Slashdot Mirror
France Will Block Web Sites That Promote Terrorism
An anonymous reader writes In the first use of government powers enacted after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the French Interior Ministry on Monday ordered five websites blocked on the grounds that they promote or advocate terrorism. The action raises questions about how governments might counter groups such as the self-declared Islamic State on digital platforms.
Sometimes censorship is necessary, mainly to stop weak minded people from doing stupid things.
Hooray for terrorism!
Au revoire, slashdot!
Why not block portions of Facebook and Twitter, which are used as recruiting tools and communications channels? (Though a block of ALL of Facebook and Twitter would be popular with everyone tired of the "chatter")?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
A takedown order beats a massive fuel air bomb suffocating everyone.
Blocking websites is useless if they are unwilling to block the people coming to Europe to spread the poison of islam. With EU having a very weak outer border, nothing stops extremists from coming in to spread hate and indoctrination under young kids. We are now seeing kids as young as 12 years old heading for Syria. Where did they pick up the desire to do that? Who is poisoning their young minds? Blocking a website will have zero effect if the mosque or islam school next door aides extremists.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
THAT'S the relevant question here.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Vive la Revolution
Because those channels promote terrorism carried out by US... Sorry I mean freedom love and ponies to underdeveloped nations
so... to protect the free speach of Charlie Hebdo, they ban or block speech that fall under the loose term of "terrorism"
They should just redirect all incoming traffic to a Rick Astley video.
If you allow the site to remain accessible, monitoring the traffic to/from will give you a clear bead on terrorist sympathizers in your midst. It will also give you a reading on how effective the terrorist's campaign is, and among what demographics. All of this is very useful intel for defeating them.
Also, being in the spotlight makes them more susceptible to public mockery.
Blocking it just legitimizes their position (in the minds of some), and people who are interested will just work around your blocks (most likely in ways that makes them harder to trace).
Whoever came up with this policy is either completely empty-headed, or isn't trying to harm terrorism at all (but is instead trying to endear him/her self to a group of empty-headed people who think this is a good idea).
There is no free speech protection written into the law, and basically people are against it anyway, so, whaddya gonna do?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It should read:
France won't block web sites that promote terrorism.
They'll try to, of course, but it won't work. Playing whack-a-mole all day long.
Sarcastic atheists aren't cutting off heads.
Try again...
I think if you want to support ISIS and fundamentalist Islam in a Western country, you should be given a one-way ticket to the Islamic country of your choice. Islam and Western civilization do not mix well. Trying to fight ISIS (or the 20% or so of Muslims who tacitly support it by wanting Sharia Law applied to all) is a terribly bloody idea. Better to let the people of a country run it the way they see fit-- and if that means a 7th century lifestyle, so be it. I am opposed to a "war on ISIS", but not opposed to expelling ISIS sympathizers from any country that doesn't want them. So.. Recruit away... and off ye go to an Islamic Utopia.
What is 'promote'? Talk about it? Investigate it? Report on it? Discuss it? Express your personal opinions?
What do they mean by 'block' and 'web sites'? If it is a torrent shared file, then what? What does block mean, what if some content cannot be 'blocked' will they (who is *they*) take France off line completely?
How do they define 'France' in this case? Who is this magical 'France' that will do all of these things?
Also why 'block websites', does that mean forums as well?
---
In Russia Putin is making it illegal for people to drive cars in a group together and to set up tent sites... these are being equated to anti-government protests and we can't have anti-government protests obviously and apparently this is not only happening in Russia, I don't see any difference between Russia and France in this case.
You can't handle the truth.
Learn your 20th century history. Secular socialist/communist states were responsible for the murder of their own citizens in the high tens of millions, possibly topping over 100 million. If you include deaths through gross mismanagement of resources and criminal negligence, it goes higher, and easily eclipses the sum total of all those dead in religious wars through all of human history.
This will work for anyone who has never heard of TOR, proxies, tunneling, forwarding servlets.... And since from description it sounds like they are blocking by DNS or IP. Both are very short turnaround to put up a new one. And then what? 100,000 records that are tested for every entry? And what about alternate ports? So useless.
Charlie Hebdo is fine because it is following western post-colonial xenophobic values, especially wrt. muslims. Most western countries are an inch away from shrinkage and plain fall. They *need* these value (how despicable might they be) to survive, or at least, think they do. They need something to fear, because they're failing at looking forward, and thriving.
Taunting insane people isn't nice, but it's a far cry from lunatics killing people.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
France here.
