Slashdot Mirror
U.S. House Says the Internet is Terrorist Threat
GayBliss writes "The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R. 1955) last month, by a vote of 404 to 6, that says the Internet is a terrorist tool and that Congress needs to develop and implement methods to combat it."
Holy crap, that title and summary is misleading.
I just read the bill (linky, it's not that long), and the Internet is mentioned only once:
That's it, nothing else. The bill's purpose is to establish a committee to study violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism, and to assist federal officials in training and education efforts to prevent such things.
If you disagree with spending tax dollars to do that, then I don't have a problem with that. If the committee comes up with some outlandish plan to regulate the Internet as a result of their research, then I agree we need to get worked up about it. But the bill does not say that the Internet is a "terrorist threat," and it sure as hell does not define the Internet as a "terrorist tool that Congress needs to develop and implement methods to combat."
Sponsored by a Democrat.
Consponsored by 10 other Democrats (and 4 Republicans).
Passed 404 - 6.
The summary:
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
Wow, sounds like something we really shouldn't be looking into!
The bill contains the word "Internet" ONCE in the Findings section, in the sentence:
"The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
Hmm. If someone could explain to me how that isn't a factually correct statement, I'm all ears.
Also, if someone could explain how that implies that the "Internet" is exclusively defined as a terrorist tool, as is the implication of the summary, that'd be great.
It says what it says: "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
True or false?
And we, as a nation-state that ostensibly values our own existence and structures of government, shouldn't be looking for ways to prevent "violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism"? Of course it all matters how it's done. But it appears there was a good deal of consensus here -- almost complete consensus -- and no one can argue it was done for publicity or because of pressure, since this was a relatively low profile bill.
Conclusion:
Terrible, terrible, terrible summary, from someone who probably buys the hype that every homeland security or terrorism related law is a secret plot to create a police state, shut down the internet, or trample the Constitution -- anything other than, you know, actually legitimately trying to find ways to do what they say they're going to do in the text, and which is the actually the charge of many components of government (e.g., counterterrorism).
Why not include all the articles about the Senate version, too, and how it eviscerates free speech, guts the Constitution, creates a world of "thought crime", and how the mainstream press are covering it all up because they're administration lapdogs, and how liberal Democrats really don't understand what they're authoring, sponsoring, and passing (or, better yet, how Democrats are really far right, and Republicans are ULTRA, super far right, and no "liberals" are left in Congress)?
Or maybe we can just use slashdot as a pulpit for more crackpot garbage instead of any real debate?
The House tends to do stupid things that the Senate will ignore or stop.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
If the Internet is labeled a terrorist tool, you can bet we'll see a great deal more of regulation and wiretapping on the part of the US government against its citizens, while also inadvertently providing a shield for tyrannically governments such as Syria and the People's Republic of China, who can just use the "terrorist tool" excuse for their repression, and point to the US.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
... the US House of Representatives is a terrorist threat. They've done nothing but bend over for the Bush regime for years now, and I call that aiding and abetting. So there!
.nosig
against this. He said he would never vote for controlling the internet in general.
But I guess he voted for the terrorists now.
I'm sure glad we had the Firehose to filter out crap like this.
Oh, wait...
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Of all the times to need mod points... This is among the most sensational, FUD filled summaries I've seen on /., and that's saying a lot.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
How did this submission get green lit?!?! This is completely irresponsible. Cripes Taco, go back to posting dupes or something.
is this war profiteer.
Slate has a pretty decent write-up about the bill.
I visit slashdot for two reasons now:
- Force of habit to see the lion's share of interesting articles related to science and technology, even if some are a bit old.
- To see what politically driven garbage gets submitted and accepted to the main page today, and maybe even have a good laugh.
No one here, is interested in actually discussing the real merits or drawbacks of this bill. Just spreading sensationalist lies based in the belief that any law related to terrorism or homeland security is really interested in oppressing Americans for purposes of control, and nothing else.
When you're that jaded, to the point you really believe that, I guess I can see how it wouldn't be possible to have any real debate or intelligent consideration of the topics.
..defines the human body as a terrorist tool that Congress needs to develop and implement methods
to combat.
The Internet is a communications tool, just like radio, the telephone, and the telegraph.
I'm sure all have been used by insurgents, terrorists, and rebels.
These same tools are used every day for good purposes.
*YAWN*
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You must be new here.
That's exactly why everyone thinks they are fucking stupid, and ignore everything they do.
...how this is "stupid"?
I'm not saying it is or isn't, but from a reading of the bill, well, let's just say I don't see what other people seem to be pulling out of thin air.
Thinking over that line in the bill a bit, it occurs to me:
Communication of *any kind "has aided in facilitating violent radicalization" -- because all communication can be propagandistic.
The question vis-a-vis combating terrorism is whether the (pun) *net effect of interconnectedness via a series of tubes is to increase or decrease radicalization.
It's really a question about whether you trust the good information to get out at a faster rate than the propaganda.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Christianity has, and will continue to be the single biggest provider of GENOCIDES on this planet !!! ...
... unless you first read Chomsky's !!!
Islam was never used to justify the eradication of whole indigens, either Americans (North & South), Australian, and so on
And for the love of Buddha, please dont even try to get me started on the 'greatness' of USA
After all, we helped build it, and look at how we're terrorizing the world right now. Damn right it's a terrorist tool - *OUR* terrorist tool.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Yes, but are you ready to declare a "WAR ON THE US HOUSE"? This war would not be a complex social problem, but declaring war always fixes the problem. (war on drugs, war on terrorism).
"Sirs, I respectfully suggest we begin an operation to download the Internet for further analysis. Budgetary requirements to fulfill this necessity will begin at 500 Billion USD, adjusted for our bad dollar value to approximately 800 Billion USD."
"I concur! Commence downloading! The sooner we start, the sooner we'll get to the bottom of this Internet conspiracy!!"
[[Thunderous applause]]
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
It's a good thing they aren't a nation, or we'd need them to declare war on themselves.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Last time I checked, there was not 404 Democrats in the house. So a vote of 404 to 6 would most likely include Republicans as well.
And I'd like to know why the 6 voted against it - after RTFA (you did, didn't you?) it seems like the bill is worthy of passing.
and I have heard that terrorists have used AIR to breathe when planning attacks! Ban air now!!
Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
Does anyone else find it amusing that the number of votes it passed by was 404?
I guess to reflect what will soon happen to the internet...
(and the captcha was "congress". hmm...)
It's a trap!
Is the commission's job to think of the children and do something? Yes. In fact, the very next piece of the legislation says precisely that. While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States. If the internet has already been singled out as the only medium specifically mentioned, as it's own Finding no less, in the bill and the very next statement is a call to combat, then I think intent is quite clear and written plainly.
