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
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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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...)
"`(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
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
404 Democrats Not Found.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
404: Intelligence not found.
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
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.
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
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/
The problem is one person's propaganda is another's opinion - and the 1st amendment is (further) at risk.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
Screwdrivers and printing press also tools of terrorists. Must be combatted as well...
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
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..."
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.
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.
`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."
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.