French President Proposes Jail For Terrorist Website Visitors

Do you have to ask? by mhajicek · 2012-03-23 01:34 · Score: 5, Funny

So do you jail the intelligence agents who monitor said sites?

Re:Do you have to ask? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 01:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Naturally, no.
Special exemptions for "special citizens".
Like how Congress passes a law, but conveniently exempts themselves from it's application to themselves.
Re:Do you have to ask? by second_coming · 2012-03-23 01:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Obviously not, in much the same way that enforcement agencies monitoring any other illegal content wouldn't be.

Police and civilian IT forensic staff have to witness all kinds of completely illegal images/content on a daily basis and there is no question of any wrongdoing on their part.

But then you knew that anyway.
Re:Do you have to ask? by second_coming · 2012-03-23 01:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is censorship and monitoring everywhere, don't fool yourself. Some countries are just more blatent about it.
Re:Do you have to ask? by mwvdlee · 2012-03-23 02:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, just journalists and researchers.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Re:Do you have to ask? by Idbar · 2012-03-23 03:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

This sounds like an awesome idea.

I hope the next massive trojan, doesn't start "visiting" these websites, and of course, it won't infect congressmen or even the president's computer.

Because if it infects regular citizens... I guess many people is going to land jail. Great next trick and seems easier than "planting" child porn on people's computers.
Re:Do you have to ask? by Tynin · 2012-03-23 03:07 · Score: 2

So if you want to legally look at kiddie porn you first get a job monitoring for it.
Basically yes. Go work at any ISP/webhost and you'll likely find several depts that end up dealing with those issues that end up having access to that... anything we took to the FBI and Legal would end up getting burned to a CD and stored in a vault... and the vault was often full... their are some things that you cannot unsee...
Re:Do you have to ask? by Tim+C · 2012-03-23 04:32 · Score: 2

Except that in practice, a few people will maybe end up in jail, then as the number of cases increases and more and more people are claiming it was a trojan/virus/whatever, they'll have to either a) stop prosecuting people for it or b) develop a test to detect said malware; detection = no conviction (unless you can successfully argue that the presence of the malware was a ruse to provide an alibi, and they really *were* visiting the sites).

So, I doubt that many people will end up in jail because of a trojan of that sort, just as not many have ended up in jail because of child-porn-planting trojans (which have been successfully used as defences in court).

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Do you have to ask? by jc42 · 2012-03-23 13:39 · Score: 3, Informative

I hope the next massive trojan, doesn't start "visiting" these websites, and of course, it won't infect congressmen or even the president's computer.
Well, I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't already happened. Or maybe it has, and just hasn't been publicised. The basic technique was documented in the late 1990s. Google for "javascript preload". It's pretty well documented, and useful for legit purposes. Its main use is for a site to download its images to your cache while you're reading their main page(s), so those images will already be there when you go to other pages that use them. This can materially speed up a site's apparent response time. But it's easy to abuse.
When I read about it way back then, I did a bit of experimenting, and found that it was quite easy to fill the browser cache of anyone (who had javascript enabled) with any images or other files that I wanted them to have, from any other site on the Web. Unless they know to look through their cache, they'd never see those files and would never know they were there. In my tests, I used assorted innocuous-looking images (with only an occasonal "artsy" image of nekkid wimmin ;-). But it was pretty obvious that the technique could as easily be used to fill their disks with stuff that would get them fired or fined or jailed.
I still have my code, so I just tested it on a few of the current browsers. It still works just fine, as long as JS is turned on. And google reports that "javascript preload" gets more than 3 million hits, with some on the first page saying things like "How to Preload an Image", so presumably other programmers are using these JS features, too.
And, lest you think I'm some sort of ï½ber-hacker (who even knows that that word contains an umlaut ;-), I won't tell you where to find my demo. I'll just suggest you talk to any web-programmer friends you may have, and ask them to try it. You may be surprised at how quickly they get it working. Or they may show you that they already have it working on their sites. They're likely to say "Hey, every JS programmer knows that!"
And I don't believe that Congress or the President are immune. Can you imagine them running with scripting disabled? Their only immunity is that they can prevent the investigative agencies from examining their browser caches, or if some investigator does so, they can have him fired.
The only actual defense is turning off all scripting. Anything that downloads code and runs it on your machine is an easy entry path for such malware, especially when it's using popular JS features that are there to speed up your web access.
Sarkozy's proposal would be a good way for his minions to frame their opponents by tricking them into downloading lots of illegal stuff. Probably the only way to fight it would be to organize a project to fill his colleagues' disks with files of the sort that they want to make punishable by law. And up above, I told any interested readers how to find instructions on doing that. (I wonder if they're available in French? ;-)

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.

Attacking the soul of France... by Dr_Barnowl · 2012-03-23 01:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

The French should remind themselves that their motto is Liberté, égalité, fraternité, and that all three bits are important.

Re:Attacking the soul of France... by Baloroth · 2012-03-23 01:49 · Score: 3, Funny

The French should remind themselves that their motto is Liberté, égalité, fraternité, and that all three bits are important.
Yes, but some bits are more important than others.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:Attacking the soul of France... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-03-23 01:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

In an unfortunate twist, the sorts of reactions that our favorite diminutive head of state proposes are exactly the sort of thing that seems like an attractive tactical move; but makes a unbelieveably dreadful strategic one against your assorted religious nutjobs and fundamentalist reactionaries...

It is certainly true that some people Simply Aren't Interested in ye olde western enlightenment values, no matter how good a job you do of actually upholding them. Those you pretty much have to put up with, with the proviso that if they cross the line, you'll have to kill them.

For everybody else, though, the lousier and more hypocritical your execution of your supposed ideals, the worse you look, and the better the chap down the road who has shit ideals, but is at least real sincere about them, starts to look.

If your sales pitch ends up being "Welcome to the Free World(tm): We offer the finest in postmodern cynicism and brutality cloaked in the noblest sounding invocations of highflown principle than money can buy. Please look directly into the retinal scanner and have an nice day." You can't very well expect to stem fundamentalist recruitment very effectively...
Re:Attacking the soul of France... by NeutronCowboy · 2012-03-23 02:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Pretty much. I'll be curious to see how that plays out. As others said, this is nothing but a transparent attempt to curry favor with the far-right. They are a minority, but a consistent minority. There's some electoral value in getting on a part of their plank. The real test will be the actual election: will Sarkozy be elected because of it, and will he remember this pledge?
To some extent, I feel the same way about this idea as I feel about a lot of campaign rhetoric in the US. Most of it is nothing but basic pandering to extremist and unpatriotic viewpoints. If we'd take every politician at their election year worth, we'd have been in WW3 for the last 15 years or so.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Attacking the soul of France... by NeutronCowboy · 2012-03-23 02:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

For everybody else, though, the lousier and more hypocritical your execution of your supposed ideals, the worse you look, and the better the chap down the road who has shit ideals, but is at least real sincere about them, starts to look.
I'm convinced that that is 90% of Ron Paul's appeal. Or Santorum, for that matter.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Attacking the soul of France... by gadget+junkie · 2012-03-23 02:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

The French should remind themselves that their motto is Liberté, égalité, fraternité, and that all three bits are important.
I beg to disagree. I live only a few miles from France, in a possibly worse country (Italy). the three words of the motto are sometimes in contradiction of each other, because one of the best tenets of liberty,and relevant to the topic, is that i must be allowed to hate your guts, which means "middle finger to fraternitè", but that I must not be allowed to limit YOUR liberty to hate MY guts.
individuals will mostly prefer liberty over fraternity; the politicians will always prefer fraternity over liberty, because it will give them the means, and the moral justification to meddle in everybody's life and make themselves relevant. this case is no different, and there's no politico like a french one.

--
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
Re:Attacking the soul of France... by sociocapitalist · 2012-03-23 02:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

'The French' are perfectly aware of their motto. This inflammatory statement is nothing more than Sarko playing to the far right trying to take votes away from Marie Le Pen as he knows he can't win with the left.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:Attacking the soul of France... by DrXym · 2012-03-23 02:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

France has been rabidly secular for the last century, and right back to the Napoleonic Code. It may be that Muslims are feeling the heat of that secularism at the moment, but it was applied to Roman Catholics at one point too and applies to other religions also. I don't see that the rules were designed to single one religion out but to prevent any of them from exerting undue influence on the state. As such I see no issue with what France is doing at all in that regard.
I think on a social level however that a lot of the recent flareups are less about religion and more due to poverty and social inequity. Youths who happen to be muslim engage in criminal activity, the police crack down in a heavy handed way and a things turn into a riot with religion as the excuse.
Re:Attacking the soul of France... by nstlgc · 2012-03-23 02:17 · Score: 3, Informative

I'm guessing you are referring to the banning of burkas in France, which is not so much a restriction of the rights of a Muslim than it is an end to the positive discrimination of Muslims -- it was already illegal for everyone to walk around masked.

We had the same thing in Belgium, where pupils have never been allowed to wear hats, caps, etc. in class. So to treat everyone equally, neither can Muslims. Which then, according to them, infringes on their right of religious freedom. Which is ridiculous, of course.

If you were referring to anything else, ignore my comment.

