Back?

The KOPIMI logo was created by the fine folks at The Pirate Bay (this link my expire without notice) and is displayed prominently on all the sites they operate.

What does the KOPIMI logo tell your users? Read the name out loud to find out.

Displaying this logo is to absolve any connections to copyright, conditions to reuse or remix or republish, or otherwise create derivative works from the content I’ve created.

Why do this? Well, why not? I write this blog to inform and entertain. I neither expect nor desire compensation for my efforts. I work hard on the content I produce but it really makes no difference to me how my work is consumed or repurposed. I publish relatively anonymously anyway, so I’d be relinquishing that anonymity

Copyrights come in many flavours, from restrictive to permissive, but even the most generous copyrights somehow rub me the wrong way. For example, there’s the ever-popular Creative Commons (CC) licenses which can limit one’s intellectual properties from being modified and/or being used for derivative commercial purposes while still claiming ownership of those assets in case of dispute. Whether this would stand up in a court of law, I’m sceptical, but it’s a pretend line in the imaginary sand nonetheless.

I’ve learned just now that CC has introduced a seemingly wide-open alternative license called Public Domain which appears to relinquish all rights of ownership for any conceivable purpose. Now we’re talking! I’m all for it. Maybe I’ll consider adding this license to my blog some time soon, but I somehow prefer washing my hands entirely of any ties to CC. The Pirate Bay seems so unequivocally in favour of the notion of bits without borders.

Subscribers to my RSS feed know that I’ve leveraged Joost de Valk‘s RSS Footer plugin for WordPress to add a few words stating that I wrote the accompanying article, with a link to the original source on my blog. I draw the line at optional (aka suggested) attribution. I’ve found my content duplicated and hosted verbatim on fully automated “scraper” sites whose sole purpose is to attract web users to show them ads. Myeh. I can’t stop it and I don’t exactly suffer because of it so no use sweating over it.

So plunder away, Internet. My blog will remain regardless of wherever it might be duplicated, in whole or in part. That’s what the internet is for; creating a facsimile does not tarnish the fidelity of the source.

P.s., observant readers may recognize my favicon (the image next to my URL in the address bar at the top of your browser) as a modification of BoingBoing‘s. This falls within their CC license for non-commercial re-use with attribution. Well, it does now anyway. Sorry it took me 2 years for that attribution, BB, though I did leave a comment in one of your stories admitting to this last year.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

Take my site… please!

My wife and I just had a rather in-depth discussion about this matter, and there are many reader comments arguing both sides of the story.

Do women have the right to breastfeed in public?  In my opinion, absolutely!  On one hand it’s legal for women to do so in Ontario (perhaps not in other provinces) and that’s where this altercation took place.  On the other hand, I have no moral objection to this action because that’s what human bodies are built to do.

As it happens, Longuinho was not ejected from the property but was asked to breastfeed in another room, away from the pool area, for public health concerns (the property owner mentions the possibility of breast milk entering the pool, and the likelihood that a fed infant is liable to urinate, defecate, or vomit).  As such, it seems to me that the pool owner has no problem whatsoever with breastfeeding, but was trying to accommodate the majority of her guests at the expense of inconveniencing one (or two, as my wife points out to me as she reads over my shoulder).

The key concept here is public.  Here’s the third paragraph from The Star’s story:

But the owner of the private pool said her priority is keeping the pool clean for everyone.

Here’s as far as I needed to read before formulating my opinion:

But the owner of the private pool

Done.  The breastfeeding woman has equal rights as other patrons inside this private property – pretty much none.  The owner of the property, as long as she breaks no laws in doing so, is free to impose whatever rules she wishes and is free to eject whomever she chooses regardless of whether she has any reason.  ROAR – Right Of Admission Refusal.

Or so I believe.  I might be mistaken.

Longuinho makes mention of a case in 1999 where a woman from Caledon, Ontario, was proclaimed the winner where she was ejected from a public pool for breastfeeding on the premises.  As this was a public space the breastfeeding woman was partial owner of that facility and thus was beholden to the law and no further restrictions.

