×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

San Diego GOP Chairman Alleged To Be a Fairlight Co-Founder

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the appears-to-be-the-case dept.

Republicans 389

Airw0lf writes with a claim that appears too implausible to credit, at first glance: "If anyone remembers 'Fairlight' — one of the great groups on the warez scene, you may be interested to know that one of their leaders, Tony Krvaric, is now the chairman of the San Diego Republican Party." A similar report (on which the TorrentFreak story above draws heavily, and which is cited for the same claim about Krvaric made in the above-linked Wikipedia entry) showed up last week in The Raw Story. According to these reports, Krvaric is the same person known as "strider" in the Warez scene. I called Krvaric seeking comment; though he was unavailable, I hope he chooses to comment by email to help inform any followup coverage. A telephone receptionist at the office of the San Diego Republican Party acknowledged that she knew of the claims, but refused further comment, citing workplace rules. While she would not directly acknowledge or deny the truth of the allegations, she asked me to "remember, these are things that happened more than 20 years ago." Since some people have been penalized quite harshly (and some have been jailed) for the sort of large-scale software piracy that Fairlight enabled, it's interesting that Krvaric has enjoyed instead a meteoric rise in conservative politics.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

389 comments

Republican Motto: (-1, Troll)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316090)

Do as I say, not as I do.

Democrat motto. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316200)

Do as I say, not as I do. And don't you dare disagree with me or you're a homophobic, racist, hater.

Right wing nutjob motto (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316478)

Do as I say or you hate America and support the terrorists.

Seriously, I haven't gotten enough flamebait moderation recently. Help me out here.

Re:Republican Motto: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316208)

More like: do what you want until you get caught, then lie, deny, fire someone and next time be slightly more careful.

Re:Republican Motto: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316256)

I think that's pretty much a politician motto. Still, I don't think I'd hold teenage computer crimes against a Republican or Democrat candidate. I don't think anyone could run for office if you were required to have never been young and foolish (or 1337). At least he wasn't out selling crack and shooting cashiers (as far as we know).

Re:Republican Motto: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316400)

Well, as long as he didn't get a BJ

Re:Republican Motto: (5, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316450)

Two things wrong with that: first, people are allowed to change how they believe and, indeed, most parts of their personality. Second, strict copyright enforcement is neither republican nor democrat, liberal nor conservative. It's an artificial control of the market, and as such it's bad according to the free market evangelists.

Republicans are reaching the status of Microsoft on Slashdot, getting bashed for everything whether they deserve it or not.

Re:Republican Motto: (1, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316576)

Double standard. Republicans bash democrats endlessly, but whine about it whenever anyone hits back.

Republicans are allowed to say they've changed, but not Democrats. Republicans love to point out Democrat's youthful indiscretions, so turnabout is fair play.

Markets need controls, as they have known failure modes such as imbalance of information, natural monopoly, and externalities. Sharing of inventions & innovations are externalities and need to be encouraged through non market means.

Re:Republican Motto: (5, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316728)

Double standard. Republicans bash democrats endlessly, but whine about it whenever anyone hits back.
Not really. Bashing happens back and forth, and I call shenanigans if it's unfair either way, which his statement clearly was.

Republicans are allowed to say they've changed, but not Democrats. Republicans love to point out Democrat's youthful indiscretions, so turnabout is fair play
Really? Because I seem to remember President Bush getting bashed over what he was doing in Vietnam, over his alcoholism, and over many other things in his past. Seems like maybe analyzing peoples' past behavior cuts both ways.

Markets need controls
Indeed they do and I never argued differently, I only said that very conservative people would tend to make that argument. Since republicans tend towards the conservative side, placing republicans on the side of copyright seems a little silly.

Just because some republicans or some democrats act a certain doesn't mean they all do, and acting like they do is counterproductive. You don't raise the level of dialogue by going to the level of the lowest common denominator.