--
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
Re:Attacking the soul of France... by M.+Baranczak · 2012-03-23 03:27 · Score: 3, Funny

"Say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
- Walter Sobchak
Re:Attacking the soul of France... by mrops · 2012-03-23 03:46 · Score: 2

Care to explain how its ridiculous.
It may be an accepted norm for your society, but its not ridiculous.
If you say we also force men to show their hanging dicks and women to expose their breasts, then there is at least some totality to your argument, however segregating a group on hiding face vs hiding breasts shows why these laws are infringement to a groups religious freedoms. I see no harm come of a group deciding to hide their face as most hide their breasts and genitalia.
If you do have a reasonable explanation why forcing women to show their breast is wrong while forcing them to show their face is right, please do let me know as I have failed to come up with any reasonable logic.
Re:Attacking the soul of France... by tnk1 · 2012-03-23 03:51 · Score: 2

Actually, they are clever enough to realize that the people in power determine what "terrorist" means. Which is not to say that they are all that clever, but more that the majority knows its not going to have such rules applied to fringe elements more closely aligned to them.
Re:Attacking the soul of France... by jpapon · 2012-03-23 04:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

Parent's logic is that it is okay because you force EVERYONE to show their face -- not just the Muslims. Thus it is not religious discrimination, since nobody is being discriminated against; everyone is treated the same way.
Of course the obvious counter is that only the Muslim's WANT to show their faces, so, even if the law applies to everyone, it only actually affects one group.
The counter to this is that this is always the case with laws; they generally affect only those who would break them.
Anyways, as for your anecdote, what if my religion said I should walk around naked? Would it be religious discrimination for the laws saying one can't go to school naked to also apply to me? If it is reasonable to enforce conformity to one societal standard with respect to attire (don't be naked) than it seems like it is also reasonable to enforce another (don't cover your face).

--
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Re:Attacking the soul of France... by jpapon · 2012-03-23 04:04 · Score: 2

Yeah, but remember that when they made that motto they were also busy destroying a bunch of cathedrals, and spent a lot of effort trying to eliminate religion from public life entirely. Based on that, I would say the Burka thing is completely in line with the spirit of the revolution (the first one anyways).

--
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Re:Attacking the soul of France... by currently_awake · 2012-03-23 04:31 · Score: 2

Showing your face is required for identification. If you wear a mask you can commit crimes and not be identified by all the big brother cameras. Forcing a woman to show their breasts is only useful for identification if she has tattoos or surgery scars.
Re:Attacking the soul of France... by niado · 2012-03-23 05:59 · Score: 2

We get along just fine out hear not banning any kind of head gear or symbolism..
In the US there are places such as banks and some schools where you are not allowed to wear headgear. US schools also often require uniforms or have strict dress codes which could cause 'infringement' of religion based on your view.

There also a lot of state laws banning public wearing of masks in the US. Evidently many of them were implemented due to Klan activity in the early 20th century.

Incomplete list of such laws: http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html?

We do not have as much of a backlash from the Muslim community here because we do not really HAVE a Muslim community (less than 1% of our population is Muslim). France has a large and growing Muslim community (7% of total pop. and almost half of all immigrants) so these types of laws are more controversial there.
Re:Attacking the soul of France... by Gr8Apes · 2012-03-23 09:00 · Score: 2

We had the same thing in Belgium, where pupils have never been allowed to wear hats, caps, etc. in class. So to treat everyone equally, neither can Muslims. Which then, according to them, infringes on their right of religious freedom. Which is ridiculous, of course.
How is it ridiculous? If a tenet of their religion requires them to cover a certain part of their body and the law requires them to bare that body part in certain places, their freedom to follow their religion is most certainly being infringed upon--their religion demands they do one thing and the law demands another...
It's ridiculous because in no way does it infringe upon their right to religious freedom. One is free to choose any religion one wants. It merely infringes on them practicing portions of their religion in public. Which is an entirely different thing, much like the sacrifice of animals or willing humans, or mutilation of minors, which are also prohibited, for example.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:Attacking the soul of France... by Plunky · 2012-03-23 09:57 · Score: 2

Of course the obvious counter is that only the Muslim's WANT to show their faces, so, even if the law applies to everyone, it only actually affects one group.
I guess you meant that the Muslims were the only ones who wanted to HIDE their faces.. but here is a thing, it doesn't say in the Koran that they should hide their faces, and it is not traditional for Muslim women to do so either. The Burka was invented by religious extremists to consolidate their grip on the population, not for any religious reasons. It is well known that if you force people to do things that they know are wrong, they tend to then become very defensive about those things and will become more radical as a result (See: cognitive dissonance)
The Koran does apparently say

"They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary."
but that just means to me, that if the law says it is necessary for their face to be uncovered, then they should have no problems leaving it so..

