Cars.gov EULA turns dealer computers over to government
Rich Piehl
terrorist phone calls you better start being concerned about Obama.
This is purely domestic, it's legal and it's going on right now. When a
dealer clicks okay to submit information to the government in the cash
for clunkers program this is the EULA.
Sorry, I tried a Tiny URL and it didn't work.
If you think I'm being paranoid, so be it.
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
Paul D. DeRocco
I don't think you're paranoid. However, if this goes to court, it won't
stand a chance as written.
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pder...@ix.netcom.com
Jonathan L
> > "Rich Piehl" <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote
> > For those of you who were so worked up about Bush listening in to
> > terrorist phone calls you better start being concerned about Obama. This
> > is purely domestic, it's legal and it's going on right now. When a dealer
> > clicks okay to submit information to the government in the cash for
> > clunkers program this is the EULA.
>
>
> > Sorry, I tried a Tiny URL and it didn't work.
>
> > If you think I'm being paranoid, so be it.
>
> I don't think you're paranoid. However, if this goes to court, it won't
> stand a chance as written.
>
I don't think it's paranoid either, but in this economy, how many
people can withstand a protracted court battle?
-Jonathan
Rich Piehl
and it's WAY too late to protect any sensitive data.
And if the dealer decides they don't want to subject themselves to that
and don't participate they are immediately at a large competitive
disadvantage.
Clark F Morris
This definitely says that I would want a separate computer for
connecting to the CARS system that is TOTALLY isolated from the rest
of my computers and thus on its own (maybe dial-up) link to the
Internet.
John David Galt
> I don't think you're paranoid. However, if this goes to court, it won't
> stand a chance as written.
I would like to believe that, but after the Supreme Court let the Obama
administration got away with stealing both GM and Chrysler (from their
bondholders who have rightful priority over stockholders in bankruptcy),
he appears to have a license to steal anything he wants. Hang onto your
wallets with both hands.
Scott Nazelrod
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> For those of you who were so worked up about Bush listening in to
> terrorist phone calls you better start being concerned about Obama.
> This is purely domestic, it's legal and it's going on right now. When a
> dealer clicks okay to submit information to the government in the cash
> for clunkers program this is the EULA.
>
>
> Sorry, I tried a Tiny URL and it didn't work.
>
> If you think I'm being paranoid, so be it.
>
> Take care,
> Rich
>
> God bless the USA
On the one hand I don't believe it's too unreasonable to say "if
you're logged on to this Federal system, you have to follow the same
policies as Federal computers have to". But subjecting the files on
that computer that have nothing to do with the CARS system, and aren't
being transmitted to the CARS system (or thru the Internet at all
while logged in) to regulation is too much.
Rich Piehl
I agree Scott.
I'm having a disagreement with someone in another forum about this He
claims this a boiler plate EULA. I'm trying to get him to show me in
any other EULA where it says the operating software or the process makes
the entire computer the property of the licensor. Even the EULAs for
Vista and Linux don't do that. And they make the computer run.
JG
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> terrorist phone calls you better start being concerned about Obama.
> This is purely domestic, it's legal and it's going on right now. When a
> dealer clicks okay to submit information to the government in the cash
> for clunkers program this is the EULA.
>
>
> Sorry, I tried a Tiny URL and it didn't work.
>
> If you think I'm being paranoid, so be it.
>
> Take care,
> Rich
>
> God bless the USA
So in other words, don't try dumping viruses to Uncle Obama or he'll
cut you sucka !
Roscoe Yamamoto
> On the one hand I don't believe it's too unreasonable to say "if you're
> logged on to this Federal system, you have to follow the same policies
> as Federal computers have to". But subjecting the files on that computer
> that have nothing to do with the CARS system, and aren't being
> transmitted to the CARS system (or thru the Internet at all while logged
> in) to regulation is too much.
Simple solution. Run a live Linux to do business, save the files to
external media. Or do business on a privately owned machine(running
Linux, of course). Do whatever else on the Govt Windows system, if you
absolutely have to.
Personally, I would see this as a good time to start encouraging people
to start dumping Windows. Linux and Mac are more than adequate operating
systems, and are more secure-especially Linux, if it's configured
properly.
--
Otto Yamamoto
'Suffering in the real world is serious business
because it can actually kill you,
whereas the internet is basically
a vacuum of words, numbers and pictures.'
Rich Piehl
> On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 20:29:54 -0700, Scott Nazelrod wrote:
>
>> On the one hand I don't believe it's too unreasonable to say "if you're
>> logged on to this Federal system, you have to follow the same policies
>> as Federal computers have to". But subjecting the files on that computer
>> that have nothing to do with the CARS system, and aren't being
>> transmitted to the CARS system (or thru the Internet at all while logged
>> in) to regulation is too much.
>
> Simple solution. Run a live Linux to do business, save the files to
> external media. Or do business on a privately owned machine(running
> Linux, of course). Do whatever else on the Govt Windows system, if you
> absolutely have to.
>
> Personally, I would see this as a good time to start encouraging people
> to start dumping Windows. Linux and Mac are more than adequate operating
> systems, and are more secure-especially Linux, if it's configured
> properly.
>
>
But you would have had to know this was coming and been able switch over
your whole business in a few short weeks.
Roscoe Yamamoto
> But you would have had to know this was coming and been able switch over
> your whole business in a few short weeks.
Ergo a live Linux on a thumb drive or CD. You don't switch anything. I
can run a customised version of the Ubuntu 9.04 notebook remix on any
computer I want to; and there's enough room to store files if I need to.
That sort of deployment is reasonably inexpensive, and could be done in
short order.
Steve Sobol
says...
>
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:37:34 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote:
>
> > But you would have had to know this was coming and been able switch over
> > your whole business in a few short weeks.
>
> Ergo a live Linux on a thumb drive or CD. You don't switch anything. I
> can run a customised version of the Ubuntu 9.04 notebook remix on any
> computer I want to; and there's enough room to store files if I need to.
> That sort of deployment is reasonably inexpensive, and could be done in
> short order.
Well, yes, but what about the software that runs your business?
At the very least, best practices dictate that when you switch
accounting systems, you run both systems in parallel until you can be
reasonably confident the new one is OK. Not just for a week, either.
And, what if your business-critical software doesn't run on Linux?
I'm a huge Linux fan, but we have to think pragmatically here.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
sjs...@JustThe.net
Clark F Morris
wrote:
My thought was just to have a separate computer (400 dollar laptop)
that only connects to cars.gov and all data entry is manual. Unless
the cars system accepts some form of structured data, this might not
be too awkward. Given the use of the web notice, having a computer
that is in effect a dumb (or smart) terminal on the CARS network as
ONLY a part of that network may not be any less efficient than any of
the alternatives.
Rich Piehl
I heard on the radio today (haven't found verification on line yet) that
the government is changing the wording on this EULA to make it sound not
so intrusive and dictatorial.
No idea how the new wording reads.
Steve Sobol
cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca says...
> >I'm a huge Linux fan, but we have to think pragmatically here.
>
> My thought was just to have a separate computer (400 dollar laptop)
> that only connects to cars.gov and all data entry is manual. Unless
> the cars system accepts some form of structured data, this might not
> be too awkward. Given the use of the web notice, having a computer
> that is in effect a dumb (or smart) terminal on the CARS network as
> ONLY a part of that network may not be any less efficient than any of
> the alternatives.
Ah. Well, how about one of the el-cheapo Netbooks that runs Linux or
Windows XP? Either way, it'd fit your needs, and I think you can
actually find a few well under $400.
Roscoe Yamamoto
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/cars-gov-terms-service
I did a bit of poking around on this and found the above link from the
Electronic Frontier Foundation. Should have done it sooner, but I was
lazy. Always a bad way to be. I trust EFF a wee bit more than Glenn Beck,
particularly on issues of this nature.
Beck isn't one of my favourite people in any event: he tends to come up a
lot in Southern Poverty Law Center and One People's Project e-mail
alerts; and Anti-Racist Action isn't terribly fond of him, either.
Rich Piehl
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:23:22 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote:
>
>> For those of you who were so worked up about Bush listening in to
>> terrorist phone calls you better start being concerned about Obama. This
>> is purely domestic, it's legal and it's going on right now. When a
>> dealer clicks okay to submit information to the government in the cash
>> for clunkers program this is the EULA.
