Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Privacy Government News

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 390

SpaceAdmiral writes "The Canadian government is secretly negotiating to join the US and the EU in an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The agreement would give border guards the power to search iPods and cellphones for illegal downloads, as well as to force ISPs to hand over customer information without a warrant. David Fewer, staff counsel at the University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, characterizes ACTA this way: 'If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas what would they look like? This is pretty close.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

Comments Filter:
    • A copied song--as it was not produced by the authorized agent--could be considered "counterfeit." At least, that's the closest to understanding that I can get to by guessing. It sounds like someone's buggered all their sense away.
      • Sounds like they're stretching now to stop copyright infringement any way they can.
      • by gnuman99 ( 746007 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2008 @12:21AM (#23551889)
        I'm a proponent of IP laws and copyright. But how the heck is counterfeiting and IP fit together?? Sorry, but it doesn't make any sense.

        Counterfeiting to me means items produced as a "look a like" or in similar context, without a license to use the trademark. So, candy or tires or even CPUs can be counterfeit. But IP is not, because only counterfeit is reverse engineering. IP generally gets copied exactly. So how the heck is that counterfeit??

        The only way they can apply it is if you have counterfeit CDs or DVDs or similar. But that still applies to the media marks, not the IP. The video is not counterfeit, the media is.

        Or is someone selling KDE has "Windows Vista"?

        Counterfeit and IP don't exactly make sense.
      • by alexo ( 9335 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2008 @09:01AM (#23554761) Journal

        A copied song--as it was not produced by the authorized agent--could be considered "counterfeit."

        Except that private copying of music is legal in Canada [].

        the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
                (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
                (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
                (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
        onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

        Sonds to me like the assholes in power are trying to circumvent the laws for the benefit of American corporate interests..

        Time to contact your Member of Parliament [] and express your displeasure. Snail mail works best, no stamp is needed.
    • Easy (Score:3, Interesting)

      Copied disks sold as retail are counterfeit. Copying disks breaks copyright. But it is a stretch to see how you could tell if the stuff on an MP3 player came from counterfeited or original sources.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        Digital watermarking. Not that I support such systems, but there's a potential answer to your question.
      • by Xzzy ( 111297 )
        At the simplest level, they could just plug it into a PC under their control and try to play a video. The way iTunes works, a DRM locked file won't play on an "unauthorized" PC. If the file does play, they could assume it's an illegal copy.

        Obviously there's a good chance this won't be the case and such detection methods would be easy to defeat but this is what I imagine their thought process would be.

        "If we can't prove they bought it, clearly they're guilty!"
    • they don't (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Odder ( 1288958 ) on Monday May 26, 2008 @11:12PM (#23551335)

      ISP records don't have anything to do with it either. This is naked imperialism - a power grab without disguise. It's not about "protecting" brand names, it's about silencing political dissent.

  • Fuck This (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I can't wait for the baby boomers to die so we can take our damn country back and start thinking logically about copyright law.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      It's going to be a while. People who were undergrads when napster was out aren't even able to run for president yet. When these people are the politicians and the dominant party, what new issues will they be missing out on? Will we be seen as a stodgy class that refuses to give up these stupid privacy laws that make it so that the darn kids can't join 15 sites at once? Perhaps the pendulum will swing the other way, and they'll be getting angry because we're not letting artists control their works, because n
    • Re:Fuck This (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 ) on Monday May 26, 2008 @11:46PM (#23551633)
      The baby boomers couldn't wait for their parent's generation to move on and allow them to legalize pot. Logical thinking about copyright won't happen either.

      America is moving towards an information economy. Those in power are aware of the transformation and are trying to protect future American interests.

      When the manufacturing is all being done in the cheapest places (globalization) America will only have her service economy, IP (If America owns Hollywood, she can buy and sell the world's spare time), and such control over business dealings in foreign lands as her businesses can muster and enforce.

      Can you get rich by doing your neighbor's laundry if he is doing your in return? The GDP generated by Americans doing services for Americans is only wealth in terms of employment.

      If IP is not protected, the only remaining wealth in America will be foreign businesses. Foreign businesses can be nationalized as soon as America's military isn't a major threat.* So suppose these events happened:

      1: Rampant piracy makes ownership of IP moot
      2: Japanese, Saudi, or Chinese businesses dump their bonds.

      That's it! Those two things would bring America crashing to her knees, and destroy the cultural, economic, and military might of the greatest nation on earth. There really is a 3: profit for many powerful people. This is what America's leaders are doing about the situation:

      Hiding the extent of the danger
      Misguidedly passing draconian IP protection laws
      Maintaining a large, secret technological lead (black tech: its real. No, I don't believe in UFOs)

      That's what they're doing. I pass no judgment here, I'm just saying, that is the cause of these actions.

      *Did you know that 50% of American businesses overseas (overseas divisions)are owned by the Chinese and theoretically controlled by the Chinese government? Did you know that the Saudis can take controll of foreign firms with the flick of a pen?
      • by postbigbang ( 761081 ) on Monday May 26, 2008 @11:58PM (#23551721)
        I understand IP. I understand what is theft, and what isn't. I don't abide by customs searches for somebody's IP. I bought and paid for every single piece of music I have. None were torrented, or obtained through nebulous means from a copyright respect perspective.

        And the music moguls now want to enforce the ability to check on me. With WHAT??? How can a customs agent possibly determine the MP3s that I have are, or are not purchased with validity???? THEY CANNOT!

        IP protection isn't the backbone of the US economy. It's an intangibles-fantasy to think so. That's not what my father built, his father built, my mother built, and so on. It's the asset protection mechanism of the nonsensical. It's not innovative, it's not producing return on the intangible asset, it's as flimsy as derivates. Yet I respect the concept of asset ownership, and my rights under the law as a consumer. Now some nitwit's pressured various treaty signators to look at my damn MP3 player-- where's the justice in that??????
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by thermian ( 1267986 )
          How can a customs agent possibly determine the MP3s that I have are, or are not purchased with validity

          When it comes to checking all iPods, they can't. What is far more likely is that if they have you tagged for some other problem this will mean they can then have your iPod checked over for possible infringing material.

          I'm wondering whether they will be thinking that a full iPod means the content is pirated or not.

          Also, it's not just music that can be stored on a iPod, or similar music devices. You can stor
      • Re:Fuck This (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mOdQuArK! ( 87332 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2008 @12:46AM (#23552077)
        I strongly disagree with your assertion that IP protection will "protect America's future". If anything, IP protection will strangle America's ability to compete with foreign competitors.

        There's even a precedent: when America was entering the Industrial Revolution, it built up a great deal of its powerful industrial base by "stealing" inventions from Europe. The European countries protested a lot about the U.S. stealing industrial secrets, but that didn't stop the U.S. from using those ideas to leapfrog its competitors into an economic powerhouse.

        Doesn't that sound similar to the relationship that the U.S. has with China right now? What could the U.S. possibly offer China that would be worth China deliberately ignoring all those good inventions that it can use to build itself up?

        If America really wanted to maintain a technological lead, it would be investing in educating its citizens in hard math & science, investing in applied research, and helping U.S.-only companies use the fruits of that research.

        Instead, we get "leaders" who defund public education & finance anti-science propaganda campaigns, and who seem to think that America can keep a position of "world leadership" by waving its military dick around. Between those kinds of leaders & the idiots who blindly follow them, America has pretty much set itself up to be given the "Most Deserving of Becoming a Has-Been Superpower" award.
  • by Mongoose Disciple ( 722373 ) on Monday May 26, 2008 @11:07PM (#23551281)
    I mean, all the standard talk about Big Brother and the futility of fighting music piracy and the ethical problems of fighting the means of music piracy etc. aside...

    IPods full of American music smuggled past Canadian customs? I'm sure that's exactly how Canadians are getting illicit copies of American music. (And vice versa.)
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26, 2008 @11:16PM (#23551375)
      IPods full of American music smuggled past Canadian customs? I'm sure that's exactly how Canadians are getting illicit copies of American music.