Re:Republican Motto: (1, Flamebait)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316746)

Bologna. The real double standard is the way the media challenges everything Republicans lay claim to and assume all bad press about Republicans is true while they assume all good things about Democrats is true and challenge anything negative. The funny exception to this is that Hillary Clinton gets scrutinized by the media all the time. Maybe they think she's a Republican in disguise?

Re:Republican Motto: (1, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316892)

Really, what media are you watching? Because from where I'm sitting, Faux News and even CNN seem to do a lot of Republican ass kissing and a lot of Democrat bashing.

Got any proof the media is pro-Democrat? Because I think you are just repeating Faux News lies.

Re:Republican Motto: (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316964)

About five years ago they did a study of what candidates journalists and other members of the media supported, and they pretty consistently supported democrats. It's possible that's changed recently, but I doubt it.

Re:Republican Motto: (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316998)

Journalists do not control the media. Editors and owners do, and they are overwhelmingly Republican.

EPIC LULZ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316096)

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

A breath of change. (5, Funny)

Ceiynt (993620) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316120)

Well, at least someone with a crimal background is getting into politics rather then a politition getting into criminal activities.

Re:A breath of change. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316244)

Politicians are all criminals one way or the other, so nothing changed for him :)
 

Re:A breath of change. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316458)

Well, at least someone with a crimal background is getting into politics rather then a politition getting into criminal activities.


Well with the GOP, you typically get both.

I'd say him pirating makes him a really bad supply-sider, but since the GOP leadership is actually ALL about piracy (especially when it comes to liberating our tax dollars into their own pockets), his history just gives him a tons of gooper street cred.

Re:A breath of change. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316462)

Considering that they helped mandate that Electronic Voting become the norm, is it really any suprise that the GOP would be looking for assistance amongst the Warez community? Not to absolve the Democratic Party of anything, after all as long as they remain in use each election will have the opportunity to become the bot fight of the century.

*This software haxxored by P1uckt43v0t3

And yet... (5, Funny)

quag7 (462196) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316134)

It still hasn't gotten weird enough for me.

***TRIAD*** for DEPARTMENT of HOMELAND SECURITY!

Re:And yet... (5, Funny)

vecctor (935163) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316364)

Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion, but I prefer the security policies of RAZOR 1911.

Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316136)

Democrats are for big-media and Hollywood. Republicans are not.

Re:Duh (4, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316232)

Republicans and Democrats are both for protecting the interests of big money. Can you name any Republicans advocating for copyright reform?

Re:Duh (2, Interesting)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316342)

He is more of a Libretarian Republican who are good folks in my book.

Re:Duh (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316410)

Libertarians all want a free ride. Basically, they want everyone else to pay for the public good of a social safety net while they horde their money for better uses, like gaming the market to keep the poor desperate enough to be a continual source of cheap labor.

Re:Duh (5, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316684)

> they want everyone else to pay for the public good of a social safety net

Um, I'm pretty sure Libertarians are against the existence of a taxpayer-supported safety net in most cases, so I'm not sure how you think this translates into wanting "everyone else to pay for one." They don't want it to exist, period, meaning that they obviously don't want to pay for it. Whether they want other people to be able to pay for it (voluntarily, perhaps), or whether they're against it more fundamentally, is a bit more complex.

90% of political disagreements basically boil down to fundamental differences of opinion as to whether government is a good deal for what you pay. Socialists and leftists mostly feel that you get a good ROI for your tax dollar; supporting a larger government makes sense when taken from this premise. Libertarians and true conservatives don't feel that it's money well spent, and would cut government to the bare minimum on this basis. (Incidentally: 'progressive' tax policies that increase the marginal tax rate based on income pretty much guarantee that the wealthy will always be mostly conservative, since they'll end up paying more for basically the same services.)

One of the reasons political discourse in the U.S. is so unproductive (IMO, anyway) is because there's too much emotional rhetoric and very little discussion about the fundamental issue, which is whether or not most people are getting a good deal for what they're paying.

