blogs.computerworld.com — Attorney General Michael Mukasey claims that terrorists sell pirated software as a way to finance their operations, without presenting a shred of evidence for his case. He's doing it to push through a controversial piece of legislation that's bad for you.
Apr 2, 2008 View in Crawl 4
laserblazerApr 3, 2008
aXXo is a hero.
opticwindApr 3, 2008
He never said it would be terrorism in the US. Just because I talk to someone about, let's say, the Darfur genocide...it doesn't imply you are in Darfur.
opticwindApr 3, 2008
Iran has established it isn't building nuclear weapons...it even allows UN inspectors. The anti-Iran rant was formed during this administration, don't get suckered in.
woollymittensApr 4, 2008
So buying a 2 dollar fake DVD is funding terrorism, but buying trillions of dollars worth of oil from the middle-east is still okay? Hypocrites!
Closed AccountApr 4, 2008
Don't be an idiot - this is NOT about downloading.
therightApr 4, 2008
Were you simply asking for Mukasey to substantiate his facts? I think it's quite clear your mind was made up. The author of this article made the (patently false) claim that Mukasey was lying when he made the statement that terrorist groups view intellectual property crime as a "lucrative business, and see it as a low-risk way to fund other activities." You made the statement "Let's see if he is willing to make the same statements under oath", quite clearly in support of the blogger and insinuating that you believe Mukasey to by lying. Accusing or insinuating that someone is lying, with no evidence of such (remember that lying is defined as deception with intent. no one has provided evidence to suggest that Mukasey's statement was deceptive, let alone an intentional deception), is absolutely not the same as "asking that Mukasey substantiate his facts".The links between intellectual property crime and terrorist funding are well established. Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, stated that “[p]rofits from counterfeiting are one of the three main sources of income supporting international terrorism [...]" The International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition have stated that counterfeit T-Shirts may have helped finance the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Ronald K. Noble, secretary general of Interpol, has stated that profits from counterfeiting operations have been tied to Hezbollah, FARC, and paramilitary organisations in Ireland.Like it or not, Mukasey's statement was common sense. Of course terrorist groups view IP crime as a lucrative, low-risk funding avenue for other operations. Even so, Mukasey made it clear that terrorist groups were the exception in this case, and that ties to criminal syndicates were far more common. You make mention of what you describe as "[my] logic". What do you mean by that? I'm simply quoting Mukasey. Yes, all he stated was that "[...] in some cases even terrorist groups, view IP crime as a lucrative business, and see it as a low-risk way to fund other activities."Somehow you've spun my comments into some nonsensical request for "evidence before conclusions." As it happens, that's all I'm asking for. Mukasey made an obvious statement. This blogger, noting that Mukasey provided no specific evidence when he mentioned terrorist groups, threw his blogging cap on and started screaming from the rooftops making unsubstantiated conclusions about how "Feds lie about link [...]". Does he have evidence to support the claim that Mukasey lied? Of course not. Did I just, in this post alone, with five minutes of research, provide specific evidence supporting Mukasey's statements? Of course I did.Evidence before conclusions, indeed.
opticwindApr 5, 2008
Sorry, you're actually right. I think I got a tad tired of the people claiming that blocking piracy is blocking free speech, which you weren't doing at all), and I got carried away. I was totally exaggerating.