Is It One of Those Laws Where Everyone is Guilty? by eldavojohn · 2012-03-23 01:36 · Score: 2

I can't find any details on the specifics of the proposal so I can't help but wonder if this is one of those things where everyone is guilty and now the government can arrest and detain whoever they want? So a scenario is a terrorist uses Yahoo Mail or Twitter to send messages, the French catch it and shut it down. Years later, I'm using twitter or yahoo! Now, if they arrest me or confiscate my laptop, they have the choice to hold me on the grounds that I was visiting terrorist websites. If they are forced to say which websites, they might just cross reference my browsing history base URLs with their database and pick the least well-known site (maybe Reddit or Slashdot even?) that they claim to have detected terrorist activity on? Ideally (for the government), I'm sure they would get away without even ever naming the sites on national security grounds or something.

The politicians justify this by thinking they're good people and these laws where anyone could be arrested will not be abused. The people justify this because it happens infrequently enough that they can dismiss cases as outliers. But once a jerk is elected and these laws still exist, people start to notice because they'll use them against anyone -- even political enemies.

"I don't like this guy. Go arrest him and make sure to get his computer. We don't have anything on him but we will."

--
My work here is dung.

Re:Is It One of Those Laws Where Everyone is Guilt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 01:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Presidential elections are just one month from now. He just wants to glean some votes from the far-right voters

What's the definition of an extremist? by sepiroth · 2012-03-23 01:40 · Score: 2

That the one who does not go with the rest. Should be bust all slashdotters too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremist

Publicity whore... by Zapotek · 2012-03-23 01:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

...the summary said so, he's only about a month away from the elections. That's just an easy way to get people to remember your name.
What he proposed isn't going to happen of course.

Re:Publicity whore... by residieu · 2012-03-23 02:26 · Score: 2

https doesn't prevent anyone from finding out that you made an https request to a particular IP address, and it was preceded by a dns request for a "terrorist" web site that resolves to that IP address. It just keeps them from finding out exactly what you were looking at on that server.
Re:Publicity whore... by residieu · 2012-03-23 03:27 · Score: 2

You think the government is going to care about those perfectly legit sections? Sorry, they're a casualty. They should have known better than to put it on the same server as the forbidden content.

Re:bring it on. by circletimessquare · 2012-03-23 01:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

this is the kind of warped perspective that makes no sense to me

so much venom for the west

what do you think of guys who hold the hair of eight year old girls and execute them?

i'm not supporting this ridiculous visit-a-website,go-to-jail law. it's stupid

i'm taking a stand against the warped perspective that: the west does something you dislike, so you support something far worse

you do realize it's possible to be disgusted by BOTH islamic radicalization and censorial overreach, right?

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Violence or Violence? by Mr_Blank · 2012-03-23 01:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Anyone who regularly consults Internet sites which promote terror or hatred or violence will be sentenced to prison

Such a law would be a joy for military recruiters. Click the links below to be put onto a French terrorist watch list!
Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines!
Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines!

I suppose the French President meant violence he does not agree with should be prosecuted. That makes more sense.

Thought police by halfkoreanamerican · 2012-03-23 01:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

I wonder if we should jail those who think about visiting said sites? That would be a crime too, if I'm not mistaken.

Losing liberty because of tolerance by MikeRT · 2012-03-23 01:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

It would be even easier to just recognize that importing large numbers of foreigners who don't share your country's values, and who have a history of having a minority who advocate making open war on your society, was a huge mistake for the Western nations. You could correct that by revoking visas in the hundreds of thousands and sending them back home. But no, you cannot do that. That would be "hateful" even though it would be an even greater violation of the human dignity of those people, to say nothing of your citizens, to subject them to a police state because you don't want to accept the fact that there is a constant, indefatigable minority who not only cannot integrate but are violently opposed to Western values. When I say "violently" I mean in the sense of willing to actually use real force, not the sort of pissant, isolated incidents associated with native conservative Christians and Jews once in a blue moon.

Re:Losing liberty because of tolerance by Clsid · 2012-03-23 02:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

So in that sense we should also forbid the free flow of capital, natural resources, telecommunications and just live in our own separate tribes. Then war can make things better when said tribes have an issue because whoever loses gets assimilated or becomes slave labor. Yeah, it definitely is a better system.
Re:Losing liberty because of tolerance by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-03-23 06:08 · Score: 2

There are plenty of immigrants in Europe who are integrating. Integrating is not a problem if you share some basic common values like individual freedom and dignity (which pretty much all of Western world shares), and you actually want to integrate. The problem is with those that explicitly do not want to integrate. It's a problem that you have in US as well, it's just that you have a much fewer number of those kinds of immigrants than Europe, and so it's not as pervasive and in-your-face.

