Re: Destroying PCs remotely?

[Shawn McMahon <smcmahon () eiv com>]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:45:51PM -0400, JT said:
> the sunset clause, which they are attempting. Also, are you under some
> dilusion that there are a finite number of "bad" people out there. You think

Are you under the dElusion that there are an infinite number of people
capable and willing to perform large-scale terrorist acts?  If so,
please explain why they don't happen daily, and where the infinite
number of people are stored.  (Hint: "everywhere".)

> you can just eradicate them all? You believe that if they are captured they
> pose no threat? Oh boy....you really do live in some sort of dreamworld.

Yes, I believe that no further terrorist acts have been committed by the
folks we're holding in lockup in Guantanamo Bay.  If you have some
evidence as to the attacks they've committed since being locked up, I'll
be glad to look at it.

Further, I believe that no further terrorist acts have been committed by
the ones we've killed.  If you have some evidence as to the attacks
they've committed since being killed, I'll be glad to look at it.

> It's a pity you can't stay on the argument at hand which had to do with
> remotely destroying someones pc for copyright infringement. Please relate
> that to 9/11 for me somehow cause I see no correlation. My comment about the

You referenced the Patriot Act as being an example of wrongdoing on
Hatch's part.  Are you honestly trying to say that this is not a point
open to debate, and further that anyone involved in the discussion
should have "just known" that it wasn't open for debate?

> patriot act was to demonstrate Hatch's past history, in no way did I relate
> it to 9/11.

The fact that you didn't relate it does not make it not related.

> It's already been proven that the reason 9/11 happened was 
> due
> to a breakdown in intel. communication between departments. Please explain

Yes; and part of what the Patriot Act does is make it LEGAL for those
departments to communicate in the necessary ways.  It wasn't before.

> continues to provide a false sense of security. They've already demonstrated
> within 1 month of 9/11 that another plane could be taken easily, so it would
> seem you are not so safe.  

Exactly why we needed reforms of the laws regarding how we defend
ourselves.  You'll note that there have been no more successful
large-scale attacks, despite the presence of more attackers.  You'll
further note that we've been capturing and/or killing the tangoes in
literally record numbers.  And, for the "it's not temporary" folks,
have let quite a few people go after it was determined that they no
longer posed a clear and present threat.


-- 
Shawn McMahon     | Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,
EIV Consulting    | that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any
UNIX and Linux    | hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure
http://www.eiv.com| the survival and the success of liberty. - JFK

Attachment: _bin
Description: