When we get most of the computer community to agree to not co-operate with mass survailence.

When we stand out and identify what indivudals and groups do, and do our damnest to avoid them(boycot).

When we create an alternative society to Marketing-based culture, where people can't be told what to do by some snazzy PR firm with money to spam your facebook feed.

When they are so scared about implementing anything in mass because they know at least one nerd in the shop will have the good concise to expose the plot.

Its when we the people say we will not let greed get the way of our ethics, and we stop believing that we have right to dissent instead of just being another monkey at a terminal, today's cog in the machine.

Take a look to your left and right, we are the solution.

Like many other ideas, self-driving cars seem cool, until you realize how shit like this applies to them.

Welcome to the next generation of theft, rape, murder, and kidnapping done by cyber assaliants hijacking self-driving cars.

one and the same

Says the man who's responsible for drone bombing pakistan, and funding insurgencies that lead to the rise of extremists and more death. Tell me, how many people have Charlie Hedbo killed?

people only say this, when you personally don't want to face the fact the problem is close to you, or you otherwise hold them in high regard.

Because no one has trouble locking up people for 30 plus years for non-violent crimes in this country. When it was "hackers", and the tech industry, no one had a problem lumping us all in one group and blaming us.

No, we need systematic education reform.

tracy lords comes to mind, she started doing porn around age 15 by forging documents and left porn slightly after age 18 making most of her work illegal

terror already includes bitcoin, political activism, free software users, etc....

to be honest, you have a point. As a free speech activist, you either have sacred cows or you don't. While I certain stand with Charlie Hedbo in their right to ruthlessly attack Islam, and every other religon, idea, country, etc... BUT

I think its outrageous that we honor them by implementing this wonton censorship. This is the sort of thing they litterally died for. That said, its not freedom of speech. Now lets look a the two organizations. One is a government cracking down on dissent, and the other is a filthy magazine known for taking pot shots at everyone. I think the two statements are not incompatible

I am Charlie

I am not the French Government

I think you're a perfect example of what is wrong with politics today. Everyone who doesn't toe your exact line is now some "fringe wierdo", who is either inline for some unwarrented abuse from mental health services, departmant of homeland security, ATF, or one of those other many organizations which gives us the highest incarceration rate on the planet, by a fair margin.

I think thats you getting your misplaced puritanical impotence mixed up with the gun rights argument. Both cases you see other people having fun, and you get all mad.

edit: again, you can try and pretend you're not in the anti-gun crowd, but you're far too obvious, and everyone knows it.

something seems a little off about it indeed. That said, if I do happen to come accross a sadomastichtic ring of pedophiles I'll be sure to say something, you know, just in case.

Only if you are seriously stretching the definition of "terrorist" to mean "any politically motivated crime"

How many people did Jeremy Hammond kill? How many maimed and injured? What he did was the digital equvilant of and egging, some spray paint and perhaps a brick or two through the window of the CIA headquaters.

Politically motivated crime yes, but is it terrorism? no.

The definition of "terrorism" is not "otherwise crime committed with the motivation of opposing the system. The word for that is most likely "insurgent".

if you feel comfortable doing so, start agitating, or pass on so we can turn a passive sentiment into a more active movement. fire up photoshop/gimp, create memes, and do activism so more people think like us, and articulate reasons.

rememer, solidarity. It starts you and me, as in all movements and then it grows.

To be pendactic, Shay's Rebellion. But your point does stand. Revolutions only work generally when a good chunk of the population accepts the revolutionaries as more legitimate as the government. All points of lack of military prowess aside, I don't see any of us getting that any time soon. Also, cost of failure, and likely of failure is extreme. We'll all be hunted men for the rest of our lives if we are lucky. Its insane enough to even suggest that the people arguing for armed rebellion at this point are most likely agent provucauters trying to get us to say and do dumb stuff so they can arrest us all, and reframe the question away from their own actions.

I'll update my idea. Its not simply "don't work for the government", as I am not calling for a boycott on people working on health services, NOAA, simply a boycott on doing IT/Programming/any tech work for Law Enforcement, Intellegence, Defense, Corrections, as well as all private contractors and private companies that are dependant on above to function such as private prisons, and contractors.. If they feel they are so much smarter than us they need do devious stuff for our own good, they can fix their own computers. They need us, plain and simple. They don't have the expertise. Some yuppie with a $500 suit, no matter if he's the smartest suit in the world still isn't a hacker. They know this. Its obvious when General Alexander went to DEFCON. Its obvious there is a pretty big culture gap, and they have a hard time recruiting talent, because most brazen assumptions about how to find it are not just slightly off, but blatantly wrong.

To work, we only need a slim amount of people to be active in the movement, perhaps %10, vocally agitating ideaology. The rest who are not confident enough to share their views simply need to just look for a job elsewhere, and if they have a job with said agencies, politely accept work elsewhere, and then leave, and discuss their views in private, but encouraged to talk about their politics if they feel comfortable. Even people in the military can do things like request change of MOS, or simply decide to not renew their contracts. If you program Free Software Open Source, you can simply choose not to contribute to projects sponsored by the military, or fork them and not-contribute back upstream.

Its a reasonable plan of action, because it won't take much to make change. There is very little to loose, and only the agitators have any real risk, but the risk is slight. We can also form channels of communication, form communities based on solitarity and just talk. Big key here is solidarity.

the cost of failure is almost none. Start this you and me, just pass it on. I am not asking you to shoot anyone, rob anyone, plant any bombs, launder money, and I won't. I simply ask for solitarity.

This is extortion at its finest. This reminds me of politics, where companies threaten to regulate industries to shake them down for donations, and then back off. Or thinktanks do the same Its agains christianity/islam/women/blacks/gays to do X, so donate and we'll tell you how to deal with this, while changing nothing.

fortunately its GPL, so put a fork in it, and be done.

basicly the definition of terrorism as defined by the government is nothing more than "dissent", which is the real crime, and acts of actual violence against persons and destruction of property are merely secondary offenses to the main crime of dissent.

Tell yourself again, we live in a free country.

Also, ten years for at worst is some jackass stunt. Gets put in solidarity for being a communist. Related is that as soon as a similar man, weev gets let of prison, he goes full on NatSoc, after charges are mysteriously dropped, and going out to get a nazi tattoo.

Does this smell like the government propping up fascism, or does it smell like the government propping up fascism?

which you most likely are, but you're going to say you're in favor of "reasonable legislation", which if you knew anything about guns, doesn't seem reasonable. In fact most of you are so damn see through its hillarious, and you're not fooling anyone.

"Anti-Gun" would be kind, assuming you held these views consistantly, you're litterally supporting police state antics right here in the USA.

Sexual? What do you have against sex? Do you think the gun owners are in leauge with the homosexuals, perhaps other paraphiliacs and sex fetishists? I think it seems to me the problem is more with you're own sexually derived insecurities than with anyone else.