Dangers are Relative by NReitzel · 2012-03-23 01:50 · Score: 2

Permitting terrorism and hatred are awful things. They lead, directly or not, to real dangers to society and to humanity at large.

However, consider the danger posed by a government given the power to say, "There are things you must not know." Not official secrets, which have some justification, but thoughts of people who think our governmental system is unfair - which is what Islamist thought is all about. How about thoughts about which God is the "right" God? Thoughts about what constitutes Evil or Good?

Governments have been in the business of thought control ever since Socrates, and probably a long time before that.

Whatever danger access to terrorist web sites constitutes to society, giving a government the ability to decide which thoughts you should think and which thoughts are criminal acts is a far greater hazard to humanity than any nut case with a bomb can ever be.

--

Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

Terrorist content detected by Hentes · 2012-03-23 01:52 · Score: 3, Funny

Now all of you who have read this post, give yourselves up at the nearest police, s'il vous plais.

I have visited terrorist websites by Teppy · 2012-03-23 01:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

Including Inspire magazine (Al Qaeda's English-language publication), the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups, and sites sympathetic to the Oklahoma city bombing.

I want to understand what motivates these people; I want to think about what sort of public policy creates the most freedom, prosperity, safety; I want to understand the enemy and figure out why they're the enemy in the first place.

So I guess I'd be put in jail for this if I lived in France. Is Sarkozy saying that only politicians are able to reason about such things? Hell of a job they've done so far.

Re:I have visited terrorist websites by bmo · 2012-03-23 02:33 · Score: 2

>should be censored.
Your speech is not sufficiently patriotic, citizen. Your speaking out against people who would defend our tribe will be censored forthwith.
See how quick that gets turned around?
--
BMO
Re:I have visited terrorist websites by afeeney · 2012-03-23 02:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why? Why do you want to understand these people? I'm serious. Why deliberately fill your head with hatred and evil and seek to know what motivates these people? Can you? Is it possible? To what end?
Not the original poster, but there are a lot of valid reasons to view hate sites. (Leaving aside the intellectual freedom issues, etc.)
1. Simple intellectual curiosity into the motivations of terrorists, militant racists, etc..
2. In order to better evaluate the positions that politicians take in fighting terrorism or hate crimes. If I don't know what drives them, how can I evaluate how people want to stop them? How can I best vote and contribute as a citizen?
3. The same morbid curiosity that drives people to read real crime novels/watch movies about serial killers. It's not necessarily a "good" reason but it's a valid one.
4. Professional interest from mental health/cognitive professionals.
5. A friend/family member's concern about somebody who seems to be increasingly sympathetic to terrorists, militant racists, etc. I can't counter the white supremacist's/terrorist's/ethnic cleanser arguments if I don't know what they're arguing.
6. The desire of moderate Christians/Jews/Hindus/Muslims to argue against religiously-motivated terrorism by their co-religionists in general. Most of them do.
Re:I have visited terrorist websites by oodaloop · 2012-03-23 02:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

. Why? Why do you want to understand these people?

Know your enemy.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.

Re:bring it on. by Clsid · 2012-03-23 01:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just because you and a bunch of English/American people hate France doesn't mean everybody hates France. The guy who carried the attacks was pretty much targeting the Western world in any case, and in the case of Sarkozy, he's very afraid of losing the elections since the leftist candidate is going to win so he has started making crazy and racist comments.

How could this fail? by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-03-23 01:53 · Score: 2

Look it's obvious that this is the right strategy against terrorism. When the people who regularly visit extremist websites go to jail for it, they will contemplate about the thought crimes they've committed and get a new life as democratic and well-adapted citizens. What else could happen?

Not enough time to pass by AwaxSlashdot · 2012-03-23 01:53 · Score: 5, Informative

This is a law-project tailored specifically to address the crazy killer that shot 7 people recently in France.

The presidential election is less than 1 month away and no more laws would be discussed or voted in the mean time. So this law would never pass.

The killer was under scrutiny since his return from Afghanistan. Since he hasn't done anything in France, he could be arrested and jailed. They weren't able to detect any suspicious behavior like planning to plant a bomb which is the most common terrorist act in Europe. We have very few gun-related deaths compared to the US, so such a killing spree is very unusual. This is the most obvious reason his planning went undetected.

The point of this stupid law is to give an excuse for the Police to arrest and jail anyone with a slight hint of suspect behavior, before they might be planning to commit actual crime.

As usual, this is stupid and inefficient.