The first one (http://www.islamic-news.info/) is indeed down as of today if I use my ISP's DNS servers, although I gave up on those ages ago. I boggles my mind how they can still belive censorship has any chance of doing anything but publicizing whatever the censored object is. The mere though that censorship is an appropriate response means the terrorists won, we lost freedom and France is becoming more and more of a radical, extremist, democracy-challenged country.
I'm afraid we can't do much to stop the government overreach so I'm just going to go full Streisand and spread those links out of spite even if the sites are down, even if it's full of terroristo-pedo-nazis, even if I don't like it.
that info is on a terror site and cannot be confirmed for truth... by the very fact you mention it probably makes you a terrorist.
Nothing could do more damage to that movement than exposing that Das Fuhrer had the language skills of a middle school American sleeping through their first semester German class.
It's Der Fuerher...
(Did you take German in 7th or 8th grade?)
The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
www.whitehouse.gov
of a bunch of politicians who were soap-boxing about freedom of the press and "je suis Charlie" engaging in this kind of censorship. All speech is free, but some speech is more free than others. I don't think there's anyone alive who is in a position to form an unbiased judgment of whether a terrorist site, a porn site or Charlie Hebdo is more offensive. Offense, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder.
We are the 198 proof..
Charlie Hebdo is actually anti-racist, left-wing, and will mock nationalist party National Front just as much as different religions, including Judaism and Christianity. They only seem to be anti-Muslim, because that's the only group that can't take a joke.
A more appropriate terminology is "hide". There is zero improvement in the gov' capacity to actually block such websites from the source (which would at least have a chance to be effective). Instead, they just mess with the DNS to "prevent access" to a list of websites containing gods know what. I wouldn't know such blockage exist without news outlet since I'm not using my ISP's DNS.
And there's not much uproar about these "weapons" (the media call the recent laws "arsenal") being targeted at everyone, very marginally hitting actual terrorists (and not, in any way, hindering their capacity to communicate and recruit). Way to go France.
More than 10 million book copy were given away by the end of the war. It did not stop his rise. Neither did it help it falls. I keep hearing that showing people how bad the stuff is will actually work in favor of better udnerstanding and whatnot. All I see is actually is actually extremist spreading their stuff and nobody laughing at them , expect those which were *already* laughing at them before the spread of their toxic stuff. I am not advocating censorship I am simply stating : what you wrote is actually most probably bullshit.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I wish you luck.
The Japanese twitter meme contest was a far better counter attack than or censorship or war.
Terror is a feeling and humor is the antidote. Just as the Scary Movie franchise ruined classic horror, once it's mocked and funny, those giggling are no longer scared. They are empowered and immune to that pattern of fear. The Daily Show is also founded on this, as is/was Charlie Hebdo. France agrees with Charlie, but still fails to understand the guiding principles.
ref: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...
In the French Law, it is defined as: " une entreprise individuelle ou collective ayant pour but de troubler gravement l’ordre public par l’intimidation ou la terreur ."
You don't make a terrorist just by calling somebody a terrorist (although that's a useful tool for politicians...)
Because they bent for the music industry and actively went against downloaders, the infrastructure (massive use of VPN's in another country) to circumvent censorship is already in place.
Charlie Hebdo was not found to cross those limits.
to promote terrorism
They merely block 'em, we drone 'em
Table-ized A.I.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
to me it's simple: everything should be free speech, except that speech which calls for the violent removal of free speech
only that should be censored, and there is zero logical contradiction
because to allow free speech to promote the destruction of free speech is self-destruction
like how germany outlaws nazi imagery: to me, an american, this feels like arbitrary censorship incompatible with the idea of a free society. but to a german, what nazism represents is the violent destruction of freedoms. therefore, censoring symbolism which is all about destroying freedom is not a contradiction, because they have first hand experience with what allowing violent freedom destruction actually leads to
intolerance itself, and intolerance of intolerance, are completely opposite concepts. it's not hypocrisy at all
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
They facilitated the destruction of entire countries using weapons of mass destruction. How many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands died because of Fox news beating the drums of war to bomb more poor brown people into oblivion.
It wouldn't work...most neo nazis would agree with his racist agenda. But you are correct, he pretty well outlined all the fucked up plans that he carried out in the 30s and 40s back when he was in jail in the 20s. Its hard to see how anyone didn't see what was coming.
Censorship in general, never works very well, and often fans the flames. Just let them post whatever they want. Also, if I was a cia/nsa type, I would want all the extremist groups posting freely and publicly thinking they were safe, so I could intercept all communication going to and from their servers....
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
We'll keep saying that... until we import several million more useless idiots from crap countries to "replace" all the Westerners who are dying off.
