by Mr Penguin | Jan 13, 2022 |
On Tuesday a democrat in New Hampshire’s house introduced a bill in support of free software. The House Bill (HB) 1273 would be a step forward for software freedom. It proposes to help protect the user freedom of New Hampshire residents in a number of important ways.
- Prohibits the state government from requiring residents to use proprietary software, whether in remote court appearances, tax filings, standardized test-taking, coursework in public schools, or matters relating to any state benefits
- Forbid employers from using non-compete clauses to prevent their employees from contributing to free software
- Prevents state agencies from mandating the use of non-free JavaScript
- Prohibits NH law enforcement from participating in the investigation or prosecution of copyright claims brought by proprietary software developers against free software developers
- Forms a state commission to promote the use of free software in state agencies
Now much of the legislation is a bit wishy-washy with no real teeth, but there are some parts that in theory if passed could have a beneficial impact on our freedom. Other parts could be a little more problematic for those who are libertarian and do not believe in the use of violence to achieve social and political objectives (outside that of a defensive nature anyway). Fortunately most of the bill is tailored toward government and is more defensive in nature than not. Some not so great parts would likely also not have much real world impact.
One part in particular should get libertarians everywhere excited. While it probably was not intended by the legislator proposing the bill, a democrat, it would none-the-less be an amazing step forward in reducing the harm of violent thugs in government. The bill would ensure that users have the right to access the source code for any device utilized in the creation of evidence. This would in effect result in evidence being thrown out whereby the government could not produce the source code to the device that created it. Evidence from such devices as radar guns would no longer be valid in court for all practical purposes. The reason for this is that the suppliers of such devices will not release such source code and thereby prosecutors won’t be able to comply with the law. Before the socialists get upset by this though it’s something everyone should be concerned about. It’s already well known that these devices are full of bugs and this would likely result in evidence being invalidated everywhere if the code were released- not just in NH- and so the device manufacturers would never want to do this short of significant improvements to the code. The solution is to pass this in more states and force manufacturers hand-else let this stand as a means of eliminating a law that should not be in that there is no party that can actually show injury.
To have any real chance of seeing this pass the legislation would likely need to be significantly trimmed. Some parts are problematic such as the forbidding of employers from using non-compete clauses to prevent their employees from contributing to free software for instance. This would likely be unpopular with many state legislators who otherwise support software freedom while also supporting ones right to negotiate a contract free of government interference. Maybe there is a way to put this into law that were more freedom-focused, like letting such terms be unenforceable via law, but either way much of the legislature isn’t going to want to interfere in the private affairs of employee-employer relations either way. I suspect this is likely to have little impact in either case given non-compete clauses within the free software world are already taboo and many of us (myself included) would not sign (or require it) such in an employment contract.
One interesting aspect of the bill is that it would prohibit NH law enforcement from partaking in investigation or prosecution of copyright claims against free software developers. While I can in good conscious support this and would go farther to argue for the elimination of copyright it’s unclear to me where this is currently an issue. Maybe it’s connected to the breaking of digital restrictions such as would be the case with something like DeCSS. A free software program that breaks encryption on commercial DVDs. This falls under copyright law and might be prosecuted by state agencies although that said it’s normally a federal offense. State law enforcement can generally however prosecute federal crimes as I understand it or otherwise partake in federal investigation and prosecution thereof. Of which is more common I do believe with civil asset forfeiture cases.
In spite of some of the issues with the legislation a small contingent of libertarians showed up to more or less in support the legislation as well as others from the free software community. One Jon “maddog” Hall, the Board Chair for the Linux Professional Institute, for instance came out and spoke in favor of the legislation.