--
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)

What is this... by cyberworm · 2012-03-23 01:54 · Score: 2, Informative

I don't even

Banned URL List by Compaqt · 2012-03-23 01:58 · Score: 2

Can someone post a comprehensive list of URLs we're not supposed to follow (Anarchist's cookbook, WikiLeaks, and all the rest)? So we can avoid them, of course.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog

Potentially both by accessbob · 2012-03-23 01:59 · Score: 2

Cutting access to terrorists should certainly reduce their influence and access to new members.

But who decides who is actually a terrorist? In the UK in the 80's our Prime Minister (Margaret Thatcher) used to refer to Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. Th Chinese Communist Party call anyone who stands up to their rule "terrorists", as does Assad in Syria today.

So I understand the reasoning but fear the consequences.

Re:Potentially both by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 02:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

The occupy movement labeled as terrorists in the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/05/occupy-london-police-terrorism-document
Seems to me that anything that opposes the global elitist oligopoly/corporatocracy trends towards being refered to as terrorist in nature.
Anything that threatens the US Dollar Hegemony will have a vicious propaganda campaign waged against it. We will be made to believe that whoever or whatever threatens it eats babies, hates freedom and doesn't put the toilet seat down after taking a leak.

Re:France is being colonized by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 02:00 · Score: 3, Funny

"they also demand French people to adapt to Muslim costumes."

Aha! I think I finally understand why they banned head scarves, then.

it is an election year by aepervius · 2012-03-23 02:02 · Score: 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2012

In a few weeks the presidential election will start. What do you think Sarkozy is doing ? he is batting for a renewal of his job. He has to show he is doing something and as usual it is individual liberty which take a shot in the knee.

Whereas it is true that there are some legal precedent (downloading child pornography is punished by law, and as far as i can tell, even in the US, and nazi apologist or race hatred incitations is punishable by law), it would be difficult on the technological side (most of those site are on foreign soil).

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

Unconstitutional by ianare · 2012-03-23 02:03 · Score: 2

Sarkozy is just pandering to the extreme right in an election year.

This law would not be applicable given the French constitution, and in fact would also violate EU law. Any law which limits free expression must have a very specific target, and simply saying "terrorism" or "hate speech" is way too vast.

Child pornography is illegal because it can be easily and precisely defined, but what would define terrorist or hateful speech ? And what is the difference between genuine political speech and hate speech ? It's all very subjective. It would also lead to some interesting consequences, like that Mein Kampf would be legal to sell in print but not viewable on the Internet.

Article (in French)

Brings a new worry... by AlecC · 2012-03-23 02:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

...to rickrolling - or call it terrortrolling. Just set up a few fake links for your gullible frenemies, and get them the dawn knock on the door.

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.

It is not the french which should be reminded by aepervius · 2012-03-23 02:03 · Score: 2

It is the french POLITIC which should be reminded. The same way the US guys often sigh at the US political being in the pocket of corporation, we have similar problem here around.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

Re:A weapon against terrorists by AlecC · 2012-03-23 02:05 · Score: 2

A general rule of powers given to government is that if they can be abused. See anti-terror laws used to spy on people alleged to be cheating the school placement system, and jaywalkers who happen to do it in a defence establishment. And I can see so many ways this can be abused to persecute the merely curious.

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.

Re:bring it on. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 02:08 · Score: 3, Informative

"The fourth victim was Myriam Monsonego, seven, daughter of the head teacher, who was reportedly grabbed by the hair and shot in the head."

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17428860

Is that good enough for you? Cunt.

Re:Is It One of Those Laws Where Everyone is Guilt by Samantha+Wright · 2012-03-23 02:13 · Score: 2

They're not terrorists if they vote for us!

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!

Minority Report by kheldan · 2012-03-23 02:15 · Score: 2

Welcome to the age of Minority Report, France: Now you, too, can be convicted of a crime you haven't yet committed, but that we suspect you'll commit! What's next, France? Jailing someone who researches how a nuclear bomb works? How about jailing someone who watches Breaking Bad because they obviously are planning on becoming a producer and dealer in methamphetamine? Whoops, little 5 year old Johnny at the supermarket with his mother almost walked out the door with a candy bar in his hand, better send him off to Juvenile Hall, he's on his way to becoming a hardened criminal!

Seriously, Sarkosy? Are you seriously going to plunge head-first down this slippery slope? Are you really that stupid?

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

Re:bring it on. by Ziekheid · 2012-03-23 02:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Everyone hates France?
Maybe in America, but who cares about what America thinks of an EU country?

The problem here is Sarkozy not France in its entirety.

Stupid... by Bert64 · 2012-03-23 02:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

Jailing someone for familiarising themselves with a subject is wrong...