Clearly, the discussion is spying. Or, if you prefer, intelligence gathering. Listening in. Tracking, recording, sorting, organizing, identifying, and then prioritizing targets "that the Commission considers important."
Now, I appreciate your effort was probably to interject some modicum of rationality in analyzing the summary as given. But I do think your conclusions are more incorrect than the story you chastise. The summary of the story is entirely correct. To summarize the summary, it says the bill identifies the internet, and only the internet in this instance, as a source of terrorism and then goes on to create a commission to combat it.
And that's exactly what the bill does say.
The summary doesn't talk about any "outlandish plan to regulate the Internet." You, sir, created that strawman from thin air or dark places all by yourself. But perhaps you're merely prescient on that issue, given the consistent and repeated actions of the federal government. But don't use that to slander the story submitter who more-or-less accurately summarized the legislation.
"`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs."
Well, that's it then. This bill renounces the motivations behind the Revolutionary War.
I want a law banning Independence Day celebrations, any burning of the Gaspee in effigy (Tea in the harbor? Wimps. _We_ burned a British tax ship to the friggin waterline), Bunker Hill battle reconstructions, and anything else related to "violence in the name of ideology"
What a fucking joke.
--
BMO
No one cares what they do, or what they say, because they're all so fucking stupid... seriously, they are all dumb as fuck, and it's not going to change in the near future, so just ignore them.
Ted Kaczynski would fix these internet terrorists.
He'd fix them good.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Propaganda is all over the net. It doesn't take much effort to find it for any PoV,a nd often times, it finds you without you looking. The trickier propiganda is the more subtle kind - the kind that is either well developed or subtle.
But even trickier than that, is propaganda with correct spelling! I don't get it, you spelled it wrong six times, but also once correctly? What's up with that? Is it a signal to your al-Qaeda cell, or is "propiganda" propaganda for pigs or something?
you must stop the internet...
to stop the internet, you must...
STOP AL GORE!!!
art is science made clear. -cocteau
You're a fool if you can't see that the internet is a SIGNIFICANT force multiplier for organizations much smaller than traditional governments, such as terrorist networks.
There's this paradigm shift in progress now...some academics call it the "Information Revolution". Perhaps you've heard of it?
But the premise of your statement is all wrong, because the summary is complete garbage and you obviously didn't RTFA (surprise). No one wants to "ban" the internet, or anything close. They simply concluded that the internet is one of many elements that aids in radicalization and "homegrown terrorism", and the bill is looking for ways to study and understand these phenomena.
Ooh! Scary!
Poor Al Gore - looks like he invented the very weapon that will destroy the US.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
I think thats spelt
Allah-u-Ackbar
Translation: God is the Greatest
Even christians would agree with that
The description on this article and the actual bill passed are completely unrelated. Come on Slashdot -- I DEPEND on you. Which is probably my fault. I also get my news from the daily show. That could be a problem too.
Never mind the Internet, they forgot to list our imaginations.
Dear GayBliss,
You are a tool. No, really... you are.
Sincerely,
Mark
Now google for "reuters propaganda" and voila, propoganda, on the net. Offcourse the sites you find are also propoganda.
'Terrorist' propoganda is very easy to find, if you never come across it, well, you must have had your head in the sand. Given that you are apparently ignorant of this, why should we attach any credit to the fact that you think no terrorists have ever been recruited over the internet.
It is like you saying "I never seen porn on the internet and I don't think Y" don't matter why Y is, the first part clearly labels you as someone whose views of the world are a bit limited.
If you want to combat that this bill you are going to have to be a bit more convicing then this. "I never seen something that I could easily find by google and futher more, without doing any research whatsoever I think it doesn't happen anyway, so I am against it".
Yeah, next up, we ask newborn babies their opinion on sales tax.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
404: Intelligence not found.
From the floor speeches:
"National commissions have a long and successful history in this country...the National Commission on Terrorism, which operated in the early 1990s, was on the cutting edge of the terrorism debate. That commission provided the Nation with the blueprint of how to address the threat of terrorism long before the September 11 attacks."
Yeah, that one really worked out well for us.
They've done nothing but bend over...
You gotta admit, it's pretty hard to stand upright without a spine.
What?
That was the whole quote. YOU are the type of nutter he's talking about. When he says he comes here for laughs, it to laugh at you. When he says that people here are not capable of intelligent debate, he's talking about YOU.
You proved his point perfectly and didn't even realize you were doing it.
This is clearly a hoax. I read the bill, and it says "terrorist" and not "terrrrrrrist". This definitely isn't the work of the American government. Quick, pull the other one.
The Banjo Players Must Die!
is a terrorist threat
Its called Yellow Journalism. While Slashdot has never been a bastion of journalistic purity, this particular article is way over the top.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
if we feel uncomfortable about it, we could send it to Syria or Egypt. they will know how to make it talk.
or they could use that Narus dohicky and torture an exact copy
...and only outlaws will have internet. (no I didnt RTFA)
Ahh, but you neglected to search for the term "webbertubes", didn't you?
What a perfect example of shaping a story based on your bias. I don't remember seeing anywhere in the bill where it said "The Internet is a terrorist threat." So your headline is purposely misleading. Shame on you. This is what the bill says about the internet. (3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens. Anyone disagree with that statement? If so, you really have no clue. Plus, when it really comes down to it "The internet has aided in facilitating" pretty much EVERYTHING. You can insert whatever you want in there and almost always be stating fact. Like say, the internet has aided in facilitating you yelling at me about this post. SlashDot: Just report. Do not try to shape thoughts and opinions through your headlines. Even if others are sending you in these links and articles you are the one posting it and you should be responsible enough to change things that are obviously bias. Like this headline.
I'll try anything once. Twice if it tastes good
So, by my score we have 404 'page not found' clueless fucking morons to 6 who actually have some reasonable measure of a clue. Leave it to our government to use the 'terrorist threat' excuse to potentially force new laws to govern, regulate and snoop on their citizens who use the Internet. Welcome to the United Fascist States of America (UFSoA).
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
Look I've been reading slashdot for years now, but you guys really need to tighten up your editorial. You keep crying wolf when it comes to anything government related and the cracks are starting to show. I know you guys hate Bush with a passion(I'm not too fond of the guy myself), but you can't let hatred be the prism you view everything through or you become that which you hate. I've read the bill and really tried hard to figure out how you've drawn such conclusions, but don't see anything that would warrant such a sensational headline. I'm starting to see the lefties turning into what they despise most; a PROPAGANDA MACHINE! Don't let it happen guys!! I don't exactly see things the way you do, but realize the value in having other's opinions. The problem is your opinions; more and more everyday; seem to have less basis in reality and therefore aren't even worth arguing over. You're starting to look screwy. In conclusion; take a breather before hitting post on your next sensational headline.
