San Diego GOP Chairman Alleged To Be a Fairlight Co-Founder 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.
select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (Score:5, Insightful)
"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:Republican Motto: (Score:1, Insightful)
Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (Score:4, Insightful)
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."
What's his record? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Duh (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Duh (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Republican Motto: (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans are reaching the status of Microsoft on Slashdot, getting bashed for everything whether they deserve it or not.
Right wing nutjob motto (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, I haven't gotten enough flamebait moderation recently. Help me out here.
F.U. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Republican Motto: (Score:1, Insightful)
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:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
REPEAT AFTER ME: (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Republican Motto: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Republican Motto: (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Duh (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Republican Motto: (Score:1, Insightful)
Got any proof the media is pro-Democrat? Because I think you are just repeating Faux News lies.
Re:What's his record? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Republican Motto: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Republican Motto: (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you believe it matters which party you are? (Score:5, Insightful)
Both of these so called parties is being wrecked by their fringe. Honestly I think the fringe does more damage to getting moderate Democrats into office than moderate Republicans getting in.
Anyone declaring allegiance to either of these parties needs to be looked at... sorry, they make corporations look good
Re:Go check your facts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:F.U. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the Democrats that made an issue out of what Bush was doing twenty years ago. Both sides do it. Don't be intellectually dishonest.
Re:REPEAT AFTER ME: (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviously we are not all part of a 'hivemind', just in case you are being overly literal. But there is certainly a lot of ideological positive feedback looping that goes on here.
Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
1. I engaged in copyright infringement as a teenager. I now understand that copyright infringement is a terrible thing, and should be punished severely. I should have been punished severely as a teenager, and I will work to make sure that everyone is punished severely for copyright infringement.
2. I engaged in copyright infringement as a teenager. I now understand that copyright infringement is detrimental overall. We as a society should find ways to encourage citizens to respect copyright. However, we all understand that teenagers sometimes do ill-conceived things, so the law should not be overly harsh in dealing with these transgressions. I will work to make sure that copyright law is enforced, without its penalties being unfairly large.
3. I engaged in copyright infringement as a teenager. I now understand that copyright is a bad law, and should be radically altered. I was morally right to ignore copyright as a teenager, and I will work to change the law so that everyone can legally engage in those activities.
Any of those viewpoints is consistent (though I only agree with one of them). The problem is when politicians try to have it both ways. In this case, it seems like he wants to pass it off as some sort of small youthful indiscretion. That's fine--so long as you use your political power to make sure that others enjoy the same implicit forgiveness that you are claiming for yourself.
It would be the height of hypocrisy to claim that this youthful indiscretion was no big deal, but then vote in favor of laws making copyright law stricter (or indeed standing by and allowing other indiscreet youths to be slapped with massive penalties when you were not).
(Sidenote: For some people, #1 would only be consistent with the additional "...and I submit myself for the appropriate harsh punishment at this time." Whether or not there should be a statute of limitations on moral high-ground issues is unclear to me (e.g. a youth who is sued may still be paying off the debt 20 years later... so why shouldn't a 20-year old crime be punished?).)
Re:Republican Motto: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what did he say? Dynastic Succession... (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously though, I may not agree totally with the old school "fiscally responsible states rights small Fed" Repubs, but at last they aren't Neocons. I wish the Paulies and Minarchists the best of luck kicking those criminals to the curb.
Re:Duh (Score:2, Insightful)
If you aren't trying to keep the poor down in order to get yourself more cheap labor, then why do all your policies have that effect? Why is it that when Republicans get power, wages of the middle class stagnate, the poor get poorer, and the rich make out like bandits? Just coincidence, I suppose.
Re:Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Republican Motto: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, see! Right there is the huge fallacy of the whole argument right there in bold!
Gay marriage does not have any affect whatsoever on straight couples.
Gay marriage does have an affect on anti-gay bigots, regardless of whether they are married or not.
So while "pro-gay" legislation is not in any way "anti-marriage", it is anti-anti-gay.
Which is a rather trivial and meaningless conclusion when you think about it.
But of course, as I pointed out in my first post, the whole problem is that the "pro-marriage" movement is nothing but a linguistic cover for the "anti-gay" movement. The original post I replied to, and you in your last post and this post, conflate "straight couples" with "homophobes". That is simply wrong.
So yeah, once you strip away all the bullshit and get to the bottom you are simply left with "pro-gay marriage legislation pisses off anti-gay bigots". Yes that observation is true but why on earth should I care? Why should anyone who cares about the values of freedom and equality that our nation was founded on care? I don't care that it steps on your toes anymore than I care that the Civil Rights movements stepped on the toes of ignorant racists. Their "right to disagree" does not include the right to discriminate; to the extent that such discrimination is allowed, we must strive to eliminate it.
"Pro-marriage" is explicitly and actively anti-gay, because it explicitly prohibits them from getting married and enshrines discrimination in law.
If you're going to turn around and say the opposite, that they are somehow "anti-you", you're going to have to come up with a lot better than "merely knowing gays exist and can possibly get married offends me". That's your own damn problem, not something they caused other than by existing (and refusing to hide the fact that they exist to protect your delicate sensibilities).
But thank you for at least acknowledging that despite your discomfort, it is in fact none of your business whether anyone else gets married. Would that all bigots would be so enlightened, the world would be a vastly better place.
Re:Republican Motto: (Score:2, Insightful)
true, a few democrats did that, but most were like "meh, that was then."
The Vietnam issue came up after the Republicans where falsely attacking Kerry. Remember Swift boat and the fact it turned out to be a lie?