Who in due course, like the mill towns of Northern England, will get automated out of existence five years after arriving, and will still end up unemployed and in the ghetto. All we're doing is storing up trouble for ourselves in the future.
I favour the Japanese solution myself. We are massively overcrowded, have plenty of technology, capital begging to be put to use... and far too many idlers as it is.
Well, to be fair to the religious war score count the number of humans existing in the past was much lower. I'm sure if we adjust the numbers by percentage of total population they'll pull back into the lead as they deserve.
Glenn Greenwald asks a more interesting and important question than /. encourages its readers to consider when Greenwald asks "What's Scarier: Terrorism, or Governments Blocking Websites in its Name?" and then he answers it, "More damage has been inflicted historically by censorship than by the "terrorism" used to justify it.". Considering how little of a threat terrorism is in the US relative to other known dangers ('Terrorism Still Less Deadly in US Than Lack of Health Insurance, Salmonella', 'Gun Murders vs. Terrorism by the Numbers') one has to wonder about other western countries such as France.
Digital Citizen
To defeat jihad you have to defeat the underlying ideology, called "Islam". Simply show the archeological evidence that shows the claims of Islam cannot be true. Here is a taste of modern archeology that is exposing Islam as a gigantic fraud meant to promote imperialism, misogyny, cultural supremacism and enslave human beings for the benefit of the Caliph (Emperor):
"An Historical Critique of Islam's Beginnings - Jay Smith" [71 mins]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm sorry the linked video is presented by a Christian, they seem to be the only ones paying attention to the march of the Global Jihad worldwide, and its goal of replacing all of Enlightenment Civilization either through force (jihad) or cultural change.
France doesn't need to censor Islam It merely needs to tell the truth about it - that it is a man-made system of control invented by Caliph Abd al-Malik in the late 7th Century in order to enslave and control other human beings.
To use a car analogy, imagine that someone claims that all traffic accidents are caused by drunk driving and then someone else responds that less than half of all traffic accidents are caused by drunk driving. And therefore it's actually lack of drunk driving that causes traffic accidents. And that there wouldn't be any traffic accidents if everyone drove drunk all the time.
Now with regard to socialism and communism, the economic situation in (socialist) Denmark is obviously very different from the economic situation in (communist) North Korea. You lose so much credibility trying to pretend that they're equivalent that you may even just be trolling (in the classic sense of posting something so ridiculous that people feel compelled to respond).
But the question of poverty is nonetheless very important. Roughly 20,000 children die of poverty every day. And there are huge differences in poverty rates between countries. But most of the countries with the highest poverty rates fall into a gray area where both sides go through all sorts of contortions to disavow responsibility. For example, advocates of unregulated capitalism will claim that countries like India and Indonesia are poor because they're too socialist. But advocates of communism will claim that they're poor because they're not socialist enough.
Personally, I tend to agree with Deng Xiaoping (who is generally credited with developing China into one of the fastest-growing economies in the world for over 35 years and raising the standard of living of hundreds of millions of Chinese): I don't care whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.
Why not block portions of Facebook and Twitter ...
I do not think censorship will ever work, but if the government of France is really steadfast in their decision to block/censor something, why not just blocking/censoring the one thing that creates most of the mayhem that are plaguing the world right now ( from Nigeria to Tunisia to Libya to Syria to Afghanistan to Pakistan to Indonesia ) and that is --- the Koran?
Because of that one book, people got their heads chopped off, people got gunned down, people got burned alive, and so on, and so forth
As I have said, I am never for censorship, but if one really, REALLY needs to censor something, why not do it right ?
Blocked sites are: jihadmin.com, mujahida89.wordpress.com, is0lamnation.blogspot.fr and alhayatmedia.wordpress.com.
But the system is incomplete: smaller ISP do not seems to be blocking them right now. Perhaps the government forgot to tell them about it.
France is an amateur by comparison.
To not include Muslims would be racist, wouldn't it? I mean, to exclude a group from being made fun of.
Isn't this what South Park does, makes fun of everyone equally, more or less?
Yeah, you've never read any Charlie Hebdo. They actually have the same stupid opinions as you.
From a strict technical problem, those sites are banned at the ISP level (more precisely at the DNS server of the ISP), with a IP redirection to site of the "Ministère de l'intérieur" where you can read a warning about the bad guys. But if you know just a (very) little bit of technology, changing the DNS server in your network preferences will bypass banning. Yes, it's that simple. It has more to do with communication for the media than with "war against terror".
A terrorist is a freedom fighter who isn't on your side.
Casteism