>>
>> https://supplierpayments.esc.gov/OA_HTML/RF.jsp?
> function_id=28716&resp_id=-1&resp_appl_id=-1&security_group_id=0&lang_code=US¶ms=1QjBbvK328ZbUaSUNj3kbu7K3gvpagsk17LptZc1LOg
>> Sorry, I tried a Tiny URL and it didn't work.
>>
>> If you think I'm being paranoid, so be it.
>>
>> Take care,
>> Rich
>>
>> God bless the USA
>
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/cars-gov-terms-service
>
> I did a bit of poking around on this and found the above link from the
> Electronic Frontier Foundation. Should have done it sooner, but I was
> lazy. Always a bad way to be. I trust EFF a wee bit more than Glenn Beck,
> particularly on issues of this nature.
>
> Beck isn't one of my favourite people in any event: he tends to come up a
> lot in Southern Poverty Law Center and One People's Project e-mail
> alerts; and Anti-Racist Action isn't terribly fond of him, either.
>
>
>
>
It wasn't Beck that made the comment they didn't agree with. From the
article
> the commentary of Fox anchor Kimberly Guilfoyle
Other than that they basically agreed that it was a horrible TOS agreement.
I did hear an interview with lawyers who said that such a EULA would be
an interesting court case depending on what information was retrieved
and how it was used.
Roscoe Yamamoto
Beck presents this in a way to appeal to his audience, which, of course,
is his job; but it's curious that he didn't take the time to say, ask
EFF: 'Is this right, is this doable?'-He just goes presenting it as 'the
government can take over your computer'.
Rich Piehl
> The problem I have with this is that it's basically shoddy reporting.
> Beck presents this in a way to appeal to his audience, which, of course,
> is his job; but it's curious that he didn't take the time to say, ask
> EFF: 'Is this right, is this doable?'-He just goes presenting it as 'the
> government can take over your computer'.
>
>
>
>
>
If it was such shoddy reporting why would the government change it? And
as I said a lawyer, not necessarily the EFF, was asked and said it would
make an interesting court case.
Considering 4 days later the President was asking people to submit
information and sources "that seem fishy" and that was WIDELY reported
in the media even though it is in direct violation of the Constitution,
a statement and even though it required repeated questioning by the
media to clarify -after- the statement was made and reported was all
their reporting shoddy, too?
Roscoe Yamamoto
Well, whatever. The media is of dubious credibility in any event, as far
as I'm concerned. Beck was mining the story for whatever anti-regime
hysteria he could get out of it, not as any sort of public service. Don't
forget-the man is on the Anti-Racist blacklist-with good reason(His
church openly discriminated against the blacks until 1975; and still puts
forth a doctrine associating 'dark skin' with evil, as well as the usual
anti-catholic propaganda), so most any reportage on his part has dubious/
malicious intent so far as I'm concerned.
The EFF has a specific expertise in this line, never mind that it
represents my interest; so I'm going to be inclined to give them more
credibility.
Clark F Morris
wrote:
>The problem I have with this is that it's basically shoddy reporting.
>Beck presents this in a way to appeal to his audience, which, of course,
>is his job; but it's curious that he didn't take the time to say, ask
>EFF: 'Is this right, is this doable?'-He just goes presenting it as 'the
>government can take over your computer'.
Whether the government intended its EULA to mean that users consented
to having their computers taken over and confidential information
transmitted, the fact remains that the website could be rigged to do
so and a large percentage of computers would let it. Using a
non-Windows computer would block a lot of the downloads (scraper and
spy programs) and thus the subsequent uploads. The hacker techniques
for doing so are known. Keystroke loggers are old news. There is a
reason I run an Internet Security program and have experimented with
Noscript. The exposures in ActiveX have led to people's computers
being taken over. Some exposures have been fixed before problems
occurred. The exposures are not urban myth unless Microsoft in their
problem descriptions for various fixes is spreading urban myths. I
suspect that a concerted effort could find similar exposures in Linux
and/or Mozilla base products (like the Firefox and Chrome browsers
that I use). Adobe doesn't come out with security fixes for the fun
of it.