Jon “maddog” Hall is the Board Chair for the Linux Professional Institute
The main theme surrounding the hearing seemed to be that of software security and the cost of implementation. New Hampshire’s head of IT for instance also spoke from what appeared to be a purchased lobbyist point-of-view. Declaring more or less that it would be of significant burden and cost to transition to free software (while saying they’re already using free software humorously). The opposing side of course pointed out the truth in that there is always a cost to migrate from one release of a program to another, but it’s not significantly different from that of migrating to free software. Not to mention that while free software isn’t about price, but the liberty, security, and control, this twisting and confusing of the bill was quite disingenuous. The long term costs are reduced as no license agreements need be acquired. Commercial support is generally available too despite the head of IT trying to confuse the reps by comparing commercial software to free software. These are for all intensive purposes one and the same. You can acquire commercial support from Redhat for instance for free software and even much of Microsoft’s own code is based on free software. This bill was about libre, not gratis where libre means freedom, and gratis means price.
While the head of NH IT argued against free software on the basis of features, commercial support, and security the reality is these are more often than not mute points given features can be added to free software unlike the proprietary software he favored. Security bugs can be fixed not at the whim of a particular company, but that of either, you, the community, or the commercial entity you contract with for said free software (example: Redhat). Yes- you can buy free software and many companies do. Just because something is libre doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t pay for its development/support. And unlike proprietary software free software can be seen, read, and audited by third parties with or without the consent of the company producing it (once released). These are the things that ensure security- not anti-virus software or proprietary software vendors of which the former is a kin to putting up a fence and expecting it to stop ants from coming onto your property. The head of IT didn’t stop there- even implying that free software was insecure through association with Bitcoin. While not said outright during the hearing he referenced recent socially engineered attacks on municipalities. Somewhat recently there were reports of municipalities being ‘hacked’- which were in reality social engineering attacks primarily involving the traditional banking system. It was only after the attacks occurred and the money paid by employees of the municipalities to criminals overseas that said money was utilized to purchase Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. If there is a flaw- it’s not the software- and it’s certainly not the result of it being libre.
Video Of The Hearing On House Bill (HB) 1273
by Ian | Jan 2, 2022 |
As we reported here at Free Keene last year, nine peaceful activists were ticketed for violating the unconstitutional ordinance against “picketing” outside the NH governor’s house in Newfields, New Hampshire. All but one of the nine have fought the bullshit charge.
Last month, the first “not guilty” verdict came in the case of Frank “Footloose” Staples. Now, five more of the “Newfields Nine” have also been found not guilty. Libertarian attorney Seth Hipple filed a motion to dismiss where he argued the Newfields picketing ordinance is unconstitutional, but the robed woman ignored those arguments when finding the defendants not guilty, which means the illegal ordinance remains in place.
Here are the videos from the trials of five of the Newfields Nine, both trial dates combined into one video:
by Ian | Dec 26, 2021 |
Footloose Arrested at Sununu’s House
Whenever the state gang can identify the leader of a protest, they are inevitably targeted for attack and now Footloose has been arrested and ticketed multiple times. First, he was ticketed for attempting to hold a peaceful candlelight vigil near Sununu’s house, along with eight other people, aka “The Newfields Nine”. The police called this a violation of the town’s “picketing” ordinance, which was written specifically to protect Sununu from that dreaded free speech.
Just over a month later, he was arrested for “disorderly conduct” at a Shire Choir caroling event near Sununu’s house. All he was doing in the incident was speaking. According to police, he spoke too loudly.
In November, he was put on trial for the “picketing” and “disorderly” charges. I was there to record the full trials. The robed woman in Brentwood district court took the cases “under advisement” and ruled nearly two months later. She found Footloose not guilty of “picketing”, but conveniently didn’t rule on the constitutionality of the ordinance. She found him guilty of “disorderly conduct”, a Class B misdemeanor. He plans to appeal, but the next step is sentencing on April 7th at 9am. Stay tuned here to Free Keene for the latest.
First up, the “disorderly conduct” trial:
Here’s the “picketing” trial: (more…)
by Ian | Dec 23, 2021 |
Jason Short, in 2014 outside Phat Stuff DEA raid.
In the most pleasantly surprising news of the year, the Keene Sentinel has broken a story about Keene Police lieutenant Jason Short advocating mass civil disobedience regarding the city’s recently passed mask mandate. Though the Sentinel piece appears to want to shock readers with Short’s opinions, those of us who have engaged with him over more than a decade of peaceful civil disobedience activism are proud to see his evolution.
