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.
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.
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.
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).
Except that basically all extant religions feed on ANYTHING that can be construed as persecution. By trying to censor, you only strengthen their resolve. Same shit with Neo-nazis and Mein Kampf. 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.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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!”
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.
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.
Jaysus, can you imagine how high the Louis number would be with a couple more centuries of them???
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Oh, glad that those misguided idiots now can't have access to content promoting hatred in the name of religion.
Unless of course he goes to his local mosque. So let's shut down the mosques. Then they'll get together somewhere else.
Face it. There's no way you can keep idiots from being caught by sects. What you can do, and best would be such a way as this, is to make this harder to observe by your security forces.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So, you're saying the websites of places like army.mil are going to be blocked?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Seriously. If more people had read Mein Kampf, a lot of shit would have been spared from us. Simply because more people would have noticed just what a lunatic that guy was.
Personally, I'd make it mandatory lecture for every neo nazi just to show them what kind of fucked up megalomaniac they idolize.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I vote for an empiric research of the subject.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
its only terrorism when those we don;t agree with do it.
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.
that's terrorist talk right there
This is often asserted, and it would be nice if it were true, but is there any actual evidence for it?
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.
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.
www.whitehouse.gov
Back in the day, the .com version was better.
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.
I think whatever party is in power should declare all other political parties terrorists and have their web sites blocks.
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
That's state sponsored terror, so it's ok.
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...
By trying to censor, you only strengthen their resolve.
Ignoring them doesn't work so well, either. You miss the point where your "ANYTHING" includes nothing - if you do nothing, they will make something up. Heck, look how the right-wing christians in USA speak of being prosecuted.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.
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"
really??? Mein Kampf??
that book is a terrible read! the it starts out as a bit interesting, but quickly goes into what really comes across as a high school kids rant about something..
that book wasn't even popular within the nazi party other than people would have it to show their support of the Hitler.
I think he showed more merit in his art than in his writing.
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
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!
Yup. Exactly.
If more people had read that drivel, maybe more people would have noticed what kind of pantsless Emperor that little man was.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They started by blocking all US Gov't web properties. LOL.
$
Seriously. If more people had read Mein Kampf, a lot of shit would have been spared from us. Simply because more people would have noticed just what a lunatic that guy was. Personally, I'd make it mandatory lecture for every neo nazi just to show them what kind of fucked up megalomaniac they idolize.
Doesn't matter, he was the perfect talking head. He got people engaged, he got people enraged, he was speaking directly to a gravely wounded national pride. You might think the captain of the boat is a total idiot, but you're not going to stage a mutiny as long as he's on the course you want to be. Never underestimate the power of telling people what they want to hear.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
It's impossible to stop weak minded people from doing stupid things, block one thing and they'll just do something else stupid. In the meantime censorship hurts everyone else.
The fact that you guys are championing censorship itself.. is a glaring example of just how far humanity has fallen.
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.
"It is time that equality bore its scythe above all heads. It is time to horrify all the conspirators. So legislators, place Terror on the order of the day! Let us be in revolution, because everywhere counter-revolution is being woven by our enemies. The blade of the law should hover over all the guilty."
Some French people have been pleased to call the tactics that they agree with "terror".
Terrorism is very simply producing terror in a population as a tactic for political gain. What the "jihadis" are doing is terrorism. They aren't killing warriors sent to fight them or even politicians, they're killing aid workers and journalists. Women and children. On purpose and via staged video releases.
This has nothing to do with agreement, and everything to do with intent. You can create terror without intending it, but when your goal is terror, it is terrorism. It is certainly valid to compare the numbers of lives lost on both sides and count the expense in lives of even non-terrorist actions, but it is wrong to take that comparison and ignore the intent of terrorists to generate civilian casualties as a primary goal, as opposed to military action which produces civilian casualties as a side effect.
Well said.
I agree that what ISIS is doing is reprehensible to the highest degree. However the question isn't about what they are doing is terror but rather blocking websites (free speech) in the name of terror.
