Slashdot Mirror
Legislation Requiring Tech Industry To Report Terrorist Activity Dropped
itwbennett writes: John Ribeiro reports that 'the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee has dropped a provision that would have required Internet companies to report on vaguely-defined terrorist activity on their platforms.' The draft legislation, which was unanimously passed by the Committee in July, was widely derided by the tech industry for its technical difficulty and by users for invasion of privacy.
We've expanded the definition of the word terrorist to include anybody we don't like or that we want to attack.
I doubt the provision would ever have been used anyway. Since the folks who want the data are already siphoning it, this would just let them say that they were, "just helping random ISP fulfill its responsibilities under such-and-such law" the next time their hand was caught in the cookie jar.
We all know how well that idea would have played out. False positives as far as the eye can see. The overreach is still with us, though, and getting worse with every passing year. It seems that politicians lack common sense, and that everything is now a kneejerk reaction to emotions.
This immigration business, for example. Yeah, let's go ahead and allow hundreds of thousands of muslims into America without vetting them. My family in England can tell you what muslims do when they get their cockroach numbers up, they demand change. In England, school systems are literally being forced via political correctness to allow no pork in school lunches, and some schools have even demanded children who bring their own lunches have nothing that could offend the muslim children. Hell no. Western societies need to wake up and see islam for what it really is. It's not just a religion, it's a societal framwork that incorporates religion, attitudes, and law. It's an ideology system that is wholly incompatible with Western mores and values.
So, why did they reverse their decision to collect this data?
Probably had to do with the fact they would have to submit a 72-page federal report documenting the "terrorist" events surrounding a 14-year old boy putting clock parts in a fucking box.
After that, they realized the paperwork was worse than the threat of terrorism. In fact, paperwork became the new terrorism.
The rate at which America is jumping the shark into full on fascism is alarming.
This basically would amount to "fuck it, we don't give a damn about your rights or the Constitution ... in order to keep you safe and defend your liberty we're going full surveillance society".
You should be very afraid of lawmakers pushing this kind of stuff ... because they're openly attempting to destroy pretty much everything the US has historically claimed to stand for.
Don't these people take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution? Because you can't defend it by ignoring it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Why is one single member of the United States Senate Intelligence Committee voting in favor of this legislation, let alone unanimously?
There is no circumstance in which a free citizen, not having signed any contract, should be required to report anything whatsoever to his government. My family was brought up under a dictatorship, and the reason that people were so successfully terrorised (i.e. felt fear and anticipated punishment) everywhere was not because there was a policeman on every street corner, in every bar, and in every home - though you did learn to shut your fucking piehole if anyone associated with the government was drinking on the next table. It was because the average Joe was encouraged to DO THEIR DUTY! and report - or, more often, misreport, because they simply don't like someone - suspicious behavior. Little fascists all saw it as their duty to keep everyone else in line.
The rolling back of authoritarianism comes not when the government turns its beady eyes away from your business, but when the citizens no longer consider themselves as servants of their government. In order for this to happen, citizens must disabuse themselves of the belief that there is some common enemy which warrants hiding under the protective wing of Mother State.
Now there are lots of people who are genuinely dangerous in personal and professional, public and private spheres: a mugger; an abusive family member who threatens you every time you try to get away; a jealous work colleague who misbehaves while logged into your account; a power-hungry politician who wants to make sure that something benign you're doing is criminalised, and can be recorded in advance, so it's just a matter of bringing up the data when needed; a psychopathic hedge fund manager who just bought control of your life-saving medication. These characters all have the specific features of being 1) identifiable actors; 2) with sufficient power; 3) taking specific relevant actions; 4) which either restrict your freedom immediately or have a chilling effect on your behavior. Bogeymen fail almost all these tests, while genuine threats do not.
"was widely derided by the tech industry for its technical difficulty and by users for invasion of privacy" I guarantee only one of those things mattered to decision makers.
Stupid regulations applied to your industry ... bad. Stupid regulations applied to someone else's industry ... SENSIBLE. Of course those other guys in that other industry that we don't understand need to be regulated.