      If you've got a better way to do it, please share... iPod Shuffles are not the most comfortable things to hide in one's ass.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by neoform ( 551705 )
      Shh, make them think that's how we get our pirated music, I don't want them to know I actually have the mp3s shipped via FedEx.
    • by garett_spencley ( 193892 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2008 @01:34AM (#23552381) Journal
      What really bothers me about these international agreements is that, at least in Canada, they are often signed without public involvement. While I don't have any specific examples, I've heard of cases where the Canadian charter (most supreme law in Canada, similar to the Constitution in the US) was over ruled by international law.

      I mean, besides writing my federal representatives what can I, as a voting citizen, do about this ? Making amendments to the Charter and Constitution is a REALLY BIG DEAL and not easy to do. But signing international treaties which can over rule our most supreme national laws is standard practice.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zwei2stein ( 782480 )
      I think you don't get it.

      This is part of "Make everyone criminal". If not enough people are breaking rules, you invent some more rules that they have to break in order to live comfortably.

      It produces fear and guilt and thought fear conformity and obedience (you don't want to stand out and give anyone reason to go harass you because you know there is something to be harassed about). It gives base for bullying inconvenient people: they can use your filled ipod to give you minor bitch slap as well as to do mon
  • by NoobixCube ( 1133473 ) on Monday May 26, 2008 @11:07PM (#23551283) Journal
    How would border guards be able to tell an illegal song on an iPod (i.e. downloaded without buying it in any form), from a song ripped from your private CD collection (which as the RIAA would have us believe, is illegal too), from a song bought from the iTunes store?
    • A hash would be my first thought.
      • by hacker ( 14635 ) <> on Tuesday May 27, 2008 @12:22AM (#23551897)

        A hash would be my first thought.

        They must be smoking hash was my first thought.

        Seriously, how are they going to take my ipod of 8,000+ songs, mp3s, ogg files, Linux .iso images, podcasts, etc., hash them all and compare those to the ones in their database?

        I change the ID3v2 tags, add missing ID3v1 tags, store lyrics and album art INTO the actual song file itself, and so on. All of these modifications change the hash. Now because my hash doesn't match theirs, I'm somehow guilty of copyright infringement? I don't think so.

        Time to replace the stock firmware on the ipod with one that embeds AES-256 onboard and has to be unlocked before you can play any music from it.

        Encryption is the only way to stop this madness.

        I have nothing to hide, and therefore they have no reason to look.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Simonetta ( 207550 )
          Seriously, how are they going to take my ipod of 8,000+ songs, mp3s, ogg files, Linux .iso images, podcasts, etc.,

          They would just take the iPod. Their opinion would be "fuck you and your 8,000+ songs, mp3s, ogg files, Linux .iso images, podcasts, etc.,"...

          All your base belong to us.

          Sounds like (bad pun I know) that the Canadian customs and border patrol is going into the used iPod business. Just taking them away from people and then reselling them, maybe erased
    • How would border guards be able to tell an illegal song on an iPod (i.e. downloaded without buying it in any form), from a song ripped from your private CD collection (which as the RIAA would have us believe, is illegal too), from a song bought from the iTunes store?

      They wouldn't necessarily be able to, unless they're obviously labeled something like: Madonna-New_Album_ReleaseGroup

      This action brings two thoughts to mind.
      1. The war on Copyright Infringement has succedded where the War on Terror & War on Drugs have failed.
      2. They're essentially making a civil enforcement matter into a Federal enforcement

    • by Animaether ( 411575 ) on Monday May 26, 2008 @11:30PM (#23551511) Journal
      Think of it like speed traps. You, presumably, sped. The speed trap captures this, takes that moment-in-time shot, and you get the bill in the mail. You are, at this point, guilty until proven innocent. Yes, you are guilty, you were speeding; (important) technicalities such as calibration times of the speed trap, etc. aside... you were speeding.

