Slashdot Mirror
Report Warns That Censorship Will Not Stop Terrorism
concealment writes "The report evaluates the challenge of curbing online radicalization from the perspective of supply and demand. It concludes that efforts to shut down websites that could serve as incubators for would-be terrorists — going after the supply — will ultimately be self-defeating, and that 'filtering of Internet content is impractical in a free and open society.' 'Approaches aimed at restricting freedom of speech and removing content from the Internet are not only the least desirable strategies, they are also the least effective,' writes Peter Neumann, founding director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King's College London and the author of the report."
Duh!
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
Mod International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King's College London +1 for "No Shit, Sherlock".
I can't imagine why anybody would trust or accept the rationale given to them by somebody who threatens them with physical force. But somehow government is different. Right.
I don't care if you're a congressman or a common thief. If your relationship with me is defined by physical force (or threat thereof), then common sense tells me that I cannot trust you. With that said, it should be blindingly obvious that censorship isn't about stopping terrorism. It's about profit, whether direct or indirect, same as 99% of everything government does.
The real worry is offline radicalization.
Censorship doesn't stop much of anything--it only stops people from talking about things where you can see them. In terms of totalitarian utilitarianism, a police surveillance state is much more effective than blunt force marshal law.
Instead, policymakers should focus their attention on the demand side of the radicalization issue, Neumann argues, with the government spearheading outreach initiatives that would bring together schools, community groups and businesses to advance awareness and media literacy and offer a competing narrative to that presented by sites that traffic in radical propaganda.
There's no way this would work in the U.S. It sounds like socialism. It also incorporates zero bombs. A bill to attempt such a thing would be regarded by the right wing of this country as an encroachment on freedom far worse than censorship(of people they disagree with).
I call this report as terrorist reports since it would suggest to take more lenient approach against it :D
This has really been a U.S. foreign policy for decades and is part of why there are anti-US terrorists in the first place. Drones just make it faster and cheaper.
So he's following the Bush Doctrine?
Sounds a lot like the war on drugs to me. But terrorists demand that we be afraid, so let's give them what they want.
Just like the DRM papers from 10-20 years ago that predicted DRM wouldn't stop piracy, censorship won't stop terrorism. And just like the DRM example, these reports and studies will be ignored because someone stands to make a lot of money if the reports are ignored.
No, he kinda kicked it up a notch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjniYBfsX7I
"Hope. Change."
So what your saying is...
*puts on subglasses*
He turned it up to 11?
YEEEEEEEAH!
Does anyone else feel like "Captain Hindsight" was just here??
Here's my deeply researched article I wrote that upstages this one:
Censorship won't stop a damn thing. It won't stop anything copyrighted, illegal, dangerous, or terrorism-related. It will just be used to control people and enforce IP-holders' business models to make them more money (in their opinion).
The End
Citations:
Common sense, reality, and past experience with internet stuff
If anything, censorship will only harden the resolve of terrorists and will only further fuel their personal justifications for enaging in the act.
I don't know why this wa modded as 'troll' except for perhaps a lack of knowledge about recent history wherein US Born Anwar al-Awlaki was murdered by drone attack, without the application of any due process whatsoever, because of things he said. In other words, Obama murdered an American over exercising free speech rights. And yeah, Alwaki didn't say nice things, but think about the implications.
Think about the characteristics of leaders of the worst authoritarian governments, think about how the president believes he can kill anyone or jail anyone without trial. Think about how the president has usurped the power to make war from Congress totally (i.e., Libya). Think about the massive prison system based in our Land-Of-The-Free which houses more people on an absolute basis than any other in the world. Think about all this stuff and you might start rationally fearing the future.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Their first mistake was in thinking that the censorship was designed to stop terrorism. Terrorism is an excuse, like WMDs... the real goal is control.
Like gun control stops domestic violence. Like banning Big Gulps stops obesity. Like making people take off their shoes at an airport makes us safer.
I have this nasty habbit of watching the behavior of other people, and am very interested in how stereotypes develop, how they relate to group demographics, and how they also fail to describe individual people.
I have had the great (mis)fortune of being able to observe "important" people in many niches, and levels of "importance", and have come up with some general rules of thumb concerning their behaviors. These are stereotypes, of course, and should not be seen as gospel, or as describing individuals.
That said, the stereotypical "important person" (I keep using that phrase, because it covers a large demographic ranging from senior managment to politicians, to police officers.) Is actually very insecure about their position. They have worked very hard to get into their "important" position, and are terrified of being displaced, either through their superiors replacing them with a better employee, or through discovery of their being a crook.
This insecurity makes this stereotypical person very paranoid, and prone to establishing elaborate plans and collusions to prevent the possibility of competition for their position. It also makes them very susceptible to "terror", and they react very agitatedly and aggressively toward any 'percievied' threat.
A good example of this comes from a friend of mine who works with/near city government of his small town. Shortly after the sept 11 tradecenter attack, this small city government (under 100,000 residents) "increased security", was actively looking for terrorists, and had a major panic attack when a passing pedestrian left a backpack in the lobby while sad pedestrian used the public bathroom. (For real, they thought he was a bomber.) The recognition that they were simply not that important to attract the attention of organized terror agencies simply didn't kick in even once.