The Sentinel reveals that Short posted the following to his facebook account:
“Remember the bad guys in movies don’t know they are bad, they think they are doing the ‘right thing’ for the benefit of society. It is only when the ‘good guy’ stands up to them that they realize they are wrong. Citizens need to stand up and stop simply complying to this nonsense mandates.”
The rest of the Sentinel piece is designed to gin up outrage that a police officer dared to openly speak against the city gang’s precious mask ordinance. However, surprisingly, Keene Police chief Steven Russo actually covered for Short rather than throwing him under the bus, explaining to the reporter that it’s Short’s right to express himself as Short doesn’t lose the right to free speech just because he works for the state. Russo claims, “Lt. Short will enforce the Ordinance consistent with my guidance and in the same spirit as all of our Officers regardless of his personal feelings”, but doesn’t say what his “guidance” is. There is a good chance Russo’s “guidance” is to encourage Keene police to use discretion regarding enforcing the ordinance.
Many people, including those railing against Short online for expressing independent thoughts, simply do not understand that all police officers have discretion. Discretion is the ability for each officer to decide whether to enforce any given statute or ordinance, with few exceptions. As I understand it, generally, police officers are only obligated to enforce certain violent felonies. So, even if Russo tells Short to enforce the mask mandate, Short can still use his discretion and the worst than can be done to him is he’d likely get a stern talking-to or perhaps reassigned to the night shift.
Keene Police Officer Jason Short, Civil Disobedience Advocate
City mob boss Elizabeth Dragon was even approached by Sentinel reporter Caleb Symons for comment on whether Short could be disciplined, but she wisely refused to return his calls, as she probably doesn’t want to admit there’s nothing the city council can do if the police refuse to enforce their ordinance. From what I understand, Short isn’t the only police officer who feels as he does.
A decade ago, Short was the antagonist during Derrick J Freeman’s “Victimless Crime Spree“, arresting Free Keene blogger Derrick J in Central Square for open possession of cannabis. In 2014, as the DEA was raiding then-Main Street business Phat Stuff, Keene police were running cover for them and I confronted Short outside the business about his role in the situation. During the conversation, I asked him how he feels about a productive downtown business being destroyed by the DEA, and he told me, “what I feel don’t matter”. I responded that it does matter, which is why I asked him for his opinion.
Now, more than half a decade later, Short appears to have changed his tune, and for the better. He’s not only expressing his opinion about bad law publicly, he’s also taking the correct position – that the mask mandate is evil and needs to be disobeyed. That’s because good people disobey bad laws and good cops refuse to enforce them.
If Jason Short can go from bad guy to good guy, maybe there is hope. Whether or not activists like Derrick J have had a positive influence on Short over the years, kudos to Short for taking a stand.
by ridley | Dec 22, 2021 |
Above: Here’s what NH Independence is competing with…the U.S. government and its torture chambers.
Below is a letter-to-editor I e-mailed to the Keene Sentinel a week ago…It does not yet appear to have published there, so here is a copy.
Dear editors at the Sentinel:
This is a response to your editorial against the New Hampshire Independence Amendment, which – if passed – would let all NH citizens vote in a referendum on whether we continue to be ruled by Washington. Why do you think this issue should be decided by dead war criminals rather than your neighbors, arguably acting within the rules laid out in the U.S. Constitution? Though silent on independence, it reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Well here we are, trying to peaceably exercise these powers through the state house, then the polls…what’s there to be against other than D.C. and its enablers in the press?
Grrr…sorry to get so blunt…the Sentinel seems one of the few papers that still has some independence and frontpage/editorial separation. You deserve respect for the fact that I can say this without likelihood you will suppress the letter. But ultimately it’s questionable when a proposed vote on “who should govern where” is treated as Forbidden and Shocking…but starting five wars since 2011 is just business as usual. Write your congressman; vote for a different chickenhawk. Don’t color outside the lines, don’t imitate the successful Estonian or Gandhian independence drives.
