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.
A breath of change. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet... (Score:5, Funny)
***TRIAD*** for DEPARTMENT of HOMELAND SECURITY!
Re:And yet... (Score:5, Funny)
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: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: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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are that divisive on every topic, you're the exact reason America has so many
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:select * from subjects where content = 'witty' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
If not, why not?
Because "pro marriage" legislation is explicitly anti-gay, in that it denies homosexuals the ability to get married. It's only "pro" heterosexual marriage, and actively "anti" gay marriage.
Whereas "pro gay" legislation would allow homosexuals to marry, and has no impact whatsoever on the marriages of heterosexuals. So it is not in any way "anti" anything.
It's really not that hard, but
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: (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 Chri
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I see the picture you're trying to paint, but it has the wrong focus. Tony Kvaric was not just some impressionable young member, he is the co-founder of Fairlight. To correctly expand your analogy about the "drug scene," it would be as if Pablo Escobar [wikipedia.org] of the Medellin Cartel had come to the USA and become a Democratic Party leader.
I'm all for
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the children!
Re: (Score:2)
"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.".
Well then, Mr. Krvaric, that should put you in an ideal position to understand the idiocy of hundred thousand dollar fines for copyright violation. There are tens of thousands of teenagers and college students out there who may well have their lives ruined because of a youthful indiscretion. Don't you thin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Republican or not, you have to admit, it's kinda neat to see someone active in politics that has references on pouet.net.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't hang him UNLESS he turns into an RIAA sock puppet. If he does, wrap it around his head like the proverbial
"tire iron".
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."
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:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago (Score:5, Informative)
Not at all, and that were what Krvaric were doing, no problem. But that's not what he's doing; instead, in typical Republican fashion, he's blowing it off and suggesting that it must be Those Evil Lefties making an issue of it for Their Own Nefarious Purposes.
From the Raw Story article:
"Apparently there's a hit piece floating around on me, 'exposing' my wild high school, teenage years where I was in a computer club where we swapped Commodore 64 games (similar to how kids swap mp3 music files these days)," he wrote Monday.
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: (Score:2)
I'm definitely not pro-Republican but why does there seem to be this notion that people are hypocrites because they change their minds about things over the years?
He's a hypocrite because he's doing a song and dance routine about his involvement in an international warez group.
You don't have to be religious to believe that admitting your mistakes is should be a critical part of putting them behind you.
He won't come clean about his past mistakes because he's afraid of the fallout.
Avoidance of responsibility doesn't seem like a character trait you want in your gov't representative.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
There's a wing of the Republican party that's borderline Libertarian
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should choose a better class of people to idolize?
Re: (Score:2)
But regardless of how it's said, if Bush did do coke, if Limbaugh did smuggle Viagra, if Barbra did get acquitted for manslaughter on a DUI...
Then it's not libel. It happened, so it's not defamatory. It can be intended to harm or portray someone badly, but if it's true then, well, they can't get all uppity about somebody using it to attack them.
Now if somebody was making stuff up... then it's libel
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Go check your facts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I, for one, would be *delighted* if they actually started taking office and changing things instead of talking about how the Republicans that they are electing into office aren't "real" Republicans like they used to be. When you start longing for the good old days, it's a pretty good sign that you think the good old days are over. Likewise, when we start fondly remembering when the the Republicans stood for smal
Re: (Score:2)
Right... and now those same Democrats are Republicans.
It doesn't matter that traditional republicans are angry about the party (and rightly so), the party itself ahs clearly gone on to court the Jesus vote without really giving a damn about condemning countries for religious rule of law... and then spouting that they want the US to be a religiously founded country.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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?
Don't feed the trolls.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
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: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I downloaded once in college (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
/puff, puff, pass, delete
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:What's his record? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Piracy is a lot more premeditated than drunk driving. If that politician organized fleets of drunk drivers, knowing it was generally held to be illegal, I'd imagine that you could consider them an expert on driving law. Especially if they never got convicted for having done it.
FTL FTW (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Their demoscene releases [pouet.net] are really classy productions, unlike many other scene releases that are just a mix-and-match rehash of old demo effects. If you are interested you should check out Track One [pouet.net], Come Clean [pouet.net], and Media Error [pouet.net] as just a few examples.