I’d have thought this would be the most important distinction if not for this proclamation by Longuinho regarding the resolution of that case:

They said it was a human rights issue, that I have a right to breastfeed anywhere anytime, in a public space or private space, and so mediated in my favour

This statement troubles me.  I like to think that if I own property I should have absolute control over whom is permitted on my property, and should be permitted to eject anyone with or without justification.  If I’ve invited someone into my house and they refuse to leave, I should hope that the police would assist me in shooing that person onto public property.

I really don’t feel that there’s any more to this discussion, and I share Longuinho’s desire if not her means:

I’m doing all this because I really think it’s important for women to go in public and breastfeed without being scared.

I couldn’t agree more with this.  As Canadian taxpayers we are co-owners of publicly funded spaces.  I simply believe that the human right to regulate our own property is greater than that of women to breastfeed wherever they wish.  This isn’t a breastfeeding issue in any way.

It is a Canadian woman’s right to breastfeed in public, but it is her privilege to be a guest on private property.

Thanks to my wife for provoking this conversation and for supplying the title to this post.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

Lactivist cries over spilt milk

Hi there,

I just read a story about Miss Canada Plus 2007, Stephanie Conover, on The Torontoist blog (http://torontoist.com/2008/01/miss_toronto_to.php) and the way she was treated at the hands of the Miss Toronto Tourism pageant. As a Torontonian and a traveller myself I’m rather appalled that Toronto’s esteemed guests should be welcomed by an organization that allows a religious bigot to misrepresent one of the world’s most multicultural cities. May I recommend that, instead of going through all the trouble of hosting a pageant, you simply display a disclaimer on your website, perhaps in a flashing and flaming typeface, stating that only travellers who worship the Christian god are welcome in Toronto? Seems to me that would achieve your goal a little more efficiently than meticulously writing letters replete with Christian bible verses on a person-by-person basis.

Thank you, and I wish you a happy and prosperous 1939.

Brian

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

A heil and hearty hello

It reminded me of a video I saw a few years ago showing an outdoor rave somewhere in Utah. Seems American authorities aren’t quite so accepting of spontaneous jovial gatherings.

Just food for thought. Draw your own conclusions.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

Big Brother is watching you dance

A while back I accidentally happened across a website with content I will never forget. The site is www.ogrish.com – a repository of stories, images, and videos of violent and graphic material. This content is not baseless; it is a collection of recordings by law enforcement agencies, news media, private investigators, soldiers, terrorists, murderers, and more.

I’m not sure how I found this website (I believe I was reading about the war in Iraq), but I assure you that, despite the very fair warning and disclaimer displayed before entering, I was not prepared for the things I saw.

The site contains photographs of traffic accident aftermaths, uncensored footage of war, videos showing mutilation and murder of kidnapping victims, graphic pictures of disease victims from medical archives, beheadings of prisoners of war, and a heck of a lot more. The things I saw upset me and repulsed me. My heart raced as I watched agonizingly long video clips showing the last minutes of peoples’ lives, beknownst or not to the victims.

I browsed the site for over 2 hours. I hated what I saw but I couldn’t stop browsing. That night I had trouble getting to sleep, and when I did I had nightmares. I’ve returned to the site since in an attempt to face my demons.

I am writing today to praise ogrish.com for making these materials available on the internet.

Yes, there are more pleasant and productive things to concentrate on. A tiny percentage of human beings have to watch such horrific stuff, because it is their job or they were just in the wrong place in the wrong time. Most of us in the “first world” are content receiving news of the world through homogenized, triple-baked, carefully manipulated, lifeless words and statistics. Anyone who has seen the content of ogrish.com (or is unfortunate enough to see such things first hand) will tell you that flaccid words do not do justice to the oppressed and the tormented.

Ogrish.com is news. The real news. In your back yard. And front yard.

Despite the fact that some content shows American soldiers, police, and citizens at their worst, the website is served by a web host in the USA and is protected by the first amendment of the US constitution. (this link is safe to click) This is one of the greatest triumphs of human freedom I’ve observed personally. Goes to show how sheltered we Canadians suburbanites are.