      Now it's up to you to 1. challenge this and 2. provide evidence that either you were NOT speeding, or that you were speeding for a damned good reason which exempts you from getting a ticket.


      So to get back on-topic...
      "How would border guards be able to tell an illegal song on an iPod"
      If it's in the AAC format with Apple's Fairplay DRM - which they license to nobody and all that.. then it's probably legit.
      If it's an MP3, it'll get added to the list of 'probably-illegal' bits of music.

      "from a song ripped from your private CD collection"
      1. Challenge it, 2. provide evidence that you, in fact, are in posession of that CD.

      "(which as the RIAA would have us believe, is illegal too)"
      If that is indeed the law - which, last time I checked, it's not - yhen you're screwed even in the above case regardless.

      "from a song bought from the iTunes store?"
      Presuming you purchased an unprotected MP3 - that purchase should be listed in your iTunes Account. 1. Challenge it, 2. provide the evidence - name Apple if you want.


      Now, personally, I don't think this will actually be checked all -that- actively. Lines at airports and the like are queued enough as it is and they're strapped for money just to check for things like, you know, actual terrorists, drug smugglers, etc. That's not to say I'm complacent - I already sent in my letter of protest several weeks back, but we're not exactly part of the G8 countries so that's probably going to do fook all good - but I don't think that the first kid with a few MP3s on his system is going to be shipped to Gitmo either.

      Now, with that out of the way, the clauses regarding the restrictions of privacy tools use online (and, possibly, offline; that TrueCrypted drive you've got and such) I find far, far more unsettling (and was the majority of the body of my protest letter; personally I can't really justify saying "I'm only downloading a movie! What's the harm!?", but I did point out the ridiculousness of involving law enforcement officials in this, never mind the penance, and my disagreement with those clauses on those grounds).
      I'm still waiting for them to hook this into a "That way we'll get the terrorists, too!"-type defense argument.

      But maybe they're not, and they're expecting people, to just fume at the worst bits, then blank those out and just leave it with the anti-piracy bits which might be grudgingly accepted.
      • AAC format (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Simonetta ( 207550 )
        "How would border guards be able to tell an illegal song on an iPod"
        If it's in the AAC format with Apple's Fairplay DRM - which they license to nobody and all that.. then it's probably legit.

        It's pretty unlikely that any border guard is going to be checking the format of any random song on any random traveler's iPod. Most will most likely happen in the worst case is that the border crosser will have to get a 'certificate of compliance' from a record store or Apple store. You'd bring your i
    • by neoform ( 551705 )
      Itunes has proprietary DRM..

      a better question is how they'd know if I had paid for the music I purchased from sites like or, which are 320kbit MP3 files with no labeling that distinguishes them from any other MP3 I have..

      Sure, I can carry around my purchase receipts, but.. fuck that.
  • Um, okay... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26, 2008 @11:09PM (#23551303)
    So when I travel, do I have to carry proof of purchase for all the stuff on my iPod? How exactly do they plan to enforce this?
    • So when I travel, do I have to carry proof of purchase for all the stuff on my iPod? How exactly do they plan to enforce this?
      Exactly like they currently enforce the present requirement to be able to prove that you first left the country in possession of $WHATEVER_THEY_THINK_YOU_BOUGHT_ABROAD.
  • I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crazybit ( 918023 ) on Monday May 26, 2008 @11:10PM (#23551313)
    how will they manage file encryption.

    Just one more excuse to induce more fear in the normal population.
  • by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Monday May 26, 2008 @11:12PM (#23551331) Homepage Journal

    Amendment IV []

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    • by CustomDesigned ( 250089 ) <> on Monday May 26, 2008 @11:25PM (#23551465) Homepage Journal

      Article VI: ...and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
      Any provision of the constitution can be done away with by getting 51 Senators and the President to sign a treaty. Failing that, you can get 5 judges to interpret it away (as in the recent decision allowing states to seize private property for any economic purpose).
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by corsec67 ( 627446 )

        anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

        And how exactly does that allow a treaty to remove a part of the constitution? (Crappy politicians defining words however the hell they want aside)

        See also Reid v. Covert []
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by westlake ( 615356 )
          And how exactly does that allow a treaty to remove a part of the constitution?

