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?
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.
If you're talking about Ron Paul, he wasn't present for that vote.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Slate has a pretty decent write-up about the bill.
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
Actually, I'd already submitted this for discussion back on the *2nd*, 'cause I'd noticed some provisions in the bill that are a little vague... Read the passage I quoted there for an example.
FUD aside, it has more potential for abuse than the DMCA, and that's saying something...
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
404: Intelligence not found.
You got mod points, but it doesn't seem like you are putting emphasis where it needs to be. With what was stated in the bill, it is also plausible that public libraries, Popular Science magazine, the Radio Shack catalog, the USPS, the public switched phone systems, and dozens of other things that might qualify as helping to spread terrorist ideals, assist in terrorist activities, or otherwise be used by terrorists.
We all know the folly of prohibition. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. I think that applies here. The Internet does NOT need to be singled out, and by doing so elected officials are signaling their intent to scrutinize and censor the Internet. Do you really think that the Internet had anything to do with the OK city bombing, or the Unabomber? Do you think that the Internet helped the DC snipers? do you think that law enforcement will use any valid data they get on terrorist activities from the Internet... or will they fsck it up like they did with the relevant data they had about the 9/11 plan to use planes? To date I have not seen ONE case where post 9/11 knee jerk reactions and Patriot Act provisions have helped to stop any terrorist activity. In fact, all the actual successes I've heard of came about through standard pre-9/11 law enforcement methods.
Don't naysay people who worry just because your myopic view of the writing on the wall is all blurry. Remember, in the beginning the Patriot act seemed like a good idea to a lot of people. In fact it seemed like a good idea to the very people that are suggesting this bill be passed into legislation. fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me !
You, and the rest of the world, would do well to be VERY worried about anything that even suggests a hint that it might be the intent to monitor, datamine, censor, or filter the Internet by the government. Do you think that the Great Firewall of China is a good idea? You should read how the Chinese government describes it.
If the Internet is abused in anyway in the name of security from terrorism, sit back and wait until you need permission to buy bug spray for your house, or you get a visit from the Feds when you purchase household chemicals in one month period that can be used to create explosive devices. Wait till your car/truck has to be searched prior to entering any major metropolitan area.
How long will it be before you give up all your freedom for these little efforts that don't ACTUALLY say that they intend to use them to take your freedoms?
And finally: For fsck sake man! Why are we now fighting 'home grown terrorism' at all? when the Unabomber was active.. did we need this? When the DC snipers were active, did we need to fight home grown terrorism? When the OKC bombing took place, did we need laws to fight home grown terrorism? The short answer is NO. The reason that we need it now is so that the executive branch can continue to push war powers privileges to further shrink the rights of citizens. As long as there is a WAR on terror or drugs, they will get to push your rights right down the toilet. Terrorists, and the origin of the term comes from the French Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism and guess which side the 'terrorists' were on? Every successful terrorist has broken at least a couple normal laws that are already in force. Making special provisions or laws for crimes committed by people who are 'deemed' terrorists is nothing more than a tool to take your liberties.
Should we call mass murderers terrorists? Should we call arsonists terrorists? Should we call anti-war protesters terrorists? Should we call gay-bashers terrorists since they are promoting their ideology through violent action? Sure, now lets just lump in all hate crimes... hell, lets just make any violent crime a terrorist offense. That kid that started the fires in California: is he a terrorist? And you are totally screwed if you do something unusual in Boston, perhaps there we can call jaywalker
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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.
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..."