Heh, Congress 404'd the Internet.
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
Congress is a tool; (enough said)
Congress is a tool of terrorism;
Congress is responsible for the war in Iraq
ask Carl Rove, he said it, it MUST be true.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955%22/%3E%3Cscript%3Ealert(%22NOT%20SECURE!!!!1!1%22)%3C/script%3E i dosnt think the site is completely secure against xss
written by a common bitch named gaysomethingorother. fucking faggots are blowing things out of proportion to try to push their agenda? no, never, not here. fucking dick smoking faggots.
Okay....Who let the Ipod firmware engineers into congress? We have Apple's firmware on the Ipod touch and Iphone preventing "Accidental Linux use" on the devices...and now we have Congress actively passing legislation to prevent "Accidental terroristic propaganda" ....WTF?! It's not spelled out in the article, but it seems that the con-gress (intentional hyphenation) is overly worried that the internet and its decentralized and uncontrolled nature could spawn terroristic propaganda sharing...hmm..imagine that. So...when do we get congress v.1.1.2? Anyone want to help me obfusticate a bill I'm thinking about proposing into legislation? :)
Remember, it's not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you...
..Is aiding terrorists to breathe.
By outlawing air we can prevent terrorism.
Write your congressman.
No, the Internet is not "just like" radio, the telephone, and the telegraph. It's different, which is why people use it rather than telegraphs. Someone listening to a hate-filled screed calling for a race war on the radio can't be sure how many other people are listening. He doesn't form friendships grounded in the shared hatred, because he's not interacting with the rest of the audience. Sure, the telephone can be used to provide that interaction, but generally it does not create connections between like-minded people. Rather, it allows people who have already connected to continue communicating. The Internet combines the mass communication aspect of broadcast radio with the two-way communication aspect of the telephone. It has enormously aided recruiting for white supremacist groups from which the violent portions of the movement have recruited members. Mind you, I don't think this is any sort of condemnation of the Internet, nor do I think it calls for censorship or wiretapping. I'm not sure I'll agree with whatever proposals come out of the bill's proposed committee. But it makes sense to acknowledge that the Internet is different in important ways from previous forms of communication and that those differences are useful to hate groups. It also makes sense for the government to investigate this issue.
This is why we, the techs and the geeks, need an organization that can both educate and lobby Congress.
It was just a few years ago that someone asked "Who represents you, the geeks, to Congress?"
He started an organization and it died because all the people who complain about things like this don't bother to provide support to groups that would help prevent this kind of thing.
If you haven't learned yet, you can't unring a bell. Once something becomes law (DMCA, Copyright extensions, PATRIOT Act, etc, H1B laws) it is damn near impossible to get rid of it.
Quit bitching about it and do something about it. Help create a group to educate and lobby Congress on our behalf.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Isn't this the same type of legislation that was used in the 60's-70's to infiltrate anti-war movements and incite violence to give the Government more power to arrest and prosecute those people who would have been perfectly legal vocal objector's had the Government not paid to motivate them?
Maybe it's just a bit too conspiracy theorist, but the balance between investigating violent radicals and harassing innocent dissenters is a fine one, and this bill sure looks like a step well over that line.
Of course, any elected official who votes against this bill will get labeled as a pro-terrorist wack job, but at least they are willing to stand up for our civil liberties.
It is not the government's duty to investigate, manipulate, and punish those who disagree with it.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
news at 11.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.
(a) In General- Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new subtitle:
`Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
`SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
`For purposes of this subtitle:
`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.
`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
`SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.
`The Congress finds the following:
`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.
`(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.
`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
`(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.
`(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.
`(6) Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.
`(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.
`(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
`(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.
`SEC. 899C. NATIONAL CO
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Thank you! $22 Million to study what is already known or a slippery slope to restricting freedoms by committee. Forgive me if I don't give the benefit of the doubt to the former and start pondering the later. Here's a good article on the bill: http://www.slate.com/id/2178646/
It's Not News It's Fark: How Mass Media Tries to Pass Off Crap as News
I want Web1.0 back...back when spam was just an annoyance, slashdot did news for nerds (and not BS politics for idiots), and one could find actual communities online.
Oh well.
.... Because according to GWB, if they didn't then the terrorists win.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
This is indeed just a sensationalist piece of Murdoch-esque crap; I'd expect it from Digg but not Slashdot.
Submitted this unmitigated piece of tripe? Oh wait, some fellow by the name of GayBliss. Guess the name sez it all. If you're both then you can buy this garbage as something of consequence here at /..
Guess we ought to submit really interesting human related stories like the English teacher about to get Flogged for letting her students name a teddy bear Muhammed. Now that should really bring out the ire in some fanatics here.
This was one hell of a piece of misinformation. I was thinking why would they need a bill to to say that the Internet can be used as a terrorist tool? Are we going to see bills on guns, knives, forks etc, and just about everything imaginable, declaring them terrorist tools now!?
Thanks for verifying the content of the bill!
Not on the same topic but pretty similar. It talks about the security of the wireless access points in the neighborhood...
:P
I thought it applied pretty well to the FUD-ridden summery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI6CCulapyQ
Check out here.
If the FBI asks, you didn't hear it from me.
my insights may be modded Funny, but at least some of my jokes are modded Insightful
Yet people do, there was an intresting case of a palestinian girl a while back, she was treated in Israel for something, then was recruited and tried to get into Israel with a bomb belt, she was caught at a checkpoint and tried to blow herself up but the device didn't work (the vid of it is amusing to watch until you realize you are watching a young girl trying to turn herself into so much red goo). The irony being that she tried to blow up the people who helped her. No, she was not raped by Israeli soldiers, no her brothers were not shot. As normal as is possible to be in that warzone, she was (well still is thanks to a bad bomb and Israel not shooting heron sight) a normal girl
If you try to make sense of her story, it pretty much becomes clear that yes, she is mentally ill. (well or an average teen girl, it is sometimes hard to tell the difference. Is there one?)
I wonder how many others like her did succeed. Simply disturbed teens who got taken advantage off.
Is there really that much difference between the way this girl was recruited and how loverboy's operate (young men who get girls to fall in love with them and then get them to prostitute themselves)? Both seem to prey on the emotionally unstable.
Read the testimony of McVeigh (Oklohoma bomber) are these the words of a sane person?