Rich Piehl
practiced by much of the media for the last 8 years. But there was very
little objection in that time frame.
I would argue that the blatant racism in the church that the President
attended for 20 years far outweighs any kind of implied racism of the
Mormon church. To say nothing of the position of power the President
has when compared to a talk show host. But that doesn't seem to be of
concern to most.
Clark F Morris
The racism was a bit more than implied in the Mormon church and
definitely in the largest Baptist convention, the Southern Baptists.
From some of the controversial things I read by Obama's pastor, they
were less problematic that statements by various protestant leaders in
the 1950's. As a white Baptist, I was uncomfortable in agreeing with
some of Obama's pastor's statements. (I have never voted for a
Democrat for president and did vote for McCain).
Roscoe Yamamoto
> I would argue that the blatant racism in the church that the President
> attended for 20 years far outweighs any kind of implied racism of the
> Mormon church.
Um, not 'implied'
http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_race.htm
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/curseofcain_contents.htm
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/curseofcain_part2.htm
http://blogcritics.org/books/article/history-blacks-and-the-mormon-church/
http://tinyurl.com/lr6oye
and so on. I think that trumps your one irrelevant attention whore.
Incidentally, you may want to peruse
http://antiracistaction.org/index.php?page=faq#q13
and #q14 while you're at it.
Rich Piehl
> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:38:53 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote:
>
>> I would argue that the blatant racism in the church that the President
>> attended for 20 years far outweighs any kind of implied racism of the
>> Mormon church.
>
> Um, not 'implied'
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_race.htm
> http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/curseofcain_contents.htm
> http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/curseofcain_part2.htm
> http://blogcritics.org/books/article/history-blacks-and-the-mormon-church/
> http://tinyurl.com/lr6oye
>
> and so on. I think that trumps your one irrelevant attention whore.
> Incidentally, you may want to peruse
> http://antiracistaction.org/index.php?page=faq#q13
> and #q14 while you're at it.
>
>
>
I haven't had time to read the first 4, but I certainly disagree with
the last. I've seen blatant racism between minorities. I've seen and
experienced black on white racism. That's a very narrow view of racism,
and overlooks many forms of racism that shouldn't be overlooked or
tolerated.
Larry Sheldon
I've seen blatant racism between minorities. I've seen and
> experienced black on white racism. That's a very narrow view of racism,
> and overlooks many forms of racism that shouldn't be overlooked or
> tolerated.
I remember in a small central Mississippi town when I was little.
Blacks walking one way on the narrow sidewalks meet white walking the
other way: the blacks stepped into the street until the whites passed.
Blacks walking one way on the narrow sidewalks meet indian walking the
other way: the indians stepped into the street until the blacks passed.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Rich Piehl
> Rich Piehl wrote:
> I've seen blatant racism between minorities. I've seen and
>> experienced black on white racism. That's a very narrow view of
>> racism, and overlooks many forms of racism that shouldn't be
>> overlooked or tolerated.
>
> I remember in a small central Mississippi town when I was little.
>
> Blacks walking one way on the narrow sidewalks meet white walking the
> other way: the blacks stepped into the street until the whites passed.
>
> Blacks walking one way on the narrow sidewalks meet indian walking the
> other way: the indians stepped into the street until the blacks passed.
>
During the building of the railroads the blacks could treat the Chinese
like dirt but not the other way around.
Roscoe Yamamoto
> I haven't had time to read the first 4, but I certainly disagree with
> the last. I've seen blatant racism between minorities. I've seen and
> experienced black on white racism. That's a very narrow view of racism,
> and overlooks many forms of racism that shouldn't be overlooked or
> tolerated.
Well, except for this bit:
(13.4)'Sometimes, "white" people are the victims of racism or racism
occurs between different people of color. But compared to the amount of
people of color victimized by institutionalized white racism, it's not
hard to see where the real problem lies.'
That's not exactly overlooking the problem-and a racist black isn't going
to be tolerated any more than a racist white. Racist whites are a much
larger and acute problem.
There's also a lack of cultural understanding, here. ARA is not a
'liberal' organisation. Anarchists tend to focus on acute situations, and
act against them in the most direct manner possible and practical; rather
than trying to 'save the world'. The determination of what constitutes an
acute situation is made by the members of a given group.