It is with this spirit of freedom in mind that I am sorry to report that the German government has requested that google.de remove all links to ogrish.com. This is certainly not the only recent case of censorship by the German government; a topic I’ve discussed (safe to click) in the past. It’s also not the only case of Google censoring results to conform to national law (safe to click), though interestingly the site still appears on China’s google.cn.

Few things in life remind us of how very lucky and free we truly are. Ogrish.com is one of them. It reminds me of how important it is to be aware of the world around me, to care about the actions and rights of my neighbours, and to fight for and speak out about what I think is right. Although I complain about things like frivolous lawsuits and oversensitive special interest groups, I realize that their freedom to protest is what makes civilized nations so great. When a nation loses its freedom to state the facts, never mind vocalize its opinions of them, there is cause for great international concern.

When we are stagnant we decay. When we are challenged we grow stronger. Having said this, I still don’t feel comfortable recommending anyone to view www.ogrish.com. This website has pretty much the most horrific stuff I can humanly imagine. Still, I feel like a better person having seen this material. I feel that I have a better understanding of human nature, other cultures, my own culture, and especially of terror.

I’ve been writing this entry on a comfy couch with the TV on in the background. I’ve glanced over periodically and noticed commercials for shows and movies that display sword fights, gunplay, murder, and oppression as entertainment. I find this frivolity particularly disgusting now. These themes are serious and unsavoury. I think people like Jack Thompson who try to equate video games with real violence should be strapped to a chair and forced to watch every piece of media on ogrish.com so that he can finally understand the difference between fantasy and reality.

Draw your own conclusions. Agree with me or disagree. Whether or not you feel websites like these should exist, whether newspapers should be allowed to publish religiously insensitive cartoons, or anything at all, voice your opinion loud and clear.

I enclose a link to one video from ogrish.com. It is video shot by American soldiers in Iraq who are being fired upon by a sniper. The Americans call for air support and the building hiding the sniper is bombed. There is no blood or particularly “objectionable” material (unless you count the reaction of the American soldiers, which I do).

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/2005/may/ogrish-dot-com-close_air_support_iraq_war.wmv

Truly, if a picture is worth a thousand words, this short video is worth an entire book.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

The new news

Yes, I ridicule Dave Redl for being ignorant of the ways of the internet and for sashaying into Reggieland’s inbox like a bull in a china shop. It’s amusing that his petty squabble with a private community has earned him some infamy. However, it’s not this ignorance that prompted my fury.

My reason is the simple fact that Mr. Redl could have – SHOULD have – asked nicely to remedy the situation.

Maybe (duh, Brian) it’s the nature of the media to shine the spotlight on the extreme, ridiculous, negative aspects of society, and\or perhaps my pessimism is growing in general. Whatever the reason, I feel that business ethics is some unfathomable oxymoron.

Take the sad story of American entrepreneur Uzi Nissan for example. Mr. Nissan has owned a variety of businesses spanning over 2 decades, currently chairing the Nissan Computer Corporation.

As a forward-thinking businessman, Uzi registered a domain name, www.nissan.com, in 1994 to represent his enterprise. More than 5 years later, the Nissan Motor Company subpoenaed Mr. Nissan to relinquish his allegedly copyright-infringing domain name and to reimburse the company $10,000,000 in damages.

If this corporate cesspool was simply suing a man for damages caused by using his own name, it’s minutely possible that one might sympathize with Nissan Motor for simply seeking to ensure the strength of their own larger brand and that they might even be entitled to the domain. However, when Uzi Nissan registered his domain name, the Nissan Motor didn’t even exist! It was then called Datsun Motor!

The auto-maker could have offered to purchase the domain in a gentlemanly fashion. They could have made Uzi Nissan a very rich man with a tiny penance in relation to the corporation’s countless sums. A symbiotic resolution was perhaps 3 phone calls away.

Uzi Nissan, after more than 6 years of lawsuits and threats, has been granted a ridiculous ultimatum by the US “justice” system. He may retain www.nissan.com under the condition that he not use it for any commercial means.