Guides on how to commit acts of terrorism could be perceived as interesting, and are useful reading for someone working on the other side of the fence looking to prevent, deter or even just detect such acts... In fact this is a common problem, those looking to prevent a given activity simply don't understand how those who want to carry out such activities think... Wether it's hacking, burgling, terrorism, piracy etc, and you end up with wholly ineffective measures that look really fancy but are easily circumvented by those who are serious about doing it, while providing significant disruption for innocent civilians.
There seems to be a generally flawed mindset out there that concentrates on big fancy front gates, while totally forgetting about the rotten wooden door at the back.

Personally i think the more people understand about how terrorists think, the greater the chance of their activities being discovered and stopped. Imagine you live next door to someone who keeps bringing bags of fertiliser into their house, are they a keen gardened or can fertiliser be used to make bombs? Have you seen any evidence of well cultivated plants in their back garden? Can you smell canabis coming from their roof space? Or can you smell other chemicals you've read about in the jolly roger's cookbook?

Child porn is entirely different, most people simply won't want to look at it, even if they should stumble across it accidentally.

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!

Re:Is It One of Those Laws Where Everyone is Guilt by residieu · 2012-03-23 02:23 · Score: 3, Informative

doesn't matter. If elections are in just one month, he doesn't need to get this law passed, he doesn't even need to actually flesh out the details of the law, he's just making noise.

And he (probably rightly) assumes that his target audience assumes that muslim and terrorist are synonyms and their favorite websites would not be counted.

It means nothing, really by vikingpower · 2012-03-23 02:33 · Score: 2

Just political campaigning. Sarkozy makes a habit of saying big things, and then not delivering on them. Nothing to see here, folks, move on.

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace

Terrorism and extremism by midtowng · 2012-03-23 02:37 · Score: 2

Who gets to decide what constitutes terrorism and extremism?

Re:Is It One of Those Laws Where Everyone is Guilt by Hognoxious · 2012-03-23 02:38 · Score: 2

They might be bastards, but at least they're our bastards!

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

What about sites that promote the Foreign Legion? by cornicefire · 2012-03-23 02:55 · Score: 2

Not that the Foreign Legion engages in violence. http://www.legion-recrute.com/en/ How do they distinguish between good violence and bad? I guess they mean state-sponsored versus free-market. Oh wait. Isn't "free market" something good?

Re:bring it on. by Opportunist · 2012-03-23 03:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Not every wine soaked douchebag is French, you insensitive clod!

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Hey Sarkozy by Opportunist · 2012-03-23 03:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Since when do laws apply to those that make them?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Parent post is not "flamebait" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 03:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

May be worth mentioning the guy who killed 70+ people in Sweden was snow white and claimed to be Christian. Look that fact up too.

Congratulations, you've been brainwashed by MikeRT · 2012-03-23 03:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

If you think nation states cannot trade, communicate freely and all of that without going to war or having ethnically "diverse" societies, you are sadly mistaken. The reason diversity is a problem is that without common, shared values and culture you have a limited shared social fabric for how to form a government, regulate public and private dealings and host of other things which bind society together.

Shared ethnicity is very important and ethnicity transcends race. It's possible for a black and white man to have the same ethnicity; it's possible to have two blacks and two whites each be of different ethnicities. What matters most is having the mostly ethnically homogenous society you can while not tying ethnicity to race. At least in America, we've done a good job of separating race and ethnicity. You frequently now see whites and blacks treat each other as fellow citizens while both being suspicious of illegal immigrants as they're not from the same larger group as we are.

Re:Parent post is not "flamebait" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-23 03:16 · Score: 3, Informative

That was in Norway, though your point is still valid.

Malheursement sans Rush Limbaugh by Ukab+the+Great · 2012-03-23 03:21 · Score: 2

"Anyone who regularly consults Internet sites which promote terror or hatred or violence will be sentenced to prison".

Guess I can't visit the Fox News site when I visit France.

Re:Reactive society by Opportunist · 2012-03-23 03:21 · Score: 2

It doesn't give me the illusion to be safer. Only the illusion (at least I hope it's an illusion) that I'm getting less and less free.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:How about terrorism AND kiddie porn! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-03-23 03:27 · Score: 2

Sarkozy is an "Operation Gladio"-style fascist mole. A "Manchurian Candidate".

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16194033

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/243240-Toulouse-Shootings-Gifts-Sarko-the-Avenger-Climb-in-Election-Opinion-Polls

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

9 / 11 comparison with recent events in France by hcs_$reboot · 2012-03-23 03:48 · Score: 2

It has been said that GW Bush first presidency was "saved" because of the atrocious 9/11 events. Even though he certainly didn't want/hope such events, that act of terrorism was a way to legitimate more immediate and tough actions, like retaliation / wars, that are certainly easier to handle compared to improving economy and unemployment.
In France, that very tragic event from a week ago may be Sarkozy's lifeline during the coming presidential elections (May). Taking rough and strong measures immediately, and just a few weeks before the elections, may help him to win a second term. Internet freedom in France may not have been endangered if the elections were in two years from now.

