[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Department of Homeland Security

[aestetix aestetix]

"IMHO, there's a good chance that nothing much (bad) would come of
this, and I'd rather like to see it happen, because it pokes good fun
at something foolish. However, especially if it became famous, the
wrong people could get a bee up their collective ass about it, and if
they did, they could cause a shitload of trouble. Remember Steve
Jackson Games basically getting put out of business because the Secret
Service confiscated all their computers? Anyone involved could end up
fighting a probably bogus but hella expensive and stressful waste of
time court battle."

IIRC, Gail Thackeray and the rest of the people involved with Operation
Sundevil took a *lot* of shit for it. That was also a different era, and the
federal government knew a lot less about the computer "scene" than they do
now.

"I don't like the fact that it buys into the idea that a license of some
kind is required; it feels like they've changed the game inside everybody's
head, and this is playing along with that."

As opposed to the idea that we have to follow nonexistent laws? It's a
symbolic civil nonviolent protest against unfair and oppressive measures
that are being taken against the will of the people. "They" have changed the
game already, and it's up to the people to point out how ludicrous the
changes are.

"Am I the only person who thinks this idea is severely retarded? Great, give
the authorities a *REAL* reason to arrest you, instead of a fabricated
one...*reallly* smart"

What is the reason? You're not doing anything illegal. I would love to see
someone arrested for taking photos. That would blow up in the officer's face
very quickly.

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Leo Dearden <leo.dearden at googlemail.com>wrote:

> > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Christie Dudley <longobord at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> ... I think I might
> >> also place clearly and promienently on the "document" that it grants the
> >> bearer no additional rights other than those which they already have.
> That
> >> alone should say something about what the document is good for.
>
> 2009/5/15 Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com>:
> > I don't like the fact that it buys into the idea that a license of some
> kind
> > is required; it feels like they've changed the game inside everybody's
> head,
> > and this is playing along with that.
>
> I like Christie's point: This document (by implication, like the
> official version) grants NO RIGHTS. We have the rights already, but
> for those (small minded enough to be impressed by a piece of paper)
> here one is!
>
> Leo
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20090515/57cc0825/attachment-0003.html>