          By making it explicit that treaties with foreign powers are no less the "supreme law" of the land than the Constitution itself.

          In the simplest terms, the federal government is and always has been supreme in international affairs.

          You may be able to argue that you being treated unfairly, that too much is being exposed, that you being asked to asked to accept more, much more, than the treaty requires.

          But if the government simply

      • by salesgeek ( 263995 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2008 @12:21AM (#23551893) Homepage
        Any provision of the constitution can be done away with by getting 51 Senators and the President to sign a treaty.

        FALSE. Treaties have the same strength as a law passed by congress, but are not exempt from the Constitution.
        "Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision." -- Foster vs Nelson

      • No they cannot. Un-Constitutional treaties conflict with the Constitution, which is itself more potent than any mere law. It is in fact the creating statement of the government itself, and no mere law can contradict it and remain standing.

        Un-Constitutional judicial rulings are void, even if today's generation of judges, executives and legislators are too anti-American to be governed by that simple fact. It's just "might makes right", and not actually right or just. And likely to eventually be overturned, as
    • by quarrel ( 194077 )
      IANAL but I believe its been covered else where - the bill of rights gives rights to US citizens. This won't help a Canadian popping over to see the bad side of Niagara falls with their ipod.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
        Rights are universal. Whether the US government is obligated to protect the rights of anyone other than a US citizen is a matter of much debate, all inconclusive. But abusing those rights of any citizen makes a mockery of liberty. At the hands of a US government employee under official orders, such a mockery makes a travesty of the basis of the US government as a government created by American people to protect those rights.
    • Didn't you hear? The Constitution doesn't mean anything any more. From free speech, to firearm rights, to search and seizure. But it was nice while it lasted.
      • It still means everything to me. I'm not conceding our homegrown tyrants their ultimate victory by conceding them the Constitution, even if they have the upper hand for now.
    • Amendment IV

      There are a handful of exceptions to the 4th Amendment.
      exigent circumstances
      search incident to a lawful arrest
      the automobile exception
      -the container exception (containers in an automobile)
      plain view/feel

      And the one that matters in this case: []

      At the border, the only search that requires probably cause is a "non-routine" physical search. Which basically boils down to anything more invasive than a pat-down of your body.

    • It all comes down to the definition of unreasonable.
    • Um, Bush has effectively nullified the Fourth Amendment.

      Administration Asserts No Fourth Amendment for Domestic Military Operations []
    • Amendment IV

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, ...

      ... does not applies in Canada.
  • But these things seems to be somewhat against the idea of a democracy at this point.
    • by Freaky Spook ( 811861 ) on Monday May 26, 2008 @11:25PM (#23551467)

      It is just more stupid American foreign policy.

      Just today I read that the the drug war fuelled by America's love of cocaine and marijuana is resulting in thousands of people getting killed in Mexican gang wars over smuggling routes, yet the US War on drugs policy persists, keeping the black market trade the biggest and bloodiest industry in the world.

      On the north border they want to remove the rights of people just to make a few cocaine snorting media exec's happy.

      And we have seen what US foreign policy has done to the middle east.

      Its no wonder so many people hate the US, their politicians have systematically contributed to most of the crap that is currently going on in the world all in the name of consumerism and captialism. Its not about democracy at all, its all about how cheap their gas is and what boat they can buy with their annual bonus.
  • A few links. (Score:5, Informative)

    Regarding the matter, some additional source material for consideration:

    A couple of these links are several months old; this has been brewing for awhile, and action needs to be taken now to stop it.
  • Can we just stick all the music and movie industry execs in prison now and have done with it, rather than having to shoot all those politicians later? I mean, it would save several years and a lot of trouble.
  • I say let'em review every single electronic device we have, ipods, computer, phone, hearing aid, pace maker and watches. It will take a week to cross a border or take a plane -- the economic reality is a far greater deterrent to this kind of ludicrous action than all the belly-aching complaints. Mule
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Txiasaeia ( 581598 )
      You seem to think that this would be a problem for US Customs. I travel to the US by car once every two weeks or so, and it doesn't matter to them if they need to hold up a car for five seconds or five minutes; their shift ends when it ends. It's more work for each individual traveller to the States, but all in all, it's still a day's worth of work to the average customs officer.
  • Cause you know the court is going to declare it unconstitutional.
  • ... looks like its time to buy a travel ipod to go with that travel laptop.