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...

Guilt by association by StikyPad · 2012-03-23 04:11 · Score: 2

I regularly visit the restroom. Does that make me a piece of shit?

Wait. Don't answer that.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

Re:bring it on. by circletimessquare · 2012-03-23 04:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

that's insane

we're not talking about fashion or music choice

if enough pakistanis tell you this is ok, its ok by you?:

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/22/202385.html

cannibalism was once ok in certain parts of the world. its about evolving away from bad practices to better ones

you may say i have an absolutist position, but it is you who has the absolutist position: that culture's mores never change, and are unquestionable

i object as a human being to your relativity, an excuse to justify atrocities. nationalism and religion do not excuse gross violations of simple human rights

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

No you idiot by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-03-23 05:52 · Score: 2

The problem isn't migration, plenty of people do that just fine. But the good immigrants are also something else. EMIGRANTS. They leave one country and culture for another. That works... more or less, it doesn't happen often after all but there are plenty of people who left their old land and never returned.

With north african migration, this is no longer the case, they return every summer, bring their own religion, shops and places to hangout and create a little bit of home in the new country.

They weren't accepted in France? Right, the french bent of backward to accomodate, going back on decades of seperation of church and state to accomodate the Muslims. And it is not like polish or irish or any immigrant group in the US was welcomed with open arms.

But how many of those early immigrants to the US ever went back? Wanted to go back? Most had fled and vowed never to return.

In many ways, the suburbs around Paris, filled with the unwanted who do not want to be there is like a holiday resort where people go to a foreign country to shop in the same supermarkets as they do at home, drink the same drinks, eat the same food and are relieved everyone speaks their language.

It is nasty... multi-cultural? By its is own definition, it cannot work, it is a contradiction in terms. Multi-cultural is a SINGULAR culture, for it to work, EVERYONE has to subscribe to it, so how can you say multi-cultural has many cultures when all must believe in the same one? Multiple groups can live together... if they all want to and nothing happens to upset it. India was famous for its religious tolerance, the only place Jews were never prosecuted. Well, until Muslims changed it... gosh, again that same religion.

You can keep trying to come up with excuses, launch another study, talk a bit more but so far it ain't helping. And if you think Sarkosy is right wing, there are far far worse people you never ever heard off.

A lot of bleeding hearts are calling the rethoric of the likes of Wilders (Holland) the signs of the 1930's. No price for quessing the reference. They are of course full of it... IF there is a resemblance witht he past, then it is the 1920's.... what happened then you ask... yes, nobody ever told you that. The story always starts with Hitler in rising to power but never sets the scene by showing how the vacuum was created that allowed this rise. The many failed elections and parties unable to deal with the massive issues of the day that allowed the nazi much later.

Wilders, Le Pen, etc etc are not Adolf Hitler and the likes of Job Cohen are not Chamberlain... this is good because by the time the nazi's marched the battle had been lost.

But we need to act now, make it clear that in a society, there are rules, you can be a bit to the left of that and a bit to the right but NEVER to much. If you really hate a society that much, MOVE. We cannot allow a few nutters to either turn the west Muslim with Sharia law (and there are parties who want this quit openly, google Sharia4Belgium) or to become a nazi party. The real nasty bit for being tolerant and multi-cultural is that you cannot be tolerant of extremists or all cultures.

Let us not forget that the issue here is Muslims. There are a lot of Jews, Hindu's, Catholics, Christians, Boedhists and god knows what else is out there, living peacefully in the western world. ONLY Muslims are causing problems everywhere. PC might make you feel warm and fuzzy inside but at a given point you got to deal with the fact that a specific group is causing endless problems and deal with it. Or someone else will come to power and come up with a solution. And you might not like that one at all, I guarantee it won't be PC.

Hitler and those like him are the enemy, that is obvious. But your enemy should also be the people that created the vacuum of leadership, of taking responsibilty, of sorting out the common man's complaints that allowed Hitlet to convince people that he could solve their problems (which btw, he totally failed to do).

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:Parent post is not "flamebait" by walterbyrd · 2012-03-23 06:15 · Score: 2

I think that was Norway. Also, some argue that the killer is agnostic - although a "cultural Christian."

I think the killer, in the this case, (Brevivik?) is just insane, like the guy who Giffords.

For sure, the killer was not connected to any terrorist group.

Also, that was all of **one** case. There have been about 7000 terrorist attacks by Muslims over the last 10 years.

Slashdot Mirror

French President Proposes Jail For Terrorist Website Visitors

81 of 402 comments (clear)