There are plenty of mentally ill/disturbed people around people desperate for anyone to tell them what to do.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8dGftYb0s4XWdUMRdIVs3vh1CKAD8T6JUUO0 By AMIR SHAH - 6 hours ago KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- U.S.-led coalition troops killed 14 road construction workers in airstrikes in eastern Afghanistan after receiving faulty intelligence, Afghan officials said Wednesday. The coalition said it was looking into the incident in Nuristan province, but did not immediately comment. NATO's International Security Assistance Force said it has conducted airstrikes against Taliban fighters in the area, but did not say when.
How long before a web site promoting a road-blocking sit-down protest against a land mine factory, or the like, gets everybody prosecuted as domestic terrorists for promoting business-impeding "violence" against a _corporation_?
This story will be re-posted in about 20 days
"Free Luna!"
Thread was here. There is some decent coverage to read/watch at DN & infowars.
"then I agree we need to get worked up about it" --- you mean, like you got worked about the Patriot Act, boo? It's small changes, one by one, from liberty to tyranny. You can write nice text, but your thinking is crap, and your ignorance does no good either.
While the editors at /. may have chosen an inflamatory title for this, who believes that this won't be used by government for all the wrong reasons ? At least the Patriot Act still had ties to international activities. This legislation stands only to quell revolution. I believe an argument can be made that we aren't really threatened by takeover by radical Islamist factions, which leaves only the rest of us citizens. While no one has been really paying attention, the groundwork for martial law has been laid. I know, I'm out of my mind, but I do not believe for a second that this bunch won't pull that trigger.
Let's just take the point of view that we should just ignore what the government is doing. Good plan. The only way that we can band together as a nation is the internet. If the government can't control this medium, they can't ontrol us. The only specific item in this bill refers to the internet. The rest is so vague that it could find application in just about any situation that threatens the government. Remember, this doesn't say that it looks to stop violent groups, just ideas that may, at some point, incite violence. The clauses are so vague that they almost require interpretation by the courts.
Why are we arguing about /. title for this article, and not what's happenned to our country ?
What the heck? Well in that case, lets ban talking, pens, paper, phones, or any other form of communication too! OMG terrorists are using human speech and are TALKING in person to communicate. We must control and ban all talking in any language!! ZOMG! /sarcasm
Screwdrivers and printing press also tools of terrorists. Must be combatted as well...
Judging from past successes of "War on..." campaigns, I predict the US House will exceed 1000 members in 3 years!
What do you mean "it doesn't work like that"?
Translated from political-speak:
The Internet has things we don't like, so we're going to study how to censor it. How do they do it in China?
I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
Do we really need another commission adding to the cost of the government?
I think it's relatively safe to say that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has failed to stop dangerous china made products from entering the markets, and if a commission can't audit and successfully background check and test products that come in a container, and they only need to test one of each, not every single product, am I to believe that Homeland Security can audit and background check humans coming in on ships, planes, cars, foot, etc by the thousands, if not millions, where every person has to be checked?
Depending on your perspective, you can say that the 911 Commission has failed in that their report suggestions haven't been implemented or followed and the few suggestions that have been followed have been either for political reasons or just been detrimental to American citizens.
I'm sure someone who pays attention can find plenty of other commissions that haven't done a thing other than cost money to the taxpayer.
Yes, the internet may be used as a terrorist tool, but fundamentally, regulating this part of our lives takes away from the first Amendment. The internet is just as much of a terrorist threat as the US mail, and even newspapers. I just somehow feel threatened by our Government trying to use scare tactics to get regulations in areas that would otherwise be left alone. There is a terrorist threat almost everywhere a person goes, and I'm not just talking about the local 7-11.
WWPD - What Would Picard Do?
I read the only comment in the bill that references the internet and can only say DUH! That is like saying Fox news promotes fascism or water is generally wet. I don't think it deserved its placement on /.
are they talking about dump trucks or tubes here?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
since Bush gets the blame for everything else, including hurricanes..
How about moderation points for the articles since the /. editors can't be bothered???
If you regulate the internet, filters, what have you, you may prevent people from using it. If they aren't using it you don't know what they're doing.
This is Bill with no teeth. It's authorizing funding for a committee to study what other countries are doing to combat internal, homegrown terrorism and what could be done in the US to help with the threat. The majority of the bill involves salaries and how the commission should be setup. There are no legal authorities granted or reserved. The Slashdot story is just so much muck-raking and fear-mongering.
For the sake of Peace, the Sword.
You obviously haven't been looking hard enough...
http://www.bigdeadplace.com/
That in Boston, jaywalking is a terrorist offense, that is, if you are carrying whiskey or other hard liquor (greater than 120 proof).
In fact, it's a terrorist offense anywhere in the world. The USA PATRIOT act makes 'disruption of public order.... involving a flammable liquid' a terrorist offense. Technically, double parking is a terrorist offense because it involves a flammable liquid (the gasoline in your tank) and a disruption of public order.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
all that whoreabull doughbullspeak reminds reminds us of that old sci-fi book depicting the georgewellian era of billionerrors spewing greed/fear/ego based scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys every time they move their crusted lips.
no matter, the creators will prevail, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, as it has always been/will be, since/until forever. see you there?
When you have a big nebulous problem, how to you attack it? By picking away at the little piece which suits you. Typically what suits you is that it is in like with some other political agenda and/or fills your pocket with money.
Violence is a problem in our Society... so they enable gun control. Does it really help? No. But we did something.
People are fat and lazy in our Society... so they take away soda in schools. Does it really help? Dubious, but we did something.
People are nervous about terrorists... so we try to micromanage the internet which is one of the many vehicles they use for communication. Does it help? Probably not. Someone had an agenda to micromanage the internet, and this is how you do it. Terrorists switch to smoke signals.
,Dave, for providing a much needed voice of sanity. More particularly, you provide a voice of age, a voice that has been around more than one semester. This site is loaded with just-old-enough-to-drink mavericks who have embraced a political position built on the premise that the USA is PRIME EVIL and the source for all the world's ills.
Thank You.
damaged by dogma
From the bill itself (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955):
SEC. 899B.(3) "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and"
skip to (8) "Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents."
Notice the key word "SHOULD" (instead of "must") in (8). "Should" = yeah, it's a good idea, but we really don't have to if we don't want.
TRANSLATION: The internet has aided in facilitation violent radicalization, and any measure taken to prevent it CAN violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens. IOW Congress thinks they can violate your rights, necessarily including censorship and monitoring of you and the internet.
For those poo-pooing this article, learn to be Americans and put 2 + 2 together. Your 'public servants' love it when you don't.