Fuck you, judge. Fuck you, Nissan Motor. Fuck you, corporate trough-feeding and trough-filling pigs.

This is no isolated incident either. As long as people are free to purchase any unregistered (or expired) domain name, greedy corporations will try to cheat them out of them. Just ask Eduardo Perez Orue of www.wolfb.com and he’ll tell have plenty to tell you.

Today I read that Volkswagen Motor is poised to sue an artist who draws Beetles! They literally asked him to tear images of Beetles out of his long-published books and mail them to the company! This is coming from a company whose fucking name is “People’s Car”!!!

Yesterday I read that Starforce, makers of copy protection software, are suing news site www.boingboing.net for reporting the common complaint that their product physically damages some computers! I guess they don’t read [H]ardOCP.

The RIAA has sued a woman for trading music online and she’s never used a computer in her life. They’ve also sued a 13 year old girl and a dead woman.

Sue sue sue, cry cry cry. Didn’t anyone else’s mom teach them you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? Or was that just mine.

I, like everyone else, have had my fair share of altercations with dishonest companies.

Rogers Cable took over Shaw Cable whom were our internet service providers at the time. Rogers proceeded to raise our monthly fees $10, reduced the speed of the connection by 2/3, and then threatened to cut off my access because I was downloading too much. We promptly ditched them after 3 years of consumer loyalty.

I bought a Linksys router which turned out to be defective. I called their tech support department who gave me some possible solutions and advised me to call back in a few weeks if the problems remained. When I called back they informed me my 30-day refund window had expired. They jerked me around for months until I reported them to the Better Business Bureau, and then they folded like a card table. I was so sick of dealing with them that I refused their refund. I’m now very happy with my D-Link.

I purchased a cell phone from Fido last year. I was hoping to purchase one on the cheap from a third-party vendor, but Fido insisted that I had to ensure compatibility of frequencies and features for the phone to work with their networks. I begrugingly accepted the 2-year contract tethered to the reduced-price phone. Recently Fido was bought out by my favourite company, Rogers. Fido promptly switched to Rogers’ towers which were, of course, operating on a different frequency. Fido’s tech support insisted that I must bear the cost of a working phone and the rep proceeded through an unsolicited sales pitch. Weeks later I finally got in touch with a manager who exclaimed his surprise that nobody had offered me the free SIM card that solves the problem in a snap. I’m looking forward to ending my 8 years of patronage with Fido when my contract expires this June.

So, fair readers, this is where I’m coming from. I’m tired of corporations trying to step on the little guy. When such a practise becomes so prevalent in society you can be sure there is something wrong with North American priorities. Companies are rewarded for being dishonest. Individuals are punished for being assertive.

This is where I’m supposed write my conclusion. The part of the essay where the writer reiterates his introduction and reinforces his point. Sorry, can’t do it. Now that my thoughts are in perspective I can’t possibly defend speaking more softly on the matter.

The above examples are why I resent the actions of Dave Redl so very, very much. Dave, you are the epitome of the tarnished American dream. You made your own company with little-guy sweat and you’re galumphing around the internet in your elephant shoes and your battle face like a big company.

Fuck you, Dave Redl.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

David is Goliath

Blizzard game masters quoted the following guild advertisement, claiming it to be in conflict with their EULA section on discrimination by sexual orientation:

“OZ is recruiting all levels ¦ We are not ‘GLBT only,’ but we are ‘GLBT friendly’! (guilduniverse.com/oz)”

Confused by the allegation and confident that this was a simple misunderstanding, the gamer replied to Blizzard, quoting text directly from the EULA:

“This category includes both clear and masked language which insultingly refers to any aspect of sexual orientation pertaining to themselves or other players.”

To which Blizzard replied in turn:

“While we appreciate and understand your point of view, we do feel that the advertisement of a ‘GLBT friendly’ guild is very likely to result in harassment for players that may not have existed otherwise. If you will look at our policy, you will notice the suggested penalty for violating the Sexual Orientation Harassment Policy is to ‘be temporarily suspended from the game.’ However, as there was clearly no malicious intent on your part, this penalty was reduced to a warning.”