The Washington empire, like Moscow and London before it…has made independence look good by abusing the people who live under its domination. It has turned most New Hampshirites against the central government, which has an approval rating hovering somewhere between that of syphilis and leprosy. But an informal September poll by the state’s largest paper showed support for the Independence Amendment at 71%.
If D.C. didn’t want an independence drive in New Hampshire, it wouldn’t have shut down four square blocks of residential Keene to put a drone through the window of America’s #25 talk show. It would not have exacerbated shortages by demanding most New Hampshirites submit to medical experimentation as a condition of employment. It would not have used our tax dollars to run a TORTURE CHAMBER at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.
Google *these* FedCrimes, and explain to us again why you think rule by Washington is more desirable than rule by Concord.
Best,
Dave Ridley
NHexit.com
Winchester
by Ian | Dec 17, 2021 |
Packed city committee meeting on mask mandate, supermajority unmasked.
Last night, the full council heard the proposal and made changes, ultimately passing the amended version 10-3 with councilors Michael Remy, Janice Manwaring, and former cop Thomas Powers voting against. In addition to ignoring the majority of the people of Keene who opposed this mandate, the ten councilors voting for the ordinance also ignored the 70% of Keene business owners who registered their opposition in a survey conducted by the Keene Downtown Group.
Prior to the final vote, councilor Michael Remy proposed making the mandate a recommendation, which the council shot down. Councilor Kate Bosely then proposed the ordinance target individuals for penalties instead of the businesses themselves, as the 2020 mandate did. Mayor George Hansel cautioned the council against Bosely’s proposal saying he thinks targeting the individual would make the ordinance unenforceable. Hansel said targeting of businesses is relatively easy and can be done by the goons in code enforcement, whereas to target individuals would mean that the police would be the ones enforcing the ordinance. Hansel may be aware the police are less than interested in enforcing it – at least according to two officers who told me that personally in the last year or so. City mob boss Elizabeth Dragon also recommended against Bosely’s proposal as it would require snitches to call the cops on a mask-free person and the city gang has no system to track the number of warnings given to people for violations, as Bosely requested the ordinance have a verbal and written warning be issued to the person prior to issuing a $100 ticket. However, councilors voted for Bosely’s amendment, 10-3, meaning individuals will be targets for enforcement instead of businesses.
70% of Keene Business Owners Against Mask Mandate
The ridiculous Keene city gang even says the mask must be worn by people playing indoor sports.
The new mask mandate does not apply to gyms or other businesses with memberships that are technically not open to the public. It also has a carve-out for medical exemptions and people aren’t required to produce documentation to prove it. The 2021 mask mandate ordinance goes into effect on Monday, December 20th.
As I recommended at the committee hearing, people who don’t want to wear masks need to refuse to obey this ordinance. It’s likely not going to be enforced, and if it is, then people who are ticketed should demand their trial. If convicted, they should refuse to pay the fine. Make these tyrants work for their convictions and don’t ever reward their thuggery by paying them fines. The worst that they can do is jail you for a night, but the judge will nearly always let you do community service instead of go to jail – as long as you’re willing to go to jail. This isn’t legal advice, just my experience.
Here is full video of the testimony in front of the PLD committee last week as well as the full council’s discussion, amendments, and votes from last night. Don’t miss the part where George Hansel actually begs people to wear masks “in their house over Christmas”. LOL – just say NO!
by Ian | Dec 14, 2021 |
NHexit.US Logo
As reported today by the NH Exit blog, the next step is the bill will go before a state house committee for public hearing. In a historic first for all 50 states, people of New Hampshire will have a chance to speak to the state reps about secession – whether for or against.
If passed without amendment by 60% of the NH House and Senate, CACR 32 will appear on the ballot with the following wording:
Are you in favor of amending the first part of the constitution by inserting after article 7 a new article to read as follows:
[Art.] 7-a. [Independent Nation.] New Hampshire peaceably declares independence from the United States and immediately proceeds as a sovereign nation. All other references to the United States in this constitution, state statutes and regulations are nullified.
To pass, it must receive at least 2/3rds of the vote. Visit the NHexit.US post for the full story.