Roscoe Yamamoto
> During the building of the railroads the blacks could treat the Chinese
> like dirt but not the other way around.
Pointing up the sins of others is no justification for the sins of your
own.
Rich Piehl
> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 21:53:21 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote:
>
>> During the building of the railroads the blacks could treat the Chinese
>> like dirt but not the other way around.
>
> Pointing up the sins of others is no justification for the sins of your
> own.
>
>
>
Who's pointing at sins? I'm giving examples of racism that aren't white
on black, which your link says is the only racism that can exist. I was
showing how wrong that opinion is.
They may fancy themselves the ultimate authority on racism but even by
the standard of MLK's "I have a dream" speech they are wrong.
Rich Piehl
> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 21:13:28 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote:
>
>> I haven't had time to read the first 4, but I certainly disagree with
>> the last. I've seen blatant racism between minorities. I've seen and
>> experienced black on white racism. That's a very narrow view of racism,
>> and overlooks many forms of racism that shouldn't be overlooked or
>> tolerated.
>
> Well, except for this bit:
> (13.4)'Sometimes, "white" people are the victims of racism or racism
> occurs between different people of color. But compared to the amount of
> people of color victimized by institutionalized white racism, it's not
> hard to see where the real problem lies.'
>
> That's not exactly overlooking the problem-and a racist black isn't going
> to be tolerated any more than a racist white. Racist whites are a much
> larger and acute problem.
>
> There's also a lack of cultural understanding, here. ARA is not a
> 'liberal' organisation. Anarchists tend to focus on acute situations, and
> act against them in the most direct manner possible and practical; rather
> than trying to 'save the world'. The determination of what constitutes an
> acute situation is made by the members of a given group.
>
>
Choosing to focus on only one aspect, the most acute aspect, of a
problem is a sure invitation fail to understand the scope of the
problem. Even if every ounce of Randy type racism was magically wiped
from the earth racism would still exist.
Racist white may be the larger, more acute problem in the whole, but on
an individual basis it doesn't matter what form it takes. It's just as
hurtful, just as undeserved, just as negatively productive in any form.
It sounds like these folks are trying to cleanse their conscience for
the sins of their fathers.
Rich Piehl
JG
Under Bush, the US gov.'s jobs application site was hacked into
because it used software from Monster.com, so trashy software and
hackers have gotten into sensitive areas, like personnel systems.
Makes sense that any attaching PC or terminal becomes a temporary
component of the gov. network, guys and gals...JG
Roscoe Yamamoto
> Choosing to focus on only one aspect, the most acute aspect, of a
> problem is a sure invitation fail to understand the scope of the
> problem. Even if every ounce of Randy type racism was magically wiped
> from the earth racism would still exist.
>
You're not copping to the concept here. It's a bit more than just racism
that's being dealt with. You're looking at it in a 'liberal' vs
'conservative' context. That does not apply. You're dealing with a
largely anarchist entity; and your concept of 'liberal' and
'conservative' pretty much is seen as center right('liberal') to right
authoritarian. the 'spectrum' label is not as important as all that to an
anarchist-it's the 'authoritarian' that counts.
From the ARA FAQ: 'In most Western societies, the most powerful positions
(CEO's, politicians, judges, cops, etc.) have been reserved for and
monopolized by "white" people for decades - this is only just beginning
to change. "White" people still hold most of the power in our society and
the most powerful "white" people still tend to use their power to hurt
people of color.' It devolves to an abuse of authority, really; and the
idea is to address the abuse of authority. Black people don't have the
means to abuse power on the scale whites do. I've made that point to
Randy numerous times.
As far as racism 'magically going away'? '[ARA] also know[s] that in the
face of concerted opposition, many people who have racist beliefs have
decided not to put them into practice, or in some cases have learned how
wrong those beliefs are and abandoned them.' The latter is less likely,
to be sure, but has happened; the former is what most people
realistically expect. It still provides some amelioration, just the same.
> Racist white may be the larger, more acute problem in the whole, but on
> an individual basis it doesn't matter what form it takes. It's just as
> hurtful, just as undeserved, just as negatively productive in any form.