Is /. being run by Fox News these days?
does this make Al Gore public enemy #1?
would help prevent this kind of thing.
What exactly is the thing that needs to be prevented?
Did you read the bill?
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
Wow, you really greased that one. Recognizing the fact that terrorist organizations use the internet (Al-Qaeda and other less well known organizations do use message boards, chat rooms and other internet based tools to aid in recruiting and planning, it is a known fact) does not mean that Congress wants to shut down or censor the internet.
You also very effectively ignored a later finding:
Now, we will need to watch that they follow through on that, but that they acknowledge the fine line that they will need to walk gives me some hope.
Clones are people two.
proof the "silly season" is well underway.
TERRORISTS are a terrorist threat, thank you.
the Internet is just another tool, like the athletic shoe, the water bottle, the jet airplane, the hanging chads in Florida, etc etc. at some point, wacko bin loonies found that out.
since Congress can't tell the difference, it appears the terrorists have won based on superior intellect.
or, perhaps, if Congress decided to start a farm, they'd die in spectacular accidents the first time they tried to milk the bulls....
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Translation: God is the Greatest. Even christians would agree with that
Yes, that's true. Christians, Muslims, and Jews all worship the same God. And athiests who pretend to be Muslims, Christians, and Jews use religion and the faith of the faithful, pretending to be faithful themselves, to further their own wealth and power. Pat Robertson, George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, and that guy who runs Israel all come to mind. Never trust a preacher in a $5,000 suit.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
It establishes a commission, which will study some things, and suggest some things, any or all of which are required to be Constitutionally valid. It also calls for the establishment of a vaguely defined academic center to study the problem.
It doesn't prohibit anything. It doesn't call for the prohibition of anything. In theory the commission could come back with suggestions to prohibit things, but a) they might not - they could come up with monitoring strategies, figure out why the terrorist propaganda works on some people, and provide counter-propaganda strategies, and b) suggestions of prohibition would still have to become law.
Commissions are generally a way to look like you're doing something, when in fact nothing is being done.
So unclench.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
What brought this up all of a sudden? Did the congressional members finally see this report on the Anonymous gang?
More Twoson than Cupertino
The article's authors defended their research, claiming that their work was the only active study of the death toll, and that this is more accurate than passively counting reported deaths.[26] They cited a number of factors that could lead to smaller figures from other sources; for example, the Islamic requirement that bodies be buried within 24 hours of death. They claim that the sources of bias in their study push the figure down.
An Oct. 11, 2006 Washington Post article[4] reports:
Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true," and added that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have." ORB survey compared with Lancet studies
See also: ORB survey of casualties of the Iraq War
On September 14, 2007, ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent UK based polling agency, published an estimate of the total casualties of the Iraq war. The figure suggested by ORB, which was based on survey responses from 1,499 adults, stands at 1,220,580 deaths, with a margin of error of 2.5%. This estimate, although conducted independently, and using a different polling methodology, is consistent with the Lancet findings.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Oh, and I hear people are phoning each other to generate terrorist plots. Better regulate and eavesdrop on that too! And hey, let's not forget CB radio! Power grid...cable TV... man, the list of networks just grows and grows...
You really should keep up with current events. Congress has been Democrat controlled for a little while now. Find some other way to blame Bush kthx.
One of this generation's greatest thinkers, the comedian Gallagher, I think said it best:
"There's a reason 'Congress' begins with the word 'con'. 'Con' is the oppsosite of 'pro', so 'Congress' must be the opposite of 'progress'."
My friends, wiser words have never been spoken.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
A really digg-worthy headline though. I must commend whoever put it together. Would have hit frontpage on digg in 3 seconds with misleading garbage like that.
It's a shame that the sensationalism in the summary diverted the discussion away from the substance of a genuinely SCARY piece of legislation. How about this instead:
." ."
"Congress Overwhelmingly Approves Thoughtcrime Bill"
>By a vote of 400-6, Republicans and Democrats found the spirit of bipartisanship in passing a bill to study thoughtcrimes and how to combat them. . . .
If you care about Freedom of Speech, this should be setting off alarm bells all over the place! It's also another nice example of how the Republicans and Democrats are basically the same party when it comes to wars, eroding civil liberties, fiscal irresponsibility and anything else that screws over the American population.
"DEFINITIONS: (2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change."
Environmentalist views must therefore constitute "violent radicalization" because fringe groups like ELF have committed acts of arson, vandalism and sabotage after adopting an environmentalist belief system and have perpetrated violent acts to bring about political and social change. I suppose anti-war views are going to become illegal as well if a street protest turns violent and some people get arrested? That's violence, it's ideologically based, and the goal is to bring about political change.
"FINDINGS: `(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
OK, so adopting certain political views (violent radicalization) facilitates violence and the Internet helps facilitate the adoption of certain political views. Therefore, we need to regulate the Internet to prevent this from happening. Right?
And the scariest part of all:
"SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES . .
`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens . .
WTF is this "In General" crap? Does that mean they'll "attempt" to respect civil liberties, but may simply ignore then as they see fit? Why does this need to be explicitly elaborated in the bill when The Constitution is still (supposedly) the supreme law of the land?
You COMPLETELY missed the point of the bill, and jumped to wild conclusions. I can't even stomach arguing your idiotic points, and I doubt anyone else can.
Please, start watching more C-SPAN, stop reading blogs, and try to get half a clue how our government actually works before putting your silly conspiracy theories together.
Other equally important tools we need to cut at the source include air, water, food and reading & writing. We freedom-loving nations of the world must unite to prevent the weaponization of all these things before it's too late.
No need to get worked over it today, only get worked up over it when it REALLY is used against americans, and not used to get 'turrorists'.
This bill will be put into place, and then you'll have the 'Law OBEYERS' (tm), start their ranting threads about "You should obey the law, failure to do so is criminal. Criminals shouldn't have rights, yada yada yada".
You know, like the ones where people are complaining about 'aliens', starting the thread off with 'Illegal aliens are criminals....'.
They're only criminal because some third party marginalized their actions and labelled it 'illegal'.
This bill will do the same, it will be the basis for marginalizing the actions of those who wish to have privacy on the internet. It will be the basis for marginalizing the actions of those who organize decent against those currently in power.
It will all be done with the 'claim of protecting us against terrorists'. "To keep us safe".
The new era version of 'What about the children'
U.S. House Says the Internet is Terrorist Threat
So we are on a list now? Damn! Can we still fly?
The point of this group is to find ways to do something about "terrorism" - they have identified the internet as part of the problem, therefore something WILL be done about it. Unless someone wakes up and interferes.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Dude, the one righteous thing about this mostly bogus bill is the creation of a Center of Excellence. A truly bodacious idea indeed. Party on.