Due to this hysterical paranoia, they seek any and all means to "feel safe", which means they have absolutely no mental barriers against locking innocent people into padded rooms for discussing "scary" topics, or even just discussing the shortcomings of our stereotypical "important" people.
We can see manifestations of this in the US government, where serious discussions of enacting "indefinate detention" without a trial, or oversight "for national security" took place not all that long ago, and was narrowly struck down.
Being told that the measures that make them feel the most secure, are demonstrably the worst measures they could ever attempt when wanting to actually BE secure, will usually make them confrontational, and increasingly paranoid. They have an uncanny tendency to have a superiority complex, that prevents them from accepting professional advice, if that advice goes against what they believe. They view such offers of policy advice as attacks against their credibility and viability as leaders, and not as the healthy, helpful professional advice that it is. In order to get them to enact outside advice of this nature, they have to be duped into thinking it was their idea first.
That has not occured with this study. This study directly contradicts the currently held practices of important world leaders in dealing with people discussing "dangerous and scary" things, and will be viewed with derision, and outright contempt, (and more than a healthy dose of fear.)
It will be mocked and ridiculed behind closed doors, completely ignored in public commentary and the press (unless the press brings it up, then expect diversionary tactics), and burried. The researchers themselves might even experience difficulties getting more grant money, though the cockblock will be subtle.
In short, don't expect this study to bring enlightenment in our leaders.
Did we really need a study to figure that out?
How fucking retarded are we as a species?
Do you D?
Censor stuff and you thereby censor the terrorists. You censor the terrorists then they cant spread their message thereby convincing others to their cause and they have a tougher time communicating with eachother.
Tough times call for tough measures and if you have a problem you cant always have an easy solution, sometimes you have to bite the bullet. And this time that bullet is censorship but lets all face facts, you can still think as you please but oh no you cant post your stupid opinions about something on a blog! Oh no the world will end! Get over yourselves, internet censorship changes nothing because aside from you, no one cares what you write on it.
Aren't censorship and terrorism orthogonal?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
You need a brit to tell you this? Of course it won't. The revolution will not be censored. You can try all you want, it will only embolden them and us. And make no mistake, readers, "terrorists" is a transparent bullshit term used by an establishment stuck in 2001 who thinks we are too stupid and afraid to see reality anymore. This is and has and will continue to be used against normal, law-abiding Americans and other citizens of "free" western societies to keep us in line. Don't let it.
Good God, someone was *paid* to do a study to figure this out? Oh, by the way, sex education doesn't reduce masturbation or pre-marital sex either. And ads from the RIAA don't stop music piracy. In other news, nobody trust banks, politicians or other forms of mafia.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Trust only your own senses, but verify what your senses tell you.
Aside from the free speech issues, what it does is chase off a few noncommitted types and drive the serious ones deeper underground where they're harder to find. Good policing and intelligence work involves staking out the site and watching who comes and goes and what they do. Pushing them off onto Freenet or somewhere eliminates that opportunity for observation. Worried about exposing impressionable persons to such rhetoric? Then provide alternatives, built by someone who really cares and understands how to reach them. What happened in the Cold War? Communist Bloc radio wasn't jammed. Instead, the West transmitted their viewpoints (VOA, RFE, etc).
If a censored Internet is anathema to a free and open society, the Security Organs are implementing the solution already: eliminate free and open society. After all, if you've done nothing wrong...
That is just lip service. Stopping terrorism through censorship is probably not on the agenda of our masters.
And Drones pay for "political contributions" to someone's campaign.
And we all know what happens when the campaign is over and there is money left over in the Super-PAC..
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
they have to be duped into thinking it was their idea first
How do we do this?
How do we trick officials into installing wetware that is in their best interests?
Trojan? Think positive. How could discrediting censorship be presented as being a tough-on-terrorists idea by our Fearless Leaders?
He was killed for being an al qaeda leader in Yemen. Not for saying mean things. Retard.
Those who don't know that "Terrizm" is just an excuse to justify censorship, please raise your hands. Governments are thrilled that they've found this convenient boogyman to scare people with and demand conformity.
repression, regardless of the form it takes, inevitably does that. Sometimes is goes by another name, such as "revolution" or something.
What it ends up being called usually depends on who won.
So, in the opinion of the esteemed moderator, what would motivate someone to make light of this?
No wait, don't even answer. You're fucked, and you're fucking us. Kill yourself. Now.
Do you think governments will heed the report's advice?
So you say, but the government presented no evidence of this, made no accusations, did not indict him or in any way prove what you say.
Dangerous retard.
*Report* *Warns* That *Censorship* Will Not Stop *Terrorism* - (Bullshit) Bingo!
Filtering of Internet content is impractical in a free and open society.
Therefore, we should first get rid of this free and open society.
I don't remember exactly where and when this decision was made, but most national governments are already in full-swing implementation mode.