It would appear that this young woman is being punished for attempting to make a safe haven for likeminded people from the persecution of others, simply because putting these people in the same place would make them a likely target for further ridicule.

Despite the seemingly unreasonable totalitarian ruling of the company, Blizzard does in fact reserve the right to permit or deny any action on their servers. Though they have a commitment to their paying customers, WoW players are Blizzard’s guests and must adhere to the rules and judgements made by the game’s administrators.

Though they are in the right as far as the letter of the law goes, many WoW players have cried hypocrisy, claiming that pro-Christian guilds (a topic I’ve previously discussed) can be found spamming public channels with religious-bent recruitment offers to the public at large. If true, allegations of Blizzard’s skewed intolerance may come back to haunt them.

The topic of discrimination is a multifaceted one in WoW. The epic scale of the game has birthed an entire industry of “gold farmers” – services that play your character while you’re at work or sell gold for real cash. Since the most popular and numerous gold farmers are from China, and much press has recently brought the issue to light, many of the million-plus legitimate Chinese gamers have found themselves discriminated against by groups and guilds requiring applicants to say a few sentences in proper English before being accepted.

So it would appear that WoW players are bombarded with discrimination from all fronts. As the most populous virtual world in history, WoW will set precedent in its handling of such issues. Let’s hope, for the sake of cybercivilization, that the matter can be resolved symbiotically.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

Blizzard decries orc-on-orc gatherings

In fact, the technology is so powerful that various governments are preparing to incorporate RFID into passports, drivers licenses, travel visas, and other forms of citizen identification. This is very bad news for said citizens.

The positive side of RFID in identification is that many assets, material or human, can be tracked without physical contact. This allows for more efficient handling of long lines of irate travelers. It also means that receivers require less servicing as there are no moving parts or points of physical contact.

This is where the good points end. The other ramifications point to catastrophes of liberty and security – the very points argued in favour of this technology.

Historically, Walmart employees had to enumerate inventory by hand, removing items from shelves in many cases to get an accurate count. RFID enables them to do so without any contact whatsoever; tagged stock not yet unloaded from trucks could potentially be counted without even opening shipping crates. It will also be possible to determine precisely what products customers are carrying, what aisles they browse and for how long, and what Walmart products they are wearing. Couple this with an RFID Walmart card (this is speculation but with valid potential) and individual customer profiling is just a scan away.

This is the fundamental problem with RFID applications in tracking people – it can be done without their knowledge or assent. Governments, airport security, and police can forgo the unpleasantness of a “papers please” customs booth by simply eliminating the vocal request (and your accompanying response). Your “papers” on your RFID-enabled passport will be broadcast 10 metres around you at all times, readable by anyone with the proper receiver.

This is the biggest problem with the plan. Anyone who owns a Microsoft operating system knows how frequently security vulnerabilities are exploited. These exploits are usually followed up by patches to close the vulnerability. This is possible because computers are variable entities, designed to allow functionality to be modified as is needed over time. RFID tags are one-way, static chips that cannot be changed at all. As soon as the encryption is broken, your ciphered data is open to anyone with a compatible reader.

This is the crux of my alleged catastrophe. This fundamental flaw enables identity thieves and terrorists to become more powerful, flexible, and fast than ever before.

Instead of pre-establishing fake identities, terrorists could capture the identity of someone who just bought a ticket on a desired flight and immediately assume that identity. If something goes awry and the identity is flagged, another identity could be procured momentarily. Walking from one side of an airport to the other would yield thousands of valid IDs ripe for plucking.

Instead of digging through garbage for VISA slips, identity thieves could stand behind a shopper in the checkout line, scan their RFID identity, and take note of the shopper’s purchases. The thief could then use these combined data to convince a higher-up at the store to surrender even more private information about the victim, which in turn could be used to flesh out this borrowed persona for all kinds of nefarious uses – to take out a loan in the victim’s name, apply for credit cards, sell the identity to other criminals, and much more.