Re:Duh (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316788)

Please. Ask any libertarian about it and they say the slack in social programs will be taken up by charity. They do want a certain amount of social security, because of the whole security aspect of it. A system with no safety net is insecure, when things get bad people will eventually revolt and that is bad for business. Libertarians just want other people to pay for that net.

Saying people disagree over whether the government is a good ROI is oversimplifying. Most on the left feel it isn't, because we are spending too much on the military, farm subsidies, and corporate bailouts. Most on the right think its not because we are spending too much on the poor.

They want to keep the poor poor enough so that they will put up with low wages and poor working conditions, but not poor enough to revolt.

Re:Duh (0, Troll)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316568)

Libertarians are the kind of people who think comments like the above are "insightful", which means they are not.

Re:Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316490)

Republicans and Democrats are both for protecting the interests of big money. Can you name any Republicans advocating for copyright reform?
Ron Paul?

Re:Duh (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316510)

What's so surprising about this? The modern Republican party is full of people who believe that anything that gets in the way of the Free Market is evil, and that includes intellectual property rights. He's probably no different from a hippie who grows up and settles down a little, then gets involved in the Democratic party as watered down, centrist version of their half-baked youthful idealism.

Are we talking about the US? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316832)

I'm no longer a Republican because they no longer believe in a free market/individual rights. As far as IP, the market isn't vetting the issue, they are going to the government for extra laws and protections. If copyright was rational and government would stay out of it, then things would be better.

As someone already mentioned, Reps and Dems are both guilty as to IP laws, both support the businesses in this area.

Re:Duh (1, Insightful)

halivar (535827) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316314)

It's surprising that this doesn't get more attention, especially from a group that leans as libertarian as Slashdot: the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA are made up of companies that donate almost overwhelmingly to progressive candidates.

What surprises me is not that a tech-savvy, cartel-snubbing crypto-anarchist is in the Republican party. What surprises me is that more aren't.

PS: We should obey the law: from a moral, ethical, and religious stance I believe this. That doesn't mean the law is always right.

select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (5, Insightful)

blhack (921171) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316190)

The guy's defense is pretty good. Basically its something along the lines of:

"Look, when I was in high school me and some friends used to trade video games with one another after school. Yes, it was stupid. Yes, it was illegal. No, I haven't been a part of that for a 20 years.".

As far as his email still being @fairlight, that is also pretty easily defendable. "Me and some friends bought our first domain name way back in the early nineties. It was a bit of a novelty and *chuckle* we were kindof a bunch of nerds. I can assure you that I keep that old email address around for purely nostalgic reasons".

TO those who think the guy should hang for this: How many of you would love the opportunity to make a difference by working in politics? Now how many of you can say that you've never logged into an IRC channel that exists for not-so-copyright-friendly reasons? Or downloaded some files from an FTP that you knew you weren't supposed to have. Howabout even set the date on your computer back a few years to use some shareware that was all the rage in the mid 90s?

Even if this guy still *IS* an active member of fairlight, try explaining what the "warez-scene" is to any non-geek and see how far you get.

And honestly, don't you all think its kindof nice to have somebody on the inside that is pretty clearly a technical person? Do you think this guy is going to have any trouble understand WHY net neutrality should even be a question? Do you think it would be hard to explain to this guy why what the RIAA and MPAA are doing is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money?

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (3, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316322)

And honestly, don't you all think its kindof nice to have somebody on the inside that is pretty clearly a technical person?


Yes, it would be a welcome change from what we have now. Hopefully the San Diego arm of the Republican Party won't lose their emails detailing how to do more regime changes [atimes.com].

Do you think this guy is going to have any trouble understand WHY net neutrality should even be a question?

No, he understands it perfectly. But that won't make the large donations from telecoms to the Republican Party any less important.