... and the report was quickly suppressed as a threat to national security.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Probably because it's not an "Obama thing" so much as it's a "humanity thing".
Everybody poops, as the learned tome says.
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny.
The once-chained people whose leaders - at last! - lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
Making light of a situation does not imply approval of the actions that created it. You were rightfully modded down.
"Terrorism" a tactic, NOT a thing you can fight a "war" against!
"Terrorism" with the exception of 911 is just background noise, it's been going on for hundreds of years, everywhere!
The government of these USoA's have joyously pounced on "Terrorism" as an excuse to radically seize/expand more power and destroy even more of the Constitution in the process! Wasn't it Bush that said "It's terrible to let a disaster go to waste" or something along those lines?
Everytime you drop a bomb, fire a missile, shoot a .50 and miss your intended target, and. You blow up some farmers hooch, kill a bus full of school kids, kill the village "holy man". The skinny farmer who in burying little bloody rags of meat that used to be his family, becomes a man filled with a kind of hate that very few of my fellow Americans (thankfully) can understand, and the only thing that can stop him is a bullet, he cannot be frightened, bribed or reasoned with, that errant bomb has created a "Terrorist"!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Look, this thing people do where if you don't win it all then you're a loser entirely misses the point. I'd rather slow terrorism than not bother with it. And committing to the tactic of "censorship" does NOT preclude me from pursuing other strategies, so why would anyone even bother arguing against it? People's lives are a lot more important to me than whether you think some principality has wasted money and infringed on a terrorists' right to have a website.
Um ... no. Obama has taken us places GWB couldn't have because if GWB decided that his opinion alone sufficed as "due process" in the phrase "no person shall be deprived of life ... without due process of law," Democrats would have gone apeshit on him. But, when Obama says his opinion alone is "due process" (citation), Democrats say nothing at all. It's despicable partisanship.
So, the Bush Doctrine had some limits -- in the hands of a Democrat, there are none at all.
Anyway --- you should really think about that friendly kind peace loving Democrat Eric Holder's statement that "due process" does not mean judicial process. That is opening the door even further into authoritarianism -- a state where the President's unchallenged opinion is all that is required to kill you or put you in a gulag.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Evidence? I mean aside from the president said that. Do you have any actual evidence? I thought not.
In East Fuckyostan, the leader's word that you should die is good enough being a dictator and all that.
In America, we're supposed to have the right to contest the evidence against us and to be punished only after it is proven we ought to be.
Anyway, enjoy the Democratic Peoples Republic of America. Long live our dear leader: Obama.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
His son was killed as well
He was 16 and born in Denver
As unpopular as it may be nowadays, it's innocent until proven guilty
Going after the supply works people. Just look at the hugely successful 40 year old War on Drugs.
"Report Warns That Censorship Will Not Stop Terrorism"
"Lawmakers Ignore Report"
Terror networks are self healing; they route around damage.
RIP Mr. Hicks. You are sorely missed.
As popular as the misquote is, it's 'Innocent UNLESS proven guilty' (even though everybody is guilty of SOMETHING, so maybe the misquote is apt.
Yeah yeah "it's only a joke". Kill yourself though.
No, he kinda kicked it up a notch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjniYBfsX7I
"Hope. Change."
Ah, Chomsky and the Iranian news in one youtube video! The esteemed Dr. Chomsky approaches truth in an almost clinical fashion, preparing the most potent concoctions he can develop, in a homeopathic sense: the more dilute the "medicine", the more "powerful" it is. I must admit that diluting his already minimal truthfulness in the sea of lies of the Iranian news is a stroke of homeopathic genius! The result is more dilute than a needle of truth in a haystack of lies, and therefore so much more powerful. A pity the video is so short, there is obviously so much potential from that collaboration.
Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome
Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge – The Observer
Noam Chomsky: The Last Totalitarian
The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
In other words, you know that I'm right and you're having a tantrum because you can't deal with that knowledge.
You will now prove me right again.
I don't know why this wa modded as 'troll' except for perhaps a lack of knowledge about recent history wherein US Born Anwar al-Awlaki was murdered by drone attack, without the application of any due process whatsoever, because of things he said. In other words, Obama murdered an American over exercising free speech rights. And yeah, Alwaki didn't say nice things, but think about the implications.
I'm afraid the lack of knowledge is pretty much entirely yours. al-Awlaki received all of the due process he was due under the Law of War which was the basis for the attack that killed him, not criminal law. Mark that - killed him, not murdered him. He was no more murdered than these men shot down en mass by the US Federal government without warrant, arrest, trial, conviction, or warning - and appropriately so. Al-Awlaki put himself in the same category as the men in that video. Al-Awlaki left the United States, entered Al Qaida controlled territory, and joined up with them in body to complete what he had already been accomplishing in word and deed. He made his intent known. He was connected to multiple terrorist attacks. He certainly appears to have earned his Hellfire, in this life and the next. And yes, the United States is at war with Al Qaida as authorized under the terms of the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress which is legally equivalent to a declaration of war - a point of well settled law.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell