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.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Duh (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright law? Get a clue. (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Duh (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are that divisive on every topic, you're the exact reason America has so many problems. Instead of trying to find solutions and work together you're just a rabid frothing-at-the-mouth zealot unwilling to even think for yourself.
Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (Score:2, Interesting)
I am for getting rid of the size and scope of our federal bureaucracy.
I am for the rights of the individual being protected.
I am for strict constitutional government.
I want us out of Iraq ASAP.
I want to repeal the Patriot Act.
I think government has no business in marriage.
I am a regular guy, a Slashdot user of many years. I am a System Administrator by trade. I am embraced by the Republican Party in my District.
Republican is just a label. The Party platform is changeable by the members of the party at any time. I aim to do that in my own little neck of the woods.
Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (Score:2, Interesting)
"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."
I usually vote republican when I can't vote libertarian, although I did just vote for Kentucky's new Democrat governor.
"Law'n'order" has absolutely nothing to do with the way I vote. "Stay the hell out of my life and get your frickin' hands out of my wallet" has EVERYTHING to do with the way I vote. Seems a lot of
So I mostly vote the lessor of evils. And that's usually a republican, although this time around there's not a dime's worth of difference between Obama, Clinton & McCain.
I'll probably vote McCain, just because he can probably postpone the food riots a couple of years longer than either of the Donkeys. But I'm really beginning to doubt that I'll die a natural death.
And I'd go tit for tat with you about personalities, starting with Teddy Kennedy's underwater date and ending with, well, it hasn't ended yet. But that's useless. We'd just be talking past each other without a chance of ever convincing the other of ANYTHING. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.
But grok on this while we're waiting; I vote the way I vote because I want a government that will leave me the fsck alone. Not because of law 'n' order. Not because of a religious belief. Not because of Muslims or hippies (I'm still known to take an occasional toke, and my hair is longer than that of most of the women I work with).
And BHO, HRC & McCain don't want to help me, they want to CONTROL me.
As I said, I don't hope to convince you here. Hell, I can't even convince my own wife. But... Peace out, dude.
Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (Score:5, Interesting)
Conservatives tend to believe liberals are wrong about human nature and the proper function of the state. Liberals believe conservatives are evil.
Think about this long and hard. How long do you really think civilized society can continue when we have people like you shouting their mouths off how evil conservatives are?
The answer is quite simple - it can't last. What is most comical about this is that I have never met a liberal who has any real capacity to fight a civil war. Not only that, your favorite oppressed minority of the day is not only a tiny part of the population but doesn't even reproduce!
Anyway, for your own sake, I'd stick to slightly less inflammatory rhetoric. And, I live in New York City and know quite a few gay professionals. You know what? They are all Republicans. They could care less about gay marriage, but they sure as hell care about the hordes of morons on welfare and high taxes used to ensure those hordes vote for the whining Democratic candidate of the year.
Re:Republican Motto: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's an interesting memory, because President Bush got bashed over not going to Vietnam.
Let me draw you a diagram. (Score:2, Interesting)
AAA
ABC
CCC
Now, A and C make an agreement not to buy any of Bs goods or sell anything to B. B doesn't own enough land to support him and all his family living there. He doesn't have enough land for an airport, or a helicopter. A and C won't let him on their property, and they won't let anyone else deliver anything to him over their property either. B and his family starve to death, then A and C split his land between themselves.
Please, explain how this scenario or more complex variants of it would not be commonplace in a true libertarian system. "Force" is more complex than libertarian philosophy likes to admit.
Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (Score:5, Interesting)
Whenever asked, I relentlessly harp on their narrow-minded, rights-infringing, budget-busting policies and laugh as they thrash about trying to justify how they've strayed so far from their supposed principles and now coddle religious nutjobs whose goals are similar to ones we're fighting in Afghanistan.
I figure if nothing else, they'll never contact me asking for money.
Re:Republican Motto: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm... you'd think something like that would be in the news. Got any evidence of that?