If you’re American you’ll likely have an RFID-enabled passport by the end of the year. You won’t be able to fly without one, unlike recent years where Americans were not obliged to identify themselves at all in order to travel. Though you can’t fly without proving your identity, you may want to ensure your identity stays safe until you allow it.

Though the technology will be applicable to countless industries and private uses, it will be up to governments to understand and limit the technology to its intended task – transmitting innocuous data that is meaningless out of context; RFID was designed for use in closed systems such as companies or warehouses.

~~~

Many thanks to those who replied to my comment on the related article on Slashdot. You gave me some great ideas and I credit you for them. Especially slavemowgli who had particularly poignant thoughts.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

Tune in to RFID – all secrets all the time!

The US Department of Justice has recently demanded of major search engines a sampling of 1 million random search terms in an effort to research the frequency of pornographic query results. The request is pursuant to the Child Online Protection Act, a much-opposed threat to individual privacy, in an attempt to homogenize search results. Many search engine operators gave in to the DoJ’s request without question, but Google has resisted, insisting the request violates their customers’ privacy.

Indeed, with search engines delving into all kinds of extraneous services such as email, shopping, video hosting, news aggregation, personals, photograph sharing, real estate, job searches, website statistics, and maps, the prospect of associating these random searches with personally identifiable information is truly frightening. Beknownst or not to we Internet users, we entrust all but our very souls to these companies, and the fact that so many of them are willing to surrender our very personal information is rather disturbing. I’ll wager most people with a Gmail account aren’t even aware that Google provides a search history service that presents a day-by-day summary of all searches performed while logged in. Users of Yahoo, MSN, and AOL search engines have just unwittingly handed all this information to the US government.

It is commendable that Google is fighting tooth and nail for the privacy of its users and for its very integrity. The company practises what it preaches, holding fast to its philosophy that “You can make money without doing evil.”

Let’s all wish Google the best of luck in defending against the threats of the DoJ, the Bush administration, and all those who would be carefree with our privacy.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

Searching your Soul

~~~

First, the good.

When it comes to Christian values vs. video games, many people are quick to think of such organizations as the Justice and Witness Ministries of the United Church of Christ; one of the 5 contributing groups to the annual “10 Worst Violent Video Games” list released before every Christmas. Considering this precedent, it was refreshing and encouraging to read Christian Gamers Online founder Kedrick Kenerly’s opinions on the topic:

“[Video games] boil down to a few things: They have a goal, they have a reward for the goal, and they have a set of rules that need to be followed to reach the goal. The violence in most games isn’t something we get worked up about. It’s merely ‘presentation,’ simply a way to convey an experience to players so they can follow the rules to reach the goal.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. He goes on to clarify his organization’s place in games:

“If you look at Christian gaming as using the online medium, I see it as just another way to go out there and share the truth of God with everybody else.”