Do you think it would be hard to explain to this guy why what the RIAA and MPAA are doing is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money?

Considering how much money my party has wasted these last 7.3 years, I don't think being fiscally responsible enters into the equation.

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (1)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316332)

Not to mention... If we're not willing to prosecute embezzlers, liars, and war profiteers from our government... Who are we to prosecute someone for *gasp* downloading warez?

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316498)

That's all well and good, but from what I understand this guy is a really good game cracker. Not sure how well that translates to voting machines, but he does have access to them... *adjusts tinfoil hat*

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (3, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316564)

You don't "make a difference" in the Republican Party. Being a part of it is not a sign you're trying to do good, it's a sign you've sold your soul. Dick Cheney's daughter tried to play that "Well, I'm trying to make a difference" shit, even as the party steadily increased its anti-gay rhetoric to a fever pitch and sponsored more and more constitutional amendments across the country aimed at gays.

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (3, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316944)

I would tend to agree with the caveat that the Demoncrats are every bit as bad as the Repugnantcans. Some of their evil overlaps and some is different, that's all.

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316602)

Do you think this guy is going to have any trouble understand WHY net neutrality should even be a question?

Depends on what the payout is. Don't underestimate hypocrisy.

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (4, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316606)

Even if this guy still *IS* an active member of fairlight, try explaining what the "warez-scene" is to any non-geek and see how far you get.

How's this: the "warez scene" that grows around the underground trading of software is like the "drug scene" that grows around the underground traffic of illegal drugs. I think that will get me as far as I need to go. Non-geek != idiot.

Now, if asked to explain why a subculture that likes to think itself as intellectually superior uses language that sounds like something out of "Idiocracy," then I would not get far at all.

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316662)

try explaining what the "warez-scene" is to any non-geek and see how far you get.
Internet pirates, hackers and virus writers, who support terrorism through the distribution of violent paraphenalia detailing how to make IEDs, the very same kind killing our brave soldiers in Iraq AND hardcore pedophilia images too shocking to even describe.

Think of the children!

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316918)


"Look, when I was in high school me and some friends used to trade video games with one another after school. Yes, it was stupid. Yes, it was illegal. No, I haven't been a part of that for a 20 years.".


Well then, Mr. Krvaric, that should put you in an ideal position to understand the idiocy of hundred thousand dollar fines for copyright violation. There are tens of thousands of teenagers and college students out there who may well have their lives ruined because of a youthful indiscretion. Don't you think these kids deserve a chance to turn their lives around, like you had? How are you going to fight to give them that chance?

If you think hundred thousand dollar fines are unjust, what are you going to do to eliminate them? If you think hundred thousand dollar fines for copyright infringement are just, when can we expect your payment?

NSF did not charge for domain names (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316978)

"Me and some friends bought our first domain name way back in the early nineties."

It wasn't until the registrar was COMPLETELY turned over to NetSol did money need to change hands, at the tune of $100 for 2 years (minimum) of a .com. NetSol started charging (or rather, the NSF stop subsidizing) in September of 1995. There's no way he could have BOUGHT it in the early nineties.

Domain Name: FAIRLIGHT.COM
Created on: 21-Dec-94

It's domain-by-proxy, so still more tom-foolery.

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316984)

The problem is that all your points are voided on Slashdot by one consideration: The guy's a Republican, and there's an awful lot of knee-jerking going on here. Most people here have picked sides, and support 'their side' with the same unthinking loyalty normally reserved for sports teams.

This gives new meaning to the phrase... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316194)

..."the Republican elite".

Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (4, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316210)

Don't really care much whether the story is true or not. I'm sure the Statute of Limitations has run out. Hell, I hacked a few warez (nothing like what is credited to this dude though) myself back in the day. But Pirate Gumby don't fly the black flag anymore and I doubt this guy does either. Now if he is still active in the warez scene that would be a career ender.

This is priceless watching the slashdot hivemind try to spin this story. If it were a Dem the groupthink would be "What a cool dude! This guy probably really understands tech and will be down with fightin' the power at the *AA." Put an R after his name and "Scandal! Look how tainted the evil Rethuglicans are, how dare they mention any of our scandals, most especially those related to our Obamessiah."

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316374)

Excellent points. Maybe we can finally enter an age where we exchange wars for demo coding contests.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316416)

You don't get it, do you? The sin is not, in and of itself, in being a Republican. The sin is the hypocrisy. The Republicans present themselves as the law'n'order party. Vote for us, they say, and we'll keep you safe from all those eeevil dark-skinned criminals and Muslim terrorists and hippie commie weirdos. Go to an approved church supported by your tax dollars, put no legal restrictions on the government, foot the bill for endless war, give us total control of your life, and in return the streets will be safe for God-Fearing Real Americans.

It really doesn't matter that John McCain dumped his wife (who waited for him the whole time he was a POW) for a newer model. It doesn't matter that Larry Craig likes cruising for anonymous blowjobs in men's rooms. It doesn't even matter all that much that Rush Limbaugh had to smuggle Viagra on a sex tour so he could get it up for underage hookers, and it matters only a little more that George W. Bush was a cokehead and a deserter, or that Laura Bush got away with drunk-driving manslaughter. And no, it doesn't matter at all that Tony Krvaric used to be a major warez d00d. What does matter, very much, is that the party which builds its entire platform on God and Country and Traditional Values continues to embrace these people.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Cowtard (573891) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316548)

I'm definitely not pro-Republican but why does there seem to be this notion that people are hypocrites because they change their minds about things over the years? So if I do something I stupid when I'm younger and grow to regret it and speak against it as I age, I'm a hypocrite? Hrm... here I thought I was learning from my mistakes. Are we seriously no longer allowed to grow as people and instead are expected to carry the same beliefs, world views and approaches to life from day one until the grave with no hope to grow or change?

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (5, Informative)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316714)

So if I do something I stupid when I'm younger and grow to regret it and speak against it as I age, I'm a hypocrite?

Not at all, and that were what Krvaric were doing, no problem. But that's not what he's doing; instead, in typical Republican fashion, he's blowing it off and suggesting that it must be Those Evil Lefties making an issue of it for Their Own Nefarious Purposes.

From the Raw Story article:

"Apparently there's a hit piece floating around on me, 'exposing' my wild high school, teenage years where I was in a computer club where we swapped Commodore 64 games (similar to how kids swap mp3 music files these days)," he wrote Monday. ... "I don't know who is spreading this," he concluded, "but just wanted to let you know what's going on out there. Likely it's someone who wants us to take our eye off the ball in 2008, be it the democrats, labor or someone else. Either way, we're not going to let them get away with it. Thanks for your leadership." ... Strider was asked in an interview if he had any regrets about his hacking days. "No," he replied.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (5, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316806)

why does there seem to be this notion that people are hypocrites because they change their minds about things over the years?

Buddy, I can tell the '60s were good to you. Your concepts of time are completely warped.

How is it "learning from mistakes" or "growing over the years" when, IN THE SAME SPEACH, Mitt Romney attacks those in the Middle East that are trying to establish nation governments based on religious law and then turns around and says the USA should base its government on religious law?

How is it "growth" or "change" to attack Obama for association with a man who says wacky things such as the attacks on 9/11/2001 were punishment on the USA for past mis-deeds while McCain is actively courting the support of a man who says wacky things such as the attacks on 9/11/2001 were punishment on the USA for past mis-deeds?

To say, my opinions when I was 20 are not the same as my opinions when I am 40, is not hypocrisy. To say, my opinions when talking about a democrat are not the same as my opinions when I am talking about a republican, that is hypocrisy.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316938)

I'm definitely not pro-Republican but why does there seem to be this notion that people are hypocrites because they change their minds about things over the years?
He's a hypocrite because he's doing a song and dance routine about his involvement in an international warez group.

You don't have to be religious to believe that admitting your mistakes is should be a critical part of putting them behind you.

He won't come clean about his past mistakes because he's afraid of the fallout.
Avoidance of responsibility doesn't seem like a character trait you want in your gov't representative.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23317006)

1. Manslaughter is not a simple *mistake*.
2. Most of the examples by the parent happened recently not in the subject's younger years.

Slander (-1, Flamebait)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316620)

It doesn't even matter all that much that Rush Limbaugh had to smuggle Viagra on a sex tour so he could get it up for underage hookers, and it matters only a little more that George W. Bush was a cokehead and a deserter, or that Laura Bush got away with drunk-driving manslaughter.

Congrats, you just slandered three people in one post. FUCK YOU Daniel!

Re:Slander (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316744)

I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure truth is a defense against charges of slander.

Maybe you should choose a better class of people to idolize?

Re:Slander (0)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316942)

You're wrong, trust me, you are. The only "truth" is a snippet of information blown completely out of proportion. For the most part, it's hyperbole if not outright BS.

Just because it's controversial doesn't mean it can't be slanderous too.

Go check your facts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316646)

You're lucky if half of them are correct, or at least truly in the context that you've chosen to force them into.

And, FWIW, there's plenty of hypocrisy to be found on any side of the party lines.

Re:Go check your facts. (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316784)

Everything I said is well-documented. And while it's true that their are plenty of hypocritical Democrats (and Libertarians and Greens and what-have-you) the Republicans are really taking it to a whole different level these days. To deny this is to deny reality.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316756)

The Republicans present themselves as the law'n'order party.
Of course they do, that is how the protection racket works. Of course the Democrats offer you niceties instead, at about five cents in value out of every dollar they get from you, rather like going to a fancy restaurant where the atmosphere is real nice and you pay a lot for those few juicy nibbles on your plate.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316764)

BS. This man is an individual. No one individual supports everything the Republican party supposedly stands for. There is no hypocrisy involved unless this man is both still involved with Fairlight and is pro-copyright in politics.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (2, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316956)

Some Republicans present themselves as "the law'n'order party". However, you're making a mistake to treat all self-identified conservatives, or even all Republicans, as part of a uniform, monolithic entity. There are pretty deep schisms within the Republican party; actually it's pretty amazing that it keeps ticking along at all without imploding. (I have my doubts that it will survive with its current leadership intact if McCain loses.)

There's a wing of the Republican party that's borderline Libertarian (including being pro-choice), there's a large section that's pretty bluntly theocratic/authoritarian, and there's a substantial middle that's driven by financial and business concerns and is pragmatic when it comes to everything else.

I don't really care for them as an organization since the authoritarians seemingly took over, but I think you're dangerously oversimplifying. They do not "buil[d] [their] entire platform on God and Country and Traditional Values," one section of the party presents their platform to one (rather large) slice of voters that way. I can assure you the Rockefeller Republicans don't present the party to the NYC banking elite -- who are a major source of donations -- that way. Similarly, Democratic candidates courting votes in the Midwest aren't singing the same tune as Feinstein and other apparachiks do when they pass the hat around Hollywood.

The best way to understand the Republican party on the national level (and the Democratic party also) is not as a single entity, but as an agglomeration of smaller factions with wildly differing ideas about how government ought to work. They form a united front and attempt to create a plank out of self-interest and because they think that's the most effective way to promote their agendas, not true ideological agreement on many issues.

F.U. (4, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316496)

This is priceless watching the slashdot hivemind try to spin this story.

The republicans made an issue of what Bill Clinton was doing 20 years ago. The republicans made an issue of what John Kerry was doing 20 years ago. It's the republicans who like digging up people's past to manufacture scandal.