In Antarctica the streets are made of gold. It is the beginning and the end. Antarctica is the only land in the world where wars aren't fought. A peaceful place where you are truly free.
`SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.
`The Congress finds the following:
...
`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens. Why specifically name the Internet? We could substitute the word with any of the following: Postal system, library, school system, etc. And now your suggestions, with my own emphasis around portions people are having trouble reading.
`(3) The US Postal Service has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
`(3) US public libraries have aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
`(3) The US school system has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens. This sets a horrible precendence and seeds the idea that the Internet must be controlled or even dismantled. What kind of 'precedent'? Is the Congress's finding incorrect, or are you just afraid of the implications you made up?
YOU are seeding the idea that "the Internet might be controlled or even dismantled."
What about air? I mean, terrorists are breathing it, right? Maybe we should regulate it? What about water? Oh, man...those terrorists have infiltrated EVERYTHING!
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.
(a) In General- Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new subtitle:
`Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
`SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
`For purposes of this subtitle:
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
The U.S. House of Representatives and Congress are a terrorist tool and the rest of the world needs to develop and implement methods to combat it."
Read Carroll Quigley's, Tradgedy and Hope A history of the World in our time, if you can find it. The Macmillian Company 1966.
From the introduction:
"...[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less
than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the
political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. this system
was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in
concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The
apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations....
"It must not be felt that these heads of the world's chief central banks were themselves
substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians
and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised
them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial
powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called
'international' or 'merchant' bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own
unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and
national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of
their agents in the central banks. this dominance of investment bankers was based on
their control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own countries and
throughout the world. They could dominate the financial and industrial systems of their
own countries by their influence over the flow of current funds though bank loans, the
discount rate, and the re-discounting of commercial debts; they could dominate
governments by their own control over current government loans and the play of the
international exchanges. Almost all of this power was exercised by the personal influence
and prestige of men who had demonstrated their ability in the past to bring off successful
financial coupes, to keep their word, to remain cool in a crisis, and to share their winningopportunities with their associates."
I could hardly believe what I was reading. I sat in the bookstore and read until closing
time. I then bought the book and went home where I read almost all night. For the next
twenty-five years I traveled throughout the United States, Europe and the Middle East
following one lead after another to determine if the incredible words of the professor
were really true. While serving as the Editor of a scholarly journal on international
affairs, Director of the Center for Global Studies and foreign policy advisor for a key U.
S. Senator in Washington, D. C., I conducted over 1000 interviews with influential world
leaders, government officials, military generals, intelligence officers, scholars and
businessmen, including corporate CEOs and prominent international bankers and
investment bankers. I went through over 25,000 books and over 50,000 documents. I
learned for myself that the
Are you so afraid of "terrorists" that you forgot about free speech and due process?
I'd like you to tell me any constitutionally valid outcome of this study. Monitoring and list making violate your right to due process in the same way current "terror" watch lists do. They create a new class of criminal that can be stripped of rights without trail.
The models for action are not comforting:
There is nothing here but cowardice and malice. I am ashamed of my government and hope this silly invitation to run away domestic spying and precrime insanity is defeated. Crimes are impossible to predict and should be investigated after they are committed. Anything else is an oppressive waste of resources.
The planned budget is on the order of one billion dollars if we can believe the $1/citizen x 4 years on the bill's page. The loss of liberty these idiots are championing will be much more expensive.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Notice the tags:
badsummary, internet, politics, usa, lie (tagging beta)
Really? "Should not" is the strongest language you want to use? Not something like "must not"? Really?
And does this actually need to be written into the bill? Have we gone so far that we need to remind the government not violate the Constitution in enforcing legislation? Really?
Well since the Politicians think the internet is a series of tubes perhaps we need a plumber? Someone get Nintendo on the line, we need that Italian Plumber.
You know, it's pretty easy to tell legislation's bad when it would make the Founding Fathers enemies of the State.
HR 1955 may be the most dangerous piece of legislation I've ever read, precisely because it's both so broad and so vague. "Broad and vague" coupled with "corrupt and guns" is a bad mix. (If they want to look for a cause of homegrown terrorism, they could start there.)
The other big problem with this, as with all "terror" legislation, is that it's the entity that's terrified that's making the decisions. And by definition, a terrified entity is operating under the control of their limbic system - which means by definition they're not thinking rationally.
And you know what terrifies governments most? Independent thought and change.
So now we have "broad + vague" + "corrupt + guns" + "irrational + terrified of independent thought and change." Regardless of the stated intentions, how could anyone think any good can come of this?
The Internet is named as a terrorist tool in the same sense that airplanes are terrorist tools, which lays the legislative ground for restricting access to the Internet the same way as access to airplanes. No-access lists, screening, content searches, all of it. Internet TSA, anyone?
But it gets worse.
The Act (since I have Read The F*cking Act) defines three terms:
"Violent Radicalization" - "adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change."
"Homegrown Terrorism" - "the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence"......"in furtherance of political or social objectives."
"Ideologically Based Violence" - "the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence"..."to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs."
And the problem is that any idea or behavior, from someone's point of view, fits those descriptions. And again, the people making that decision are the terrified, irrational ones.
So you wanted to march in an antiwar protest? Terrorist. Organize a boycott of a dangerous product? Terrorist. Simply suggest in a public forum that the people elect a different government? Say, terrorist, you and your online forum collaborators would look good in orange jumpsuits. (And remember, we already eliminated habeas corpus.)
While this Act simply establishes a Commission (though one with unlimited data gathering powers and operating explicitly outside any oversight), the biggest problem is that the Act is essentially a political lemma, in that it asks that all agree that all of these things are always bad things. So in the future, when real criminal legislation is proposed with real, criminal consequences for any of these behaviors, the essential preliminary of discussion of "why do we need this at all?" never happens. We've all already agreed that all these things are always bad, and we'll have a permanent Commission and a "university-based Center of Excellence" always reminding any doubters that all right-thinking persons must believe this is obviously so.
If you want to know why this bill is so dangerous, make this helpful symbolic substitution: replace "violent radicalization," "homegrown terrorism," and "ideologically based violence" with "independent thought" and "change."
Then read it again.
"Sec. 899B (5): Understanding the motivational factors that lead to independent thought and change is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States."
The Free Press provides access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
What, the free, uh.. I mean the _press_ in countries that start with "Ir"?