I wholeheartedly agree that this is a fantastic medium for any social or special-interest group to meet, talk, and reach out to others. With the proliferation of the Internet, video games are growing ever more sociable, featuring co-operative and\or competitive gameplay with the option to sit on the sidelines and yak it up. Online virtual communities such as There and Second Life are not games at all, but exist solely as online forums for interpersonal interaction and discussion. These virtual playgrounds give us the ability to learn about our peers in new ways and subsequently work together to capitalize on each other’s strengths and minimize the group’s weaknesses, all the while discovering and respecting others’ individuality and worth and, simultaneously, the culmination of the group’s effort. The corporate world has adopted this ideology to an extent, as companies sometimes organize retreats to play minigolf or laser tag in an effort to strengthen employees’ collective cohesiveness and teamwork. Online games knock this concept up a notch by decentralizing the forum.

~~~

With the stage set I present the comments and policies stated by the following Christian online game organizers and designers, and my rebuttal.

The biggest argument against the claim that violent video games are harmful is that they are purely fantasy. Opponents of video games attest that not only the subject matter and the context are at issue, but also the interactivity – the action doesn’t happen until the player presses a button. This claim has been contested by many who cite a Department of Justice study proving that American violent crime rates are the lowest they’ve been in decades, and that, for an unexplained reason, they began declining almost immediately after the release of Doom – a violent video game in which the player must combat the forces of hell.

The justification behind the comments of Troy Linden of Left Behind Games are, therefore, confusing to me:

“Many people seem to have this misconception that somehow Christian means nonviolent. Look at the stories in the Bible; they’re some of the most violent and exciting epics ever written. Look at The Passion of the Christ, the most violent and most successful Christian movie of all time.”

Linden’s comments are not only incongruous with the claims of Christian morality groups who decry video games for their violence, but also ignore the proof that violence by all American citizens, presumably including the Christian ones, has decreased exponentially. Linden contradicts even himself by failing to distinguish the line in the sand between reality and fantasy. Sure, violent media has been in vogue since biblical times, but statistics seem to prove that fictional and actual violence are exclusive and have their separate ups and downs. There’s certainly been no decline in violent media since 1993. Perhaps Linden might argue that life itself is an “epic”.

Though there is little or no tie between Left Behind Games and the CGO clan, I believe I am justified in assuming that these two organizations have similar ideals (since I learned about their existance via the same news article). I therefore find it upsetting that any organization would call upon Christians’ aforementinoed lust for murder as a means to spread its message to “share the love of God and His FREE gift of salvation”. This proposed sharing is questionable, however.

Though they are indeed exclusive in ownership and governance, Left Behind Games and CGO both profess common ground in their attempt to segregate Christianity. In their Statement of Faith, CGO requires their members subscribe to the following Christian belief:

“that those persons who die in their sins without Christ spend eternity in Hell, and those persons who die with their sins forgiven through Jesus Christ spend eternity in Heaven.”

Furthermore, the group demands absolute exclusive loyalty of its members as per its What is CGO page:

“5. No dual team membership… If you are a CGO then you are only a CGO. Membership in ANY other team is grounds for dishonorable discharge. “

And further still, according to its How to Become a Member of +CGO+ page:

“Christian Gamers Online accepts applicants by invite only.”

Speaking of his company’s realtime strategy game, Left Behind: Eternal Forces, Linden states:

“The world is set in the End Times, and in the single-player game you’re fighting the forces of the Antichrist. But in multiplayer mode, you can play the other side; thus, we really have something for everyone.”

So it seems that it is the goal of these organizations to pit “us” vs “them”. You’re either for Christ or you’re the Antichrist, which, according to dogma, means you are doomed to destruction (by no less than Jesus himself, according to answers.com) and eternal damnation.

Also quoted in the article is Owen Parker, founder of the online Christian gaming community Men of God. Despite its apparently misleading name, their homepage’s Who are we? What we are all about page states:

“Men of God International is an online community of men, women and children with one purpose and that is to win souls for Jesus through a unique and growing population of online gaming.”

The gender-asserting Parker states his opinions clearly:

“A man desires to be the king of his house, the warrior, the protector, and the lover of his family. The warrior side of man, we see, abused in this world, but innately, man desires to be that warrior. I’ve talked to a lot of guys that play on MOG, and they say stuff like, ‘I should have been the one born to fight at such-and-such time.’ Others answer the call today. We have members who are serving in Iraq right now. If every man has that sense of being a warrior, it’s a common ground…”

So, if I’m understanding Mr. Parker, he’s saying that mankind – sorry, “man” – has been abused to the point where he desires to kill those outside his “family” (again, contrary to recorded facts), and is so traumatized that he wishes he could have given his life for his god sooner. Not only this, but MOG provides a forum for Christians — excuse me, “men” — with similar aspirations of grandeur to congregate so that they can discuss their manly desires to be a revered conquerer and a king. What was that first commandment again?

~~~

My purpose for bringing these quotes and my opinions to light is not to decry those with religious beliefs of any kind. I respect free speech above all and I believe it is of paramount importance that people are free to believe what they wish and to say what they please. The Internet is perhaps the one medium where individuals have the opportunity to broadcast their messages just as loudly as any established media corporation. It is with this same respect that I assert my own freedom of speech to demodulate the analog feed, as it were.