... had they simply substituted the term 'terrorist' w/ 'Islamic'. That would have been both accurately targeted at the enemy, as well as technically a lot more feasible (check for key words like Islam, Muslim, sunnah, rasool, et al as well as for stuff in Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, Turkish, et al)
They don't actually have to read the paperwork, just store it. Then when someone in power decides you're an enemy, they pull out 10000 pages of paperwork filed over the years, scan it for some technical mistake or misinterpretation of some rule that was clarified after the paperwork was filed, and issue huge fines or get a warrant for your arrest. Witch hunt declared a success, political enemies punished, media cheers, totalitarian faction on Slashdot claims it's a victory for "justice". Number of non-elite, non-political-insider people actually helped: zero.
I doubt the provision would ever have been used anyway. Since the folks who want the data are already siphoning it
No. Mom-and-pop ISPs are already collecting all traffic from some customers and handing it over to the FBI, whether by order or request. But this was actually an attempt to turn the ISPs themselves into snitches and spies in the same way as your bank. Your bank is required to report any daily transactions over $5,000 as potential suspicious activity, especially if you appear to be "structuring" them to avoid the appearance of impropriety. So if you buy a used car and some wheels and tires for it all on the same day, and go to the bank to withdraw cash and maybe get some cashier's checks made, you could conceivably get flagged for investigation. But beyond that, the banks are also encouraged to report any other activity which they deem suspicious. It's encouraging them to be busybodies, to find creative new ways to look up your asshole.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They don't actually have to read the paperwork,
So, I put a clause in there about no brown M&Ms. Or the whole thing is null and void. I see one brown M&M, document it and their whole case will be thrown out.
Have gnu, will travel.
So do the "Internet companies" in US have a legal responsibility to report violent and organized crime to the authorities, if detected?
... google and tech companies are not what they seem. This is just more PR.
See here:
Article
Science on reasoning:
Science on reasoning
The real news
" Cohen’s world seems to be one event like this after another: endless soirees for the cross-fertilization of influence between elites and their vassals, under the pious rubric of “civil society.” The received wisdom in advanced capitalist societies is that there still exists an organic “civil society sector” in which institutions form autonomously and come together to manifest the interests and will of citizens. The fable has it that the boundaries of this sector are respected by actors from government and the “private sector,” leaving a safe space for NGOs and nonprofits to advocate for things like human rights, free speech, and accountable government.
This sounds like a great idea. But if it was ever true, it has not been for decades. Since at least the 1970s, authentic actors like unions and churches have folded under a sustained assault by free-market statism, transforming “civil society” into a buyer’s market for political factions and corporate interests looking to exert influence at arm’s length. The last forty years has seen a huge proliferation of think tanks and political NGOs whose purpose, beneath all the verbiage, is to execute political agendas by proxy.
It is not just obvious neocon front groups like Foreign Policy Initiative.20 It also includes fatuous Western NGOs like Freedom House, where naïve but well-meaning career nonprofit workers are twisted in knots by political funding streams, denouncing non-Western human rights violations while keeping local abuses firmly in their blind spots. The civil society conference circuit—which flies developing-world activists across the globe hundreds of times a year to bless the unholy union between “government and private stakeholders” at geopoliticized events like the “Stockholm Internet Forum”—simply could not exist if it were not blasted with millions of dollars in political funding annually.
Scan the memberships of the biggest US think tanks and institutes and the same names keep cropping up. Cohen’s Save Summit went on to seed AVE, or AgainstViolentExtremism.org, a long-term project whose principal backer besides Google Ideas is the Gen Next Foundation. This foundation’s website says it is an “exclusive membership organization and platform for successful individuals” that aims to bring about “social change” driven by venture capital funding.21 Gen Next’s “private sector and non-profit foundation support avoids some of the potential perceived conflicts of interest faced by initiatives funded by governments.”22 Jared Cohen is an executive member."
He's anti-greed, anti-American, anti-war: If that clause had passed, Anonymous coward would have been attacked by a SWAT team 5 minutes later.
Senator Dianne Feinstein ... considers it important to block the use of social media by terrorists.
Can't they just block the #SupportTerrorists, #TerrorizeForFun and #CommitTerrorismNow feeds?
This is another politician saying "you're the problem" and thinking that more laws means fewer terrorists. This is more of the 'removing encryption will remove crime' ideology: The USA tried that several months ago and India is trying it now.