Freedom of Speech provides access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
You mean the freedom of speech in... uh.. WHERE again? Is that statement true ANYWHERE? I don't see any difference between a "Press" and "The Internet". I'm sorry, you don't know the difference? Seriously? Who writes for the Internet? Do terrorists freely publish propaganda in our press? Am I getting through to you? One definition of "propaganda" is "speech by your political opponents". Political speech is, of course, the most highly protected form of free speech. No, that's not even A definition of "propaganda", thank you very much.
Here's what Oxford American Dictionary says...
prop-a-gan-da
noun
1 chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
[bullet] the dissemination of such information as a political strategy
2 (Propaganda) a committee of Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church...
I don't believe you meant #2, and derogatory, biased, or misleading speech is NOT the most highly protected form of free speech. Seems to me the bill is facially unconstitutional. Have you lost your damned mind? Are you calling Congress's findings unconstitutional? Can a Congressional finding BE unconstitutional? Incorrect, maybe.
From the H.R. 1955 that about THREE people in this whole forum actually read: `SEC. 899C. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE.
`(a) Establishment- There is established within the legislative branch of the Government the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism. Are you calling their ability to establish this new commission unconstitutional? Is there something in (b) through (s) that's wrong?
The summary listed here is complete bullshit. I'm amazed it survived the firehose! The bill has nothing driectly ot do with considering the intertubes a terrorist threat, and has everything to do with constricting DHS and preventing so-called home grown terrorism.
This sig no verb.
Man, the terrorists have take over the world.
Last month I decided to never fly again, with a good reasons, terrorists have used airplanes as their vehicle to deliver death.
I am surprised our protecting government has not banned airplanes yet. I am sure they will, though.
Last month I decided to never drive a car again: I know from authentic sources that cars have been used by terrorists before.
I am surprised our protecting government has not banned cars yet. I am sure they will, though.
Last month I decided to never watch tv again. It's well known, that terrorists use it too.
I am surprised our protecting government has not banned tvs yet. I am sure they will, though.
Last week I decided to destroy my computer, hard drive and basically everything I had with a capacity to store, retrieve and transmit information. We all know, that all these devices have been used actively by terrorists to attack us.
I am surprised our protecting government has not banned information storing, transmitting devices yet. I am sure they will, though.
Last week I killed my wife: she has been exposed to terrorists ideology in multiple ways. I am sure you will understand, I could not afford to have home grown terrorism pop up right in my home. Since I had no way of making a proper assessment of the level of mind contamination and I have no proper tools to eliminate it, I really did not have a choice if I wanted to ensure a terrorist free environment. As they say, you have to clean up your own backyard first.
I am surprised our protecting government has not banned relationships, marriages, friendships yet, as they expose our meeknesses. I am sure they will, though.
Yesterday I stopped eating. It's obvious even for children, that food itself is a main source of keeping alive, therefore supporting terrorists.
I am surprised our protecting government has not banned food production and distribution yet, since there is no way that we can control that these resources are not getting into the hands of terrorists to aid them to kill us. I am sure they will, though.
Today I will have to kill myself. First I thought that terrorism can be fought by banning resources that terrorist use to achieve their evil goals. But after further thinking, we really have to realize that there is really no guarantee, that terrorism can be eliminated without getting rid of the targets. This leaves us with no option, but to kill ourselves and make the terrorists ridiculous, by leaving them without meaningful target to attack. If we don't kill myself, there is always a chance that a terrorist can kill us and our death will make them feel that they have achieved their goals.
I am surprised our protecting government has not banned us from death yet. I am sure they will, though.
The Lancet studies estimated ~300,000 to ~900,000 deaths, and ran with 655,000.
If anything is consistent with that, I'd find it just as ridiculous.
How can you blow 629 deaths reported in a poll into 655,000? Tell me what kind of statistical magic can do this.
No, why the hell is a new report guesstimating 1.2 million deaths consistent with a report that guesstimated 655 thousand?
Is it April already? Normally joke summaries are a bit longer and more convincingly outrageous though.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Sorry chum....p. That's discredited, whether you like the conclusions or not.
[HR1995] directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Think about this for a second. The Patriot Act already gives the government the power to define "terrorism" however they see fit. Now, they want to fund research on how to control and suppress "terrorists" at home? Have we learned nothing in the last six years?
For your evaluation, I posit a short logical train. I implore you to board swiftly and to take careful note of the scenery along the way to our destination:
What exactly does prevention of radicalization mean?
Lets break this down:
Merriam-Webster defines "prevent" thus: to deprive of power or hope of acting or succeeding
That's simple enough to understand.
Merriam-Webster defines "radicalize" thus: to make radical especially in politics
I'm going to break this one down further to be perfectly clear:
Miriam webster defines "radical" thus: marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional.
And "politics" thus: the political opinions or sympathies of a person
Now for the fun part:
I believe that, based on the definitions given above, this is a fair definition of "prevention of radicalization:"
to deprive a person's political positions of power or hope of acting or succeeding in being made marked by considerable departure from the usual or traditional
That's quite a mouthful, so let's simplify it a little:
prevention of radicalization: to deprive a person's political positions of power to depart considerably from the usual or traditional.
There it is, in plain logic.
Scared yet?
You should be.
"Prevention of radicalization" is about controlling the political positions that we, as citizens, take. It's about castrating us of our political power, and not by just any means, either.
Look carefully at the final definition derived above. "Prevention of Radicalization" doesn't even seek to control our actions. It seeks to control our very positions. It seeks to prevent our political positions from becoming radical. This is about controlling our very thoughts and ideas!
How can you prevent people from thinking radically? That's the question you have to answer, because that's the question HR1955 is asking.
The result of this research, if it comes to pass, is not going to be pretty. The only answers I can come up with are truly disturbing.
How would you police the thoughts of a populace?
`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
Seems to me that these two definitions describe EXACTLY what the Bush & Co. have been doing ever since they got elected. They threaten use of force, and use force, to advance their political, religious, and social beliefs. And, they promote their extremist beliefs for the purpose of facilitating that violence.
I disagree. AFAICT, you actually use your early subscription privileges to compulsively scan every new article on slashdot to find those that are in any way critical of centralized government authority or Apple computers. Then, no matter what the particulars of the issue, no matter how benign or draconian the actions in question, you write a long multiple paragraph f1rst p0st where you express your staunch support of each and every case of expanded government authority or surveillance powers. Blissfully ignoring the lessons of the brutal history of the 20th century, your post invariably dismisses any and all concerns about each issue, regardless of their validity, as nothing more than paranoid ranting.
This has all the hallmarks of being a supportive suggestion rather than a definitive statement. However, in true Slashdot style, let's rip into it anyway.