So when it comes out a republican might have some extra-legal activities in his past, and the official response is, "oh, well that was 20 years ago. That's not relevant now." How is it the "slashdot hivemind" to notice the hypocrisy?

How is it spin to point out that the republicans consistently do the very same things they attack others for?

Re:F.U. (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316626)

How is it the "slashdot hivemind" to notice the hypocrisy?


How is it spin to point out that the republicans consistently do the very same things they attack others for?

Trolls say divisive things that are easily proven wrong.
Don't feed the trolls.

Re:F.U. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316846)

It's the republicans who like digging up people's past to manufacture scandal.
yeah it's a good thing the democrats would never stoop so low. just ask reverend wright.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316592)

This is priceless watching the slashdot hivemind [...] most especially those related to our Obamessiah."
Parent is obviously a troll.

REPEAT AFTER ME: (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316652)

There is no Slashdot Hivemind.

That is a phrase used as an ad hominem to try to discredit a particular point of view. Whenever you see someone use this phrase, it is a sure sign they have no better argument than appeal to emotion.

I downloaded once in college (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316238)

But I never installed. It was a diffent time back then. We were innocent.

Re:I downloaded once in college (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316810)

There is a grain of truth to that, though. I've got all kinds of software, but I have probably only used about 10% of it. I don't know why I keep it all around; I guess I figure one day I'll get around to it or maybe I'll need it (in the case of system-recovery software). I think people just like to collect things.

Re:I downloaded once in college (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316818)

But I never installed. It was a diffent time back then. We were innocent.
Dude, it's okay to download, as long as you delete it within 24 hours.
/puff, puff, pass, delete

Re:I downloaded once in college (0, Troll)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316836)

You see, back in those days, drugs... I mean warez were different. Nowadays you can catch all kinds of viruses from warez, and the money all goes into the pockets of terrorists and pedophiles. But back in the day they were just cool, and fun, and no one got hurt. Just say no to warez!

There is no contradiction here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316258)

There is no reason why someone can't be a Republican and also see a need for social, political, enviromental, or economic change.

Both Large U.S. Parties are Involved (1)

ctdownunder (816383) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316260)

Both Republicans and Democrats are involved in big business. And that means big money and big corruption. Finally, some real crime is needed to bring home the bacon.

What's his record? (2, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316282)

It's not that interesting that someone with an unconventional past rises up through political ranks. The real question for me is whether he retains any of those earlier values. Since he knows a whole lot more about copyright than most, what's his take on the DMCA etc.? Does his political record have much to say about it?

Re:What's his record? (4, Insightful)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316924)

If a politician drove drunk all over San Diego every Friday after getting home from the bars we wouldn't call him an expert on driving. Why should we think someone is knowledgeable about copyright law just because he's violated it a lot?

it'll be interesting to see what he does (1)

theprophetofmephisto (1163535) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316294)

i'm going to be following his positions now, as i'm really curious what kind of tech-related positions he'll be taking. i mean, what kind of net neutrality position will he take? that's the kind of stuff that, assuming he succeeds, will open the door for other techie politicians to actually get into the field, rather than the current bunch of technically inept imbeciles that currently populate most higher offices.

FTL FTW (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316308)

Those guys had some quality releases. Wasn't one of the founders of Razor 1911 involved in some political issues a few years ago too?

WTF? Is it just me? (0, Troll)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316318)

Since some people have been penalized quite harshly (and some have been jailed) for the sort of large-scale software piracy that Fairlight enabled, it's interesting that Krvaric has enjoyed instead a meteoric rise in conservative politics.
Is it just me that remembers some of the OTHER criminals the GOP has working for them, never mind running for office?

WOW

Cheap shots: (4, Funny)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316354)

- I guess his primary objective will be to ban Atari ST computers.
- I am glad for Fairlight but did Northstar made it to goverment already?
- If he can program all Amiga specialized chips in his demos, he can run any city in the world easily.
- I will vote him only if he promise free copy of Photoshop for all, with license key generator.
- For whatever reason, his speech always ends with "Greetings to" section.

Re:Cheap shots: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316554)

I can't wait to see his political ads!!

Wow, all those fx in one VBL! And check out that Star Wars scroller!

He knows assembly, hye can code clean code! (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316398)

Hopefully he will take the same approach with writing bills if he ever gets a political office. I would love to see what his code... errr laws can do.

That would be some tightly written legislation!

Persecution complex much? (1)

AdamThor (995520) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316526)

Sounds like some of my fellow commenters are expecting this guy to get screwed over this. I don't find myself hoping for that, however. I simply would like to know what his IP views were back in the day, what they are now, and how he reconciles the two. I want to know his position.

Copyright law? Get a clue. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316594)

You all are missing the point.

This individual is involved in picking what voting machines are purchased for the district.

Electronic voting machines.

Hackable electronic voting machines.

If I was a Democratic party official I would be filing restraining orders against this guy having anything to do with e-voting systems... or even better, pushing hard for machines that produce voter-verified paper trails.

See more here: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5945

Re:Copyright law? Get a clue. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316960)

Like he would have direct access to them at all.

Normally its a totally different agency that deals with the elections to avoid fraud, regardless if its paper or electronic.

An outright lie and vote grab by GOP (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316680)

The day a republican adopts a hobby as progressive as pioneering a warez group is the day he ceases to be a republican and becomes something else.

The republicans face a huge issue in the '08 election as Obama has pretty much locked up the young vote in this country, and has mobilized more funds from individual citizens than bush AND kerry did in '04 from all their corporate cronies.

This false little leak only proves that all politicians do know that downloading is an accepted and practiced activity among people ages 11-30, and that theyre trying spread this rumor to try to fool people into thinking they'll have a softer line on copyright if elected.

GOP is *NOT* conservative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316748)

I wouldn't call the GOP "conservative". They are as liberal as democrats. The GOP is what's known as "neo-con" which are really democrats in disguise who are trying to tap the conservative voting population. They have a few conservative tendencies, but all in all, they are bad news.

Some infamous neo-cons:
George Bush
John McCain

A true conservative wouldn't have penned "No child left behind", they'd be writing bills to get the government out of education, where it has no business sticking it's nose. They'd also have set up an "Ellis Island" for Mexican immigrants a long time ago so they could speed up the immigration process and turn them into a tax revenue stream instead of the ridiculous system we have now where you have to break the law to get into the country, and even if you can do it legally, it takes 5 years and many thousands of dollars to get a permanent visa.

The only conservative belief these people have is a soft spot for Christianity.

They give "conservative" negative connotations. There isn't a real conservative in the entire GOP.

If there were real conservatives in Washington, I'd have a lot more money to send my kid to a decent school, instead of paying for people that don't even want to be there. The section 8 housing developments wouldn't be comprised of 350k townhomes with garages, while the people who are paying for them live in comparative poverty.

Calling the GOP conservative gives the real conservatives a bad name.

-AC

Why the outcry? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316752)

A criminal going into politics? Where's the news?

Look on the bright side, at least he kinda has to understand what he votes for when another law about "that whole computer stuff" comes up.

Status quo... (1)

actionbastard (1206160) | more than 5 years ago | (#23316874)

I'm sure he's making huge donations to the GOP from all the proceeds from the sale of those 'pirated' Commodore 64 game cartridges.
'Drink-or-Die' was the epitome of the warez scene. They are dead.
All that follow are teenagers who fantisize they are Kevin Mitnick [takedown.com], if they even know who he is.

There are bigger, more dangerous, criminals prowling the halls of our legislative institutions.
This guy is just a dumbass with a questionable past.

WHY THE FUCK SHOULD HE REPLY BY EMAIL? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23316878)

Everything you need is in the nfo, lamer!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...