If you go after someone else military career, you better be ready to defend your own.
Since Reagan. Republicans have always been stepping to the same beat. Newts little document drove that home.
Fortunatly it's starting to come to an end. Any party that 'black ball' member for giving a different opinion is bad.
Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not so quick to buy into the sudden disowning of the insane policies of the past several years by the same people who voted for them and cheered for them until they fell apart. For a while, it was looking like the word "conservative" meant, "somebody the Republican pundits approve of" rather than standing for any recognizable ideology. George Bush was a great conservative hero until his policies went south, and now he's a "fake" conservative without changing a single position.
If the Republican party can actually turn itself into the organism that it likes to remember itself as, I might well be convinced to get behind it. Until then, I see this whole, "I'm a real conservative and the people who actually run things aren't" as just a convenient way of distancing themselves from the disastrous policy decisions that they made nary a peep about when they were being enacted.
Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah hem. I remember when bumber stickers asking "Is YOUR church BATF approved?" were popular. Hint: Janet Reno is not a Republican.
> It really doesn't matter that John McCain dumped his wife...
I might have to vote for the SOB but please don't assume all Republicans approve of him. As for me, while I might disapprove of his personal life, including the Trophy Heiress, my big hurdle is going to be voting for a known oath breaker. "Congress shall make no law..." is pretty damned explicit.
How the hell did we Republicans hose our nomination process so completely!
> It doesn't matter that Larry Craig likes cruising for anonymous
> blowjobs in men's rooms.
Yes it does. The Idaho Republican Party promised to recruit a primary opponent for Craig after he changed his mind (read lied) on doing the honorable thing and retiring early. If they break their word I will be watching to see if the National party has the balls to do anything.
Same goes for Sen Vitter here in LA. If a primary opponent appears I'll be voting for him/her barring some gross defect even greater than Vitter's penchant for hanging out with prostitutes. But remember that this IS Lousiana so I won't be voting for a Dem regardless because I KNOW I'll be getting a crook.
>
> and a deserter...
Ah, Dan Rather has company in the 'fake but accurate' camp. What's it like on Planet Crazy?
Cokehead is still a bit debatable but drunk is cold historical fact, you could have went with that and avoided conspiracy theories. Of course there is the small matter that the substance abuse issues were in fact aired prior to the election. Most people decided that he was safely on the wagon and had cleaned up his act. Unless he falls off in the next couple of months I'd say the People acted wisely. Regardless what you judge the success or failure of his administation, he didn't get drunk and do something awful.
>
Ok, this one is straight out of the Kos fever swamps so I feel icky even quoting it. Listen, throwing personal mud, even at spouses might be political reality in a campaign but this story never came up in '00 or '04 and since Mr. Bush won't be running for elective office again it is just petty to start new rumors.
Tells me I'm probably wasting my time attempting to reason with a BDS victim. What are you guys going to do to fill that huge hole in your life currently occupied by that burning hatred? You do realize he leaves office in a few more months, right? And that whoever wins there won't actually be war crimes trials because it would suck all the oxygen out of the political environment, leaving no media attention to get any new policy going.
Re:Republican Motto: (Score:2, Insightful)
fairlight not just a warez group (Score:4, Insightful)
Fairlight were not just a warez group, but that is what people seem to remember them for now.
In fact, they were one of the greatest demogroups [wikipedia.org] on the planet. They are even still active, having gone from c64, to Amiga, to PC demos. Here's a big list of Fairlight demos [pouet.net].
Re:REPEAT AFTER ME: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Republican Motto: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (Score:3, Insightful)
What you're doing is preventing them from forcing other people who don't believe that homosexuality is wrong to live their lives according to someone else's values.
In other words metaphorically you're preventing anyone from forcing American Christians to convert to Islam while allowing both American Christians and Muslims to continue to exist and to believe what they already believe with equal protection under the law.
In a free country you have the right to believe anything you want to believe, however, the other guy has the same right to believe what he believes and where there is no justifiable public interest in intervening the government should not intervene in those beliefs.
What that means is not that "the government shouldn't change marriage" it's more that the government shouldn't prevent anyone who wants to be married from being married where there isn't a public interest in doing so.
That is to say if two consenting adults are doing something that isn't hurting anyone else and they want to declare in front of the world that they only want to do those things with each other and no one else and they want some tax benefits and common property rights, they should have the right to do that, and the government shouldn't have the right to tell them that their declaration is any different than anyone else's(ie that their declaration is a civil union whereas someone else's declaration is a marriage).
Re:A breath of change. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (Score:3, Insightful)
Both parties demonize eachother with abandon. The bases of our 2 party system would be equally responsible for the failure of this union. The tragedy of it is that neither party base represents the people of this nation; but they foment enough anger and unrest that otherwise reasonable people end up in shouting matches or flamewars.
Roughly half of this country is Republican and roughly half is Democratic. All of them are citizens of equal standing in this country, and deserve to have their opinions heard. Neither party has more right than the other to govern in the manner they prefer. They are both responsible for serving the other half of the populous as well as their own. This notion that "My country would be better without all of you [liberal/conservative] nutbags" is not only false but willfully destructive to our union. Our nation consists primarily of people who don't classify themselves as liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican until somebody forces that choice upon them. Ultimately, it's the baggage that those choices impose that will cause us our greatest difficulty, this notion that it's us versus them in our own country.
Liberals and Democrats don't have any corner on that market by a long shot. Your post simply typifies the exact same behavior you're complaining about.
Us and them. It will be the downfall of our nation.