RE: Destroying PCs remotely?

["JT" <ptourvi1 () twcny rr com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com 
> [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of 
> Shawn McMahon
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:46 PM
> To: full-disclosure () lists netsys com
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Destroying PCs remotely?
>
>
> 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".)

Yes I am, they are called babies, they then grow up and are being trained by
age 12 to kill. You must think terrorism just started this generation? You
do realize there were terrorists before you were born right? They do happen
daily, just because they don't happen in the US does not mean they don't
happen. You must think if you don't see it on the news, it's not happening.
Also, I'm sure the general public is not privy to EVERY terrorist action
that has been stopped in the US, and that could be one reason they don't
happen everyday. But, for arguments sake, please explain to me how locking
up the terrorists who bombed the WTC stopped 9/11. 
> > 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.

Oh, so you meant Guantanamo Bay eh? So you're positive that they didn't
speak or communicate anything to anyone at anytime that could be used
against us?
> 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.

I'm sure you would..
> > 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?

Yes, it's not relevant when the subject line of the email and the entire
discussion was regarding property destruction for copyright infringement.
It's generally agreed that the patriot act takes away too many liberties so
I would not be debating that point at all. I believe the debate after that
is only whether or not you support them taking away our rights under the
guise of security....and I know where you stand on that.
> > 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.

Newsflash everyone: destruction of property due to copyright infringement IS
related to 9/11.....by someones wild imagination. 
> > 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.

OK, then lets use your logic above, please explain why there have been no
9/11's in the past even without the patriot act.
> > 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.

More attackers? I thought we locked/killed them? You'll note that they could
have SUCCESSFULLY CARRIED OUT AN ATTACK EVEN AFTER THE PATRIOT ACT WAS
SIGNED, the airports are still insecure. Wow, we can kill substabdard
soldiers and homeless people in record numbers, that's something to shout
about. Please note how they still kill us also though. Also please note it's
generally believed the people crashing the planes did not have a connection
with the people we are now killing in record numbers.

> -- 
> 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

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html