Maybe in a historical context those sites and their contents will be "allowed" once again but effectively it is an infringement at this time. Islamist, jihadists, muslim extremist or terrorists are all words that we can label them with and rightfully so. However when we start blocking/censoring ideology, religious or otherwise, because we disagree with it or find it distasteful or even horrifying, we start to fall into the trap of ideological warfare ourselves.
They are killing all. Warriors, politicians, aid workers and journalists and anyone else they can in a bid to cement control to wipe out any individual free thought or thinker by terrorizing those they supposedly want to rule. So in the end it is a political movement based on an ideology of control rather than religion. Religion is just a convenient excuse.
In US, the populace was coerced to support wars on the fear mongering by the politicians, and what is sad that even today a sizable group supports those false premises. One direct result of the terror wars is ISIS and the mess the region has become.
Its easy for me to say "mess" sitting so far away in safety while those there are living and dying with no recourse. I only wish there had been stronger opposition to the War on Terror in US before the Iraq invasion. But back than any conversation against was considered unpatriotic and god forbid we have unpatriotic conversations.
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.
It's terrorism when they don't win against oppressors. First they're terrorists, then they're partisans, then they're revolutionaries and "freedom fighters," Reagans description of bin Laden's group.
Except that basically all extant religions feed on ANYTHING that can be construed as persecution.
Refusing to see the difference between "A" and "B" (you: "hey, they're both letters!) is unwise.
The only question, is whether government sites will be blocked too?
All kidding aside, while I don't agree with terrorism, it needs to be defined in a very strict legal terms, such that other inconvenient sites don't also get blocked, due to some vagueness of definition.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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.
The only real labels that matters in classifying violent conflicts is "winners" and "losers".. Anything else is just pseudo intellectual group speak. If you must hang a label on ISIS or similar groups the most appropriate one would be "murdering psychopaths".
I wonder why so many people wear Che t-shirts..........have they ever read any of Che's prose?
"The situation was uncomfortable for the people and for Eutimio so I ended the problem giving him a shot with a .32 pistol in the right side of the brain, with exit orifice in the right temporal." - Che Guevara
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Seriously. If more people had read Mein Kampf, a lot of shit would have been spared from us.
What are you smoking? Mein Kampf was best seller and Hitler got rich off its sales. People knew exactly what they were getting.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
The only real labels that matter are 'innocent' or 'proven guilty in a court of law'. Corrupt capitalism seems to be doggedly reaching for more and more guilt upon accusation with zero remediation for false accusation, no matter how many times false accusations are made. This basically to be made available only to governments and those who can afford access to government, pretty much a licence to censor anyone and everyone for any reason at all and to keep them off line with repeated false accusations. Basically costs nothing to accuse someone if you are licensed and approved to do so but costs thousands of dollars to lift the ban with no opportunity to recover not only the cost of lifting the ban but also lost revenue and readers.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Censorship IS weak-minded people doing stupid things.
I you want to compare, they would block sites that make APOLOGY of Reign of Terror.
'innocent' or 'proven guilty in a court of law' have lost their meaning. The physical and electronic lynch mobs declare "your guilty because I don't like you" and their evidence usually boils down to the number of "likes" or the number of "tweets" supporting their opinions and when that is not enough evidence "your guilty because I said so" will suffice.
Except that basically all extant religions feed on ANYTHING that can be construed as persecution. By trying to censor, you only strengthen their resolve. Same shit with Neo-nazis and Mein Kampf. 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.
Your comments are just if you are dealing with rational individuals. But when an individual becomes ultra whatever, (from religion to being anorexic to drug addiction), rationalism is out the window. Censorship drives that drivel underground, and that way the reach to a number of susceptible individuals is greatly reduced. And of the ones converted, they are lost.
We now hear that many that went to Isil (Isis) are disillusioned about the terrorism. They can't leave for fear of death. Only sadists remain truly committed.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
A terrorist is a freedom fighter who isn't on your side.
Casteism