The Internet You know how people like to make jokes about "teh Internets?" Well, joke's on you folks, because that's exactly what Inter-Network routes really are. Screw with any particular route and new ones grow. So, "The Internet" used to describe world+wife+dog's WAN link is superfluous at best and misinformed at worst. This isn't a single entity that you can attack with laws, regulations and red-tape. Perhaps that's why they're so afraid? has aided Now this is a downright stupid assertion. To paraphrase the NRA, "The Internets don't subvert people. People subvert people." facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence I'm yet to receive a real-time smack in the mouth over the 'net. There have been moments when people have dearly wanted to deliver one, but I digress. homegrown terrorism process in the United States There's a process? Funny, it doesn't show up in top(1) and there's no pidfile. providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens and to everyone else on the planet. It happens. Count yourselves lucky that it has also facilitated the ability of you LEAs and security people to possess the same information those allegedly being subverted by the terrorists have, by exactly the same means. If they were still relying solely on word-of-mouth and secret couriers you'd be far less well informed. If anyone thinks we'll ever stop governments, anywhere, from monitoring network traffic on public links, you're seriously deluded, especially when ISPs are performing deep-packet inspection for traffic shaping purposes with impunity. I hate to break the chain here, folks, but stopping people trying to blow other people up, regardless of how bad they are at it, has to be more important than throttling Kazaa traffic in the evening so Mark Cuban can surf his [porn|sports|whatever] at full speed.
This article and the quote above (including a lot of my somewhat tongue-in-cheek rebuttal) are just examples typical of the knee-jerk reaction of someone who doesn't understand the threat they think they perceive. In the late 70s, CB radio was being campaigned for in the UK. One peer remarked that he found the notion of "millions of people in direct contact with each other" frightening. He must have headed for the hills in shock when he heard a 'phone ring because I can't recall his name or anything else noteworthy he might have said. This is more of the same. No control over something = threat, whereas the benefits to society far outweigh the drawbacks. Indeed, one may now make an informed decision, armed with the power of billions of computers serving billions of pages of information, on issues just like this one with just a little careful thought, an open mind and a large razor originally used by William of Ockham. Those without such skills really need to get back to school on information technology before issuing edicts that affect it. That same razor suggests to me that, far from being afraid of subversive terrorist doctrines or draconian laws, what really frightens some such misinformed people is large bodies of other people far better informed than themselves.
On our side, I think it may be time to call truce with the LEAs. They have some valid points, regardless of how hard it is to admit it. What we need to do is find a balance that both protects liberties and privacy on the one hand, yet makes it more difficult for terrorism to manifest itself in the real world on the other and there's no way of escaping the fact that we're going to have to
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
If we can get Congress to classify insecure operating systems, SPAM, and bots as terrorist weapons, get rid of them and actually make the Internet useful for sharing information, then maybe the Internet could be a dangerous terrorist tool, but not until then.
The bill may well perhaps not say that the Internet is a "terrorist threat," but you can damn well be sure that the bill is useful as a backdoor means to legalize internet surveillance. This is useful to remedy the illegal wiretapping that has been done already.
Let's examine this one small quote closely.
Note the word "facilitating" (tools facilitate, y'know). Also, note the word "propaganda", another way of saying "information".
Therefore, the implicit conclusion of the statement is that information leads to terrorism, and the internet is a source of information, therefore the internet facilitates terrorism (i.e. the internet can be used as a tool to foster terrorism). Therefore we must find ways to study and limit this source of terrorism.
Think about it. If the bill isn't saying the internet is a tool for terrorists or terrorism then what is it saying? Why mention the internet at all?
As an American who loves your freedom you better damn well want unlimited access to even terrorist-related propaganda. Any limits placed on information is just another way of controlling what the populace thinks. Hell, what if the "terrorist propaganda" happens to be true? Information is such that just because it came from a terrorist doesn't mean it's necessarily false, likewise just because it came from the US government doesn't mean it's true. Facts and information must be assessed on their own merits. To control this "problem" can only mean devising a scheme to pre-screen and control the flow of information.
N/C
If the goal of a terrorist is to "strike the subject with fear and terror as the weapon of choice", then the person that titled that summary is, in fact, guilty of that very terrorism that the summary purports the people behind the bill are concerned about, with all of us /. readers as the targets. I am QUITE serious about that statement.
Punishment in order? Gaybliss should never have had his "summary" posted. It was irresponsible. But the onus of responsible post selection lies squarely in the hands of CmdrTaco. CmdrTaco should be modded down to the depths of hell for posting the summary.
From my point of view, CmdrTaco just threw any respectability he had(with me, at least) out the window.
# mv Slashdot Slashpot
# mv CmdrTaco CmdrWaco
Not Antarctica? So he says while posting on a web site where the Penguin Rules!
this is an RIAA ploy, they've been having some trouble lately. Copyright law obviously is not enough of a deterrent for them, what's a $150,000 fine anyway? Soon it will be a terrorist act to distribute copyrighted music through the intertubes.
Fuck any government that wants to kill any radical thinking! that means everyone should think the same and as the system
will like you to think or if not... you are a TERRRORIST! OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH freaking yanks always scare of shit!
WAKE UP you IDIOTS trust your books not your politicians!
and ready to fire, all you have to do is ask for mercy and I'll stop your head from hurting ;)
peace brother
"It's the Law of the Universe, and I'm the sheriff." Slash-cott 2/10-2/17
And not only is the Internet a dangerous tool in the hands of terrorists, but so is free speech (Down With Free Speech!), democracy (Down With Democracy!), apple pie (Down With Apple Pie!), and motherhood (Down With Motherhood!). Oh, and frying pans. And kitchen knives. And kittens (Down With Kittens!). And sharp, pointy sticks.
Then using it as a way to discredit someone else makes you an even bigger douchebag.
Why, because Google's rankings said so?
No guy, you aren't. Someone else showed you that already, you just thought you found away around admitting you were ignorant. Didn't work, mostly because I'm not a moron who thinks Google rankings mean a damned thing. You, however, appear to be exactly that kind of moron...
It was a genuine pleasure knowing you, America and thank you for all the fish...
Wow. You completely managed to disregard common usage, as evidenced by wikipedia entries, dictionary entries, AF, Navy and generic mil documents. The fact that the top 4 out of 5 google returns were in that context was merely the icing on the cake. I guess ignorance is a state of mind for some people.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Is completely irrelevant. You were wrong, it was proven, all the "nuh uh" in the world doesn't change that, and relying on GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS simply reinforces how little your opinion is worth.
Yes - Ron Paul voted "no" as usual.
He is the best friend of freedom and liberty!
Libertas in infinitum