>
That's not an argument. But you're talking about an entity that is geared
to deal with an institutional situation, not individual ones. By dealing
with the most acute problem, aggressively on the whole, there may be some
amelioration/discouragement of individual instances.
> It sounds like these folks are trying to cleanse their conscience for
> the sins of their fathers.
Sorry. You really have to cop to the context here. You're not talking
about some hippie singing 'Kum-by-yah' or 'We shall Overcome'. Get in my
face with some Bonehead shite, and I'll stand my ground-I'll back your
arse down if I can. Take a swing at me, and I'll go upside your head with
a fucking brick. For starters. Strictly in self-defence, mind you. I
wouldn't start anything; but nothing says that me and any like-minded
mates of mine don't mind having a good excuse to end something.
Who cares about the 'sins of the fathers'? The object is to address a
situation directly, here and now. My father is a vicious racist. That's
his problem, not mine. But he also knows better than to say two words
about it around me, because I'll call him on it-I won't have it. He
doesn't have to agree with me, but I demand that he respect my stand in
the matter. And as is usually the case in anything attached to my milieu,
it's always about respect and representing yourself and your crew.
Rich Piehl
trying to being as realistic about as possible. You can not deal with
one piece of it and expect anything to change. For proof people have
been trying to abolish white on black racism for 40 years. But black on
white is still seething right there waiting to pour out at every
opportunity. And as soon as it pours out it creates hard feelings going
the other way. Back and forth, yin and yan. Cat chasing its tail. The
only way to get rid of it is to squelch all the racism from all the
players at the same time. Until that happens you're wasting your
effort. And that's why a lot of racism has been eliminated since the
civil rights movement, but it all won't go away until it's all dealt
with at the same time.
I would also disagree that whites have all the power. Granted they
still have a lot of it. But folks like Jackson and Sharpton and a few
others on a national level and each metro area seems to have their own
local version of them (here his name is Eric Vickers) play the race card
as a weapon. They know that it yields power because it's an impossible
rap to defend against. Throw in desire of many blacks to follow only
blacks (there's another obvious aspect of black on any other race
racism) and Jack son and Sharpton and Vickers can mobilize people to
action better than the AFL-CIO. They know that many whites have a
"fear" of blacks as tough hoodlums and will back down from the challenge
and open doors that shouldn't be open solely on the basis of race.
That's the black power.
Roscoe Yamamoto
You see both as equal. I don't, and they are not in any wise. Doesn't
mean any sort of racism is less egregious than any other.White racism is
the predominant problem, and therefore should be addressed as such. Sorry
you don't see it that way.
> I would also disagree that whites have all the power. Granted they
> still have a lot of it. But folks like Jackson and Sharpton and a few
> others on a national level and each metro area seems to have their own
> local version of them (here his name is Eric Vickers) play the race card
> as a weapon. They know that it yields power because it's an impossible
> rap to defend against. Throw in desire of many blacks to follow only
> blacks (there's another obvious aspect of black on any other race
> racism) and Jack son and Sharpton and Vickers can mobilize people to
> action better than the AFL-CIO.
Well call me when they begin to cop to an actual State-like monopoly on
violence: i.e. Police forces and Armies and suchlike. Jackson and
Sharpton can mobilise some number of people for short amounts of time;
focusing on single issues. That's not sustained or continuous power; and
their antics are more an offshoot of a cult of personality, and self-
serving in the main, hardly the sustained oppression of an authoritarian
State.
> They know that many whites have a
> "fear" of blacks as tough hoodlums and will back down from the challenge
> and open doors that shouldn't be open solely on the basis of race.
> That's the black power.
So? This isn't a valid tactic? Exploiting the opposition's stupidity, and
racism to further their own goals? It points up what a problem white
racism is. You don't think that whites don't do likewise? Think again.
Racism is a tool that is exploited by those in a position of power or
influence to maintain the status quo. The most predominant kind will
surely produce the best results, as it has for centuries.
If you are addressing abuses of authority where do you go first?
