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."
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
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.
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!
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