages to me.” And those are the messages that the ad billboard sends. Why else would Victoria Roads and the police resort to threats and intimidation? Hell, the graffiti on it reinforces those messages. The graffiti seems to indicate that the negative view of Victorians by the police and Victoria Roads is fully justified. After all, who defaces public service ad billboards? Decent law-abiding people? No. Thugs do.

Breaking down the first billboard, there are a few elements that combine to form a clear message.

3000 POLICE

In itself, this is really a neutral statement, but in context, it’s clearly about these guys being out to get YOU.

NO WARNING

You only need a warning when something bad is about to happen. You don’t warn people about good things. The context is clear. Something bad is going to happen to YOU.

NO ESCAPE

This is the most insidious part of the ad. It makes the assumption that you will be caught for drinking and driving, and you will not be able to get away. YOU will be arrested. Thrown in jail.

Is this the kind of message that you want to be bombarded with? Because this billboard is all over Victoria, and there are always plenty more just like it with the same basic message:

You are a criminal, and we’re going to catch you and throw your ass in jail.

The second billboard is fine. It sends a positive message. And the first billboard could have been like that:

3000 Police for the Holidays:
* Reducing Drink Driving.
* Keeping Your Roads Safe.

(“Drinking and driving” is called “drink driving” in Australia.)

Wouldn’t that be nicer to look at? Wouldn’t that send a much better message for those of us that don’t drink and drive?

Yes, it’s wordier and could be reworked some. But with a little Photoshop magic, have a quick look here:

3000 Police with positive messageIt *IS* possible to have public service ads and *NOT* be a total douche. It is possible to send a positive message to people.

Now, the “Don’t risk it” text is really out of character there, and again, assumes that the reader is a basic thug. But that’s the core tag-line and basic mindset here. Sigh…

The truth is that the vast majority of people are basically good. They don’t get all pissed up, drive around, and kill people. It’s a very small number of people that cause problems.

Targeting the majority as though they are part of the minority is simply ass-backwards. It’s like being screamed at, “YOU ARE FUCKING GUILTY AND WE WILL FUCKING GET YOU!” Well, no I’m not and no you won’t.

I mention this not because it’s a single irritating incident. It’s prevalent throughout Melbourne. Grocery stores have warnings on shelves about shoplifting. Billboards and signs around the city scream at you that you are a criminal and that you will be caught and imprisoned. The messages cover:

  • Drinking and driving (drink driving)
  • Shoplifting and theft (shopstealing)
  • Knives and violence
  • Drugs
  • etc.

The majority of ads make the assumption that the reader is involved in them.

It shows a deep distrust of the people and a deep disrespect for the people.

How can anyone from outside of Australia possibly come away with a positive impression of the place if this is the way Australians view and treat themselves?