    Of course, pity the person who legally format shifted music they own in accordance with various fair use or national copyright doctrines around the world.

    Or pity the person who legally purchased mp3's without drm; unless they carry all of their purchase reciepts with them!
  • My MP3s do not have 'skanky' stamped on them. If I rip one of my CDs it is OK, but if I have a rip of someone else's it does not get stamped 'illegal'. They will just guess, and based on the fact that there is unlikely to be anyone with an iPod full of legal tunes, they can just collect iPods for their friends and families.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27, 2008 @12:05AM (#23551777)
    I seem to recall that Alan Cox, and probably others, were so disturbed by the DMCA in the US that they vowed never to visit the US again. So, the Linux Symposium has been held in Ottawa for some time.

    Will this force Linux conferences to be held outside the US, Canada and the EU? Of course Alan Cox lives in the EU. It really makes one not wish to even travel through the region, which is pretty difficult if you think about air travel hubs, etc.
  • When will we get a notion of priority in this sick world? We've got so many issues in this world, much to do with security and protection; Please tell me why pirated music will take priority when our current ACTUAL border security is a joke? I'm imagining a scene where some guy is getting shook down for copied music while hoodlums rape a woman nearby unquestioned. Lets get a list of frikkin priorities here.
  • redundant issue (Score:2, Informative)

    by uniquegeek ( 981813 )
    There's already a system for dealing with illegal material, and there are very good reasons for requiring a warrant for such searches. The issue in question is already covered. Is this nonsense really necessary?
  • by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Tuesday May 27, 2008 @11:20AM (#23556645) Journal
    The baby boomers built the country? Please! They were sitting around protesting, free-loving, and smoking dope while their parents and grandparents actually built what we have today. No one on this planet has the same entitlement mentality as United States baby boomers. No one.

    I thought that WE had little respect for our elders, but you punks take the cake (and eat it too). We didn't "sit around protesting", we marched around protesting. And what we protested was what the previous generations had fucked up.

    We were being drafted to be cannon fodder for a useless war. Some of us volunteered for that useless war out of patriotism (I did). The protests finally eneded thath war. Meanwhile you little whiners are too busy chasing filthy lucre and getting your nipples pierced and foreheads tattood to care that an oil man becaise President and started a useless war for the sole purpose of enriching himself. At least my dad's generation's rich people who starte dthe Vietnam war thought )prehaps correctly) that they were fighting communism, a laudible goal to them.

    My generation's protests stopped the war and made the President resign. Where are your protests of the Iraq war? Your stupid generation doesn't even have to be drafted!

    Some of us protested the rape of the environment. We got the Clean Air act and teh Clean Water act passed. We got CFCs banned. What are you gutless wimps doing about global warmning? Buying SUVs!

    My generation built sna is still building houses, like the one you live in. The parts of the electrical grid my dad din't build were built by those who followed him.

    My dad's generation invented computers, but my generation pur those giant building sized machines on your desktop. My generation put VCRs and CDs and DVDs on the narket. My generation made the entire cell phone infrastructure.

    My dad's generation smoked cigarettes. My generation smoked pot. Your generation smokes crack.

    Your generation uses my generation's music in their fucktardedly stupid commercials. Neither my nor my dad's generation did that.

    My generation was pretty ignorant of history, but we were pikers when it comes to your generation.

    What has your generation done, except invent internet trolling?

MESSAGE ACKNOWLEDGED -- The Pershing II missiles have been launched.