Rich Piehl
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:23:22 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote:
>
>> For those of you who were so worked up about Bush listening in to
>> terrorist phone calls you better start being concerned about Obama. This
>> is purely domestic, it's legal and it's going on right now. When a
>> dealer clicks okay to submit information to the government in the cash
>> for clunkers program this is the EULA.
>>
>> https://supplierpayments.esc.gov/OA_HTML/RF.jsp?
> function_id=28716&resp_id=-1&resp_appl_id=-1&security_group_id=0&lang_code=US¶ms=1QjBbvK328ZbUaSUNj3kbu7K3gvpagsk17LptZc1LOg
>> Sorry, I tried a Tiny URL and it didn't work.
>>
>> If you think I'm being paranoid, so be it.
>>
>> Take care,
>> Rich
>>
>> God bless the USA
>
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/cars-gov-terms-service
>
> I did a bit of poking around on this and found the above link from the
> Electronic Frontier Foundation. Should have done it sooner, but I was
> lazy. Always a bad way to be. I trust EFF a wee bit more than Glenn Beck,
> particularly on issues of this nature.
>
> Beck isn't one of my favourite people in any event: he tends to come up a
> lot in Southern Poverty Law Center and One People's Project e-mail
> alerts; and Anti-Racist Action isn't terribly fond of him, either.
>
>
>
>
Not Glenn Beck. Not sure how far this will go.
Rich Piehl
>
>> I would also disagree that whites have all the power. Granted they
>> still have a lot of it. But folks like Jackson and Sharpton and a few
>> others on a national level and each metro area seems to have their own
>> local version of them (here his name is Eric Vickers) play the race card
>> as a weapon. They know that it yields power because it's an impossible
>> rap to defend against. Throw in desire of many blacks to follow only
>> blacks (there's another obvious aspect of black on any other race
>> racism) and Jack son and Sharpton and Vickers can mobilize people to
>> action better than the AFL-CIO.
>
> Well call me when they begin to cop to an actual State-like monopoly on
> violence: i.e. Police forces and Armies and suchlike. Jackson and
> Sharpton can mobilise some number of people for short amounts of time;
> focusing on single issues. That's not sustained or continuous power; and
> their antics are more an offshoot of a cult of personality, and self-
> serving in the main, hardly the sustained oppression of an authoritarian
> State.
>
It's too complicated to explain in this forum but it allowed Eric
Vickers and company to get their choice for St. Louis city police chief,
all based on that. That's pretty long term term.
>
>> They know that many whites have a
>> "fear" of blacks as tough hoodlums and will back down from the challenge
>> and open doors that shouldn't be open solely on the basis of race.
>> That's the black power.
>
> So? This isn't a valid tactic? Exploiting the opposition's stupidity, and
> racism to further their own goals? It points up what a problem white
> racism is. You don't think that whites don't do likewise? Think again.
> Racism is a tool that is exploited by those in a position of power or
> influence to maintain the status quo. The most predominant kind will
> surely produce the best results, as it has for centuries.
>
> If you are addressing abuses of authority where do you go first?
>
A valid tactic for what? Exercising power.
I'm not sure it can be changed by outside sources. It has to be changed
from within the individual. The stereotypes can be shown to be wrong by
these groups but that still won't erase what's inside a racist
individual...white, black or chartreuse.
Roscoe Yamamoto
Yeah, I saw that on EFF and had a look at the Post article. I don't like
the look of it.
Rich Piehl
I heard that it raised the eyebrows of the ACLU, too. But the whole
thing is so vague nothing can be done it about it at this point. Just
that the fact that they would consider it would seem to give a certain
amount of credence to the original Cash for Clunkers EULA, at least in
my mind.
Russian President Dimitry Megadeath
Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REM...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> I heard that it raised the eyebrows of the ACLU, too. But the whole
> thing is so vague nothing can be done it about it at this point. Just
> that the fact that they would consider it would seem to give a certain
> amount of credence to the original Cash for Clunkers EULA, at least in
> my mind.
The EULA was more likely sloppiness more than anything else. Inadequate
research on the government's part-benign, but it doesn't speak well of
then, just the same. The current regime seems to like breaking out stuff
without giving it an adequate look-over.
--
Dimitry Megadeath
Rockin' ovar Russia with a big ole Atom Bomb!