I don’t think the individuals quoted in this article speak for the majority of Christians, nor are they particularly helpful in improving the religion’s face to the world (not that it needs improving) . I’m sure their intentions are good, and that they believe they are doing the work of God as he would do it himself if he played Counter-Strike: Source.

That being said, these individuals do nothing but build brick walls between gamers. Where else but the internet do we appear physically as we (intelligently?) design our avatars? Where else are we stripped of everything but our words and actions, making us truly equals? I understand it is the way of humanity to understand the world by categorizing things into meta-data, but let’s keep that data meta by playing games WITH eachother, not AGAINST eachother.

I deplore the assertions of barbarians like Mr. Parker that we are “born to fight”. For those who subscribe to such idiocy, there are quite enough theological spats on Earth through which you can satisfy your masturbatory self-righteous inner critic. Besides, if you believe god has given you any gift, that gift must be life. Why are you so eager to give it back?

Cyberspace is so popular because it is a second chance – a second Earth with fewer restrictions. Carpe diem and allow yourself to be “born again” in this new universe.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

Birth of the Cyber Diaspora

The very infrastructure of the internet as well as organizations like the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers proves (in principle if not in practise) that unified governance is the way to go. On the internet, when laws are undermined by the laws of another country it is a simple task of relocating digital content to a new server. That’s why there’s a global epidemic of spam, phishing, and fraud.

On the flip side, should people be forced to abide by internet laws or restrictions that are in conflict with local laws? MP3 trading is legal in many countries. Blogging is illegal in others.

Water flows into the area with the lowest pressure. The only way to balance the flow is to equalize both sides. Every year the internet presents individual people with opportunities for unprecedented powers and freedoms. Will the future bring a united government serving the entire human race? A series of isolated federal intranets? Or will we retain our disjointed one?

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

Free speech prevails

Sixth Seal, a blog reviewing food, travel, products, and illegal narcotics, has recently been taken down after several years of obscurity if not infamy. In addition to surprisingly well written pieces discussing the differences between noodle dishes in Singapore and China, an odd botted beverage containing a glass orb, and the ins and outs of the Singapore nightclub scene, writer Poh Huai Bin’s blog occasionally featured educational ramblings by “guest writer” Veritas. This contributor published articles on drug use and culture which were often accompanied by photographs and even videos of the writer preparing and consuming illegal narcotics.

After 3 years of consumption and confession, Sixth Seal was featured on the front page of a major Singapore newspaper. Legalities pending, Huai Bin agreed to remove all content deemed inappropriate for public display. Though he was quick to restructure his site, his URL, www.sixthseal.com, is currently inoperable.

Though a relatively small fish in the sea of the interweb, Sixth Seal may set precedent for similar cases in years to come. The issue of freedom of speech has been the instigator in revolutions, wars, and persecution about as long as mankind has been able to vocalize, but the colossal megaphone that is the internet introduces new complications. Where is the line drawn? What, precisely, is the crime? Is freedom of speech limited to auditory and written communication or are we free to invite the world to sit at our desks?

Perhaps free speech is limited to anonymous individuals or collaborative authors. There are a multitude of websites, for example Erowid and Lycaeum, which educate in depth on the topics of legal and illegal narcotics. These websites are contributed to by the general public, providing chemical, experiential, and behavioural data and personal accounts. All the reader knows about each contributor is what little he or she chooses to share. Bin Huai has chosen to disclose his identity, his likes and dislikes, his lifestyle habits, and his visage on his website. Is it truly the illegal content that pushes his site over the edge, or the compliment of otherwise ordinary personal data?

I’ll not raise my personal beliefs on this matter. I am simply disclosing it to the public so that they can make their own informed decisions. Don’t make yours, however, until you’ve gotten to know Bin Huai a little better.

Like most web pages, archives of Sixth Seal can be found on The Wayback Machine, sans multimedia content.

This article was written by Brian at demodulated Original post:

RJ11 In