Captures can be found on YouTube if you have problems running them yourself, TrackOne may report a missing D3D
Cheap shots: (Score:5, Funny)
- I am glad for Fairlight but did Northstar made it to goverment already?
- If he can program all Amiga specialized chips in his demos, he can run any city in the world easily.
- I will vote him only if he promise free copy of Photoshop for all, with license key generator.
- For whatever reason, his speech always ends with "Greetings to" section.
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: (Score:2)
Normally its a totally different agency that deals with the elections to avoid fraud, regardless if its paper or electronic.
Why the outcry? (Score:2)
Look on the bright side, at least he kinda has to understand what he votes for when another law about "that whole computer stuff" comes up.
ex warezer? (Score:2)
And remember, you can never really leave the family.
IOIYAAR (Score:2)
WHY THE FUCK SHOULD HE REPLY BY EMAIL? (Score:2, Funny)
Speculative bias (Score:2)
I Call shenanigans (Score:2)
Clearly this story is a hoax. No slashdot editor would EVER stoop to -- well -- EDITING a story before posting it!
The good news is, even if Krvaric doesn't comment on this story in time to be relevant, he'll have at least 9 more tries over the next month as the story gets reposted.
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:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Duh (Score:5, Informative)
Um, I'm pretty sure Libertarians are against the existence of a taxpayer-supported safety net in most cases, so I'm not sure how you think this translates into wanting "everyone else to pay for one." They don't want it to exist, period, meaning that they obviously don't want to pay for it. Whether they want other people to be able to pay for it (voluntarily, perhaps), or whether they're against it more fundamentally, is a bit more complex.
90% of political disagreements basically boil down to fundamental differences of opinion as to whether government is a good deal for what you pay. Socialists and leftists mostly feel that you get a good ROI for your tax dollar; supporting a larger government makes sense when taken from this premise. Libertarians and true conservatives don't feel that it's money well spent, and would cut government to the bare minimum on this basis. (Incidentally: 'progressive' tax policies that increase the marginal tax rate based on income pretty much guarantee that the wealthy will always be mostly conservative, since they'll end up paying more for basically the same services.)
One of the reasons political discourse in the U.S. is so unproductive (IMO, anyway) is because there's too much emotional rhetoric and very little discussion about the fundamental issue, which is whether or not most people are getting a good deal for what they're paying.
Re: (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 s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> differences of opinion as to whether government is a good deal for
> what you pay.
No. Democrats/Socialists/Liberals/Progressives/etc believe taking OTHER people's money is a good way to get a free ride. Those who believe "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods" are good ideas regardless of whether you buy the whole book it comes with tend to disagree.
But the problem for elective governments to fall i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re:This gives new meaning to the phrase... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
{shudder}
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.
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:Republican Motto: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm... you'd think something like that would be in the news. Got any evidence of that?
Re: (Score:2)
Rush thinks the media is giving Hillary a free pass and has since she started her presidential bid.
But then again Rush is a cook, and I think a little obsessed with the Clintons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Republican Motto: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Republican Motto: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Republican Motto: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So what did he say? Dynastic Succession... (Score:4, Informative)
So what did he actually say? Or are you just ASSUMING he quacks the same duckspeak you believe all Republicans quack?
In case you hadn't noticed, there's a war of dynastic succession going on in the GOP. The Constitutionalists, Libertarian Minarchists, and a plethora of other freedom-loving people (mainly inspired by Ron Paul) are attempting to wrest the party from the death-grip of the neocon faction. It's just getting started, and it's already getting very ugly. (See _The Revolution - a manefesto_ - just out and #1 on Amazon.)
Now I have no idea whether Tony Krvaric himself is a "Ron Paul Republican". But that group is large, largely young, and (so far) mostly internet-connected. And their ideology is a close match to that of many of the denizens of Slashdot.
So don't be surprised to see a LOT of people with reps like Tony's in the Republican party in the near future. Complete with mud-slinging campaigns against them, as the powers-that-be try frantically to keep hold of the political machinery.
Right wing nutjob motto (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, I haven't gotten enough flamebait moderation recently. Help me out here.
Re:Right wing nutjob motto (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarian?