Revived Lawsuit Says Twitter DMs Are Like Handing ISIS a Satellite Phone (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: A long-standing lawsuit holding Twitter responsible for the rise of ISIS got new life today, as plaintiffs filed a revised version of the complaint (PDF) that was struck down earlier this month. In the new complaint, the plaintiffs argue Twitter's Direct Message service is akin to providing ISIS with physical communications equipment like a radio or a satellite phone. The latest complaint is largely the same as the one filed in January, but a few crucial differences will be at the center of the court's response. The plaintiffs also offer new arguments for why Twitter might be held responsible for the attack. In the dismissal earlier this month (PDF), District Judge William Orrick faulted the plaintiffs for not articulating a case for why providing access to Twitter's services constituted material aid to ISIS. "Apart from the private nature of Direct Messaging, plaintiffs identify no other way in which their Direct Messaging theory seeks to treat Twitter as anything other than a publisher of information provided by another information content provider," the ruling reads. At the same time, the judge found that the privacy of those direct messages "does not remove the transmission of such messages from the scope of publishing activity." The new complaint includes some language that might address that concern, explicitly comparing Twitter to other material communication tools. "Giving ISIS the capability to send and receive Direct Messages in this manner is no different than handing it a satellite phone, walkie-talkies or the use of a mail drop," the new complaint reads, "all of which terrorists use for private communications in order to further their extremist agendas." The Safe Harbor clause has been used in the past to protect service providers from liability for hosting data on their network. However, "Brookings Institute scholar Benjamin Witters argued against protecting Twitter under the Safe Harbor clause, claiming that the current reasoning would also protect companies that actively offer services in support of terrorists."

Comments

well then, hand them a sat phone

[turkeydance]

with c4

Re:well then, hand them a sat phone

[tripleevenfall]

Is that analogy supposed to rest on the idea they don't already have satellite phones?

Re: well then, hand them a sat phone

[sg_oneill]

Turning on a sat phone in Syria is probably the fastest way to get a predator drone dropping in for a party

Re:well then, hand them a sat phone

[jellomizer]

We need to stop being hypocrites about our values.
Private communication risks our security (As the bad guys cannot be monitored).
Security risks our privacy (As the good guys will be monitored).

I would also like to make a point it doesn't take a team of super geniuses to code an encrypted and unrecorded communication protocol. Just one guy, and less than one day of work. It may not be clean and polished, but it would do the job.

   

Re:well then, hand them a sat phone

[dgatwood]

Is that analogy supposed to rest on the idea they don't already have satellite phones?

Worse. It rests on the idea that Twitter knows who the terrorists are.

Providing something to someone in good faith isn't a crime even if they later turn out to be a terrorist, as a rule. I mean sure, if you provide a firearm, you'd probably better have done due diligence, and if you send money to a charity in the Middle East, it is probably a good idea to do so, though not legally required. However, AT&T isn't committing a crime if they give cell service to somebody merely because they later find out that the person used that phone to commit an act of terror. The same applies here.

And this isn't even an ongoing service except for the existence of a particular account and the ability to look up the IP address for that account. So this is more like selling someone a set of walkie talkies. Once you've sold them, you can't readily take them back just because you later find out that they are terrorists. And the law can't reasonably expect you to do so. More to the point, it does not expect you to do so.

The best that the government can do is insist that Twitter shut down access to an account that they suspect is terror-related. And if they do that, Twitter will undoubtedly deactivate it. But the government apparently doesn't want to do that, as evidenced by the fact that they have not done so. We could speculate about whether the government's decision is based on futility (because a new account would just spring up five minutes later) or some actual security-related reason, but from the perspective of a prosecution of Twitter for giving material support, the government's reasons for not demanding account closure are irrelevant. The mere fact that the government did not tell them that a particular account is that of a suspected terrorist is a sufficiently airtight defense against those charges.

Re:well then, hand them a sat phone

[Rob Y.]

Isn't the problem with Twitter that it's essentially a broadcast medium? These aren't private conversations - that's a different issue. The problem is allowing ISIS to use Twitter and/or Facebook or whatever as recruiting tools. As such, there's nothing anonymous about it - they're broadcasting that they're ISIS, and these tools make them easy to find for non-affiliated, potential recruits. The content itself, is anything but secret - it's propaganda, which by definition has to be as widely available as possible to be effective.

What's the problem, Lana?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yours,
Sterling

Surely Not

[Anonymous Coward]

would also protect companies that actively offer services in support of terrorists.

So willful, active support for terrorism is a lesser crime than violating copyright? Is that what Witters suggests?

Re:Surely Not

[tburkhol]

So willful, active support for terrorism is a lesser crime than violating copyright? Is that what Witters suggests?

No, he's suggesting that a business which makes its product available to terrorists is 'providing material support to terrorists,' and it doesn't matter if that product is, itself, not physically material. He's suggesting that a company providing material support to terrorists should not be able to use copyright law to hide from the NSA.

The fundamental claim that we should all be worried about is that doing business with a terrorist, even if you don't know they're terrorists, is equivalent to actively promoting their cause. You know, so if you're an electric company, and one of your customers sets off a bomb, you may be liable for prosecution.

Re:Surely Not

[Anonymous Coward]

So does any telephone or even cellphone. Or even the snail mail system.

I see no difference.

Shall we sue every communications service? AT&T, Verizon, ... just for carrying messages?

Or should all communications be stopped...

Just plain being stupid is what they are.

Re:Surely Not

[Anonymous Coward]

.. Remembering the comfy times when criminal laws considered intent and common reason ..

Consistency

[Kunedog]

Twitter itself buys into (through their vague ToS and uneven/biased enforcement) arguments equating disagreement with harassment, and criticism with threats. And it throws even those stances out the window when the "harassing" party aligns with the right politics. Their Trust and Safety Council contains known harassers and doxxers.

If Twitter consistently took up a principled position to protect free speech (instead of cracking down on political thoughtcrime at the drop of a hat), they'd be in a much better position to resist this.

Re:Consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because most harassment is disagreement without an off switch.

But it's splitting hairs, arguing the DM system is a terrorist tool ignores a fundamental part of how the internet works, which is that there has never been anything stopping two people from communicating directly to each other over a secure channel. They(terrorists) could just as easily get SSH access to any number of servers and communicate entirely over the shell. But so can child pornographers.

The reason it's a stupid argument is that Cloudflare is by far a much larger and easier target that uses the same bullshit reasoning. I'd almost say it's more likely 50%+ of cloudflare is nothing but pirated material, with some child porn sites that have been around for years thrown in as proof that cloudflare ignores DMCA's and law enforcement requests.

So it does point out that the safe harbor aspect protecting "data" that is transitory is taken a little too far when the purpose of the service is presented as "free speech/anti-censorship", because pretty much any site that sits on a "Free speech" argument, is a safe-haven for terrorists just as much as it is for pirates and child pornographers. If you want to fix the safe harbor provision, you have to start by requiring such services to respond to law enforcement, DMCA, and similar requests with no less than a "I'll delete the content, if you don't sue me", and only switching to "here's the content, ip addresses, photos, etc" when the law enforcement entity has a court order to obtain that information, and not to take the content down before hand.

Re:Consistency

[currently_awake]

You need to do more than provide things to the general public to be aiding and abetting criminals, you must also knowingly be doing so. Otherwise anyone who sold trucks could be arrested for selling a truck used by ISIS, or selling shoes (as used by ISIS).

Re:Consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

... And it throws even those stances out the window when the "harassing" party aligns with the right politics..

That is always going to happen when you create an authority to control anything. The authority has power and there are always people who desire to wield power.

Slashdot's moderation is an intresting compromise - no individual moderator has enough power to effect overwhelming change, and even in aggregate, only so much can be done - posts aren't ever simply disappeared, they're just scored to lower and lower thresholds that people may choose to ignore or audit

Re:Consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

If Twitter wants to be able to say that Milo was removed for "harassment" then they better be prepared to remove ISIS accounts for actual real life terrorism related communication.

Want to be a common carrier? Great, don't ban people for having opposing political views. Want to pick and choose who to ban based on your politics? Don't get upset when you start getting put under pressure by the government to remove things they object to (like islamic terrorist related communication).

Re:Consistency

[DaHat]

Hence why Milo is again seeking data related to his account, which when provided will almost certainly demonstrate that his account was suspended for political reasons and not for actual 'harassment'

Sure a good thing for ISIS they didn't call Leslie Jones a 'black dude' or write a negative review of Ghostbusters (current year), otherwise they too would be on the receiving end of wrath of @Jack.

Re: Consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

DM is a terrorism "tool" just like Motorola pagers were (drug dealers and gangs). but no one thought of suing Motorola and the telcos who implemented the systems.
different groups had different pager protocols and code systems, too.
come on, uber spies, get off your asses and work for your intel. Chances are the stuff you work hard for is far more actionable anyways.

Re:Consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because most harassment is disagreement without an off switch

Stopped reading there [before the bolded part, which is integral to the meaning of the sentence].

Figures. Thank you for a perfect illustration of selective blindness and intentional twisting of others' words as means of promoting your views.

Re:Consistency

[Damouze]

The DMCA is only valid for those sites physically located in the US. If a person decides to setup a server in another sovereign nation he is not required to comply with the DMCA. That is also Cloudflare's main and best defense against it.

If that person suddenly decides to host and distribute copyrighted content on that site, he is again not required to comply with the DMCA. However, he might have to contend with the requirements of the local legislation of the country he is hosting his server in.

Re:Consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

You're accusing me of engaging in deception while advocating for labeling 'excessive disagreement' as harassment and advocating for its removal.

Bravo, this is immaculate logic on your part.

Re:Consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to do more than provide things to the general public to be aiding and abetting criminals, you must also knowingly be doing so. Otherwise anyone who sold trucks could be arrested for selling a truck used by ISIS, or selling shoes (as used by ISIS).

I don't think trucks' or shoes' producers are not aware that bad guys are buying their products, it's just that in most cases they can't differentiate them from other customers.

Defence attorneys are knowingly aiding and abetting criminals. Should we throw a book at them whenever we find out they were aware that their clients really did it? Aren't they wilfully obstructing justice?

Re:Consistency

[Mashiki]

First time they refused that as well, trying to claim he's an immigrant to the US(tip to people who go lulz he is!). He's a born citizen of the UK and maintains a permanent residence there. The second time, they refused to respond and he's sent a second letter stating that he'll take it up with the commissioners office if they refuse. Which could get interesting, since they can slap fines against twitter in the million range.

Re: Consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. Tell that to Kim Dotcom.

Re:Consistency

[BringsApples]

You're right, but unfortunately that logic doesn't apply to large corporations, I mean countries. Trucks may be used by ISIS, but it's the weapons/explosives that are causing all the problems. Even though we hear a lot about RPGs, and how easy they are to make, someone has to be selling them the explosives included. Someone's selling them guns and ammo.

I wonder how they're making these transactions, because surely it's not just one little truck delivering a small amount of.... oh wait, I see what you did there.

Re:Consistency

[D00MSlayer]

“I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day . I think the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.“

Source: http://articles.philly.com/199...

Trump was asked about the book this quote was from during a 1997 playboy interview, and stated that what the book said was "Probably true", which in Trumpian means "Yeah, but I won't full on admit it"

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...

Re:Consistency

[Scarletdown]

I don't think trucks' or shoes' producers are not aware that bad guys are buying their products, it's just that in most cases they can't differentiate them from other customers.

Defence attorneys are knowingly aiding and abetting criminals. Should we throw a book at them whenever we find out they were aware that their clients really did it? Aren't they wilfully obstructing justice?

Unless they are providing legal counsel services during the sentencing phase, then they are only still aiding alleged criminals. Just being accused or being on trial does not automatically mean guilty. That is what trials are for, to determine whether or not the accused is in fact a criminal.

Re: Consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

If we stop ISIS getting hold of Toyota's, specifically Land Cruisers they would be in deep shit. File a lawsuit against Toyoda-san for providing material assistance as well ?

Re:Consistency

[D00MSlayer]

I post citations to his racism to confirm a fact and I get scored a troll? WTF? Get a grip, mods.

So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[Anonymous Coward]

If ISIS using Twitter is no different to ISIS using a satellite phone, walkie talkies etc, ""all of which terrorists use for private communications in order to further their extremist agendas." then why aren't the creators of those devices involved in this litigation?

Re: So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[dfeifer]

They could also use a private team speak / ventrilo / etc. server but I would hazard a guess that most of it is done via throw away cell phones.. so let's take away Mobil phones from everyone? Really this whole speiel sounds a lot like the whole " gateway drug" dispute.

Re:So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[sims 2]

How is this different than the pm of vBulletin or any of the other many sites that allow their users to pm each other?

Re: So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter is popular.

Re:So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter has demonstrated the ability and the will to censor or ban users they do not like for speech they find unacceptable. They have failed to ban ISIS members and have failed to censor them, therefore they find ISIS acceptable.

Re:So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct! They just put holes in their own arguments. Just as Colt isn't held responsible. Toyota is not at fault. Sony is not a culprit. Facebook is not responsible for what they do. Neither is Twitter!

Re: So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[flopsquad]

Mobil phones

Sound like pretty crude devices to me. *ducks*

Re:So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[speedplane]

Sue the U.S. postal service!!! Terrorists can send hidden messages to each other, across the border and within our cities and towns!!!

Re:So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[alvinrod]

They all probably contain some piece of legalese in the product license or EULA indicating that it is illegal to use them for purposes of terrorism (famously the iTunes EULA contains an agreement not to use the software to develop nuclear weapons) or in extreme cases the government may even forbid sale to that country if the actors are state-sponsored.

I suppose it's more difficult in the case of Twitter since they're a service instead of a product. Once someone comes into possession of a walkie talkie there isn't some magical switch that can revoke the original sale and dispossess the offending individuals. Even with phones you're limited to what a carrier who's not in your jurisdiction will do for you and it also supposes that you can pin-point a particular device without more information. Once again Twitter fails this to some degree as even though direct messaging is possible, it's typically easy to identify the bad people because of a large volume of public activity that's being broadcast as widely as possible. Not only that, but the service also naturally tracks other accounts that follow or rebroadcast those messages as a core part of the service.

All of that said, I don't personally believe Twitter should be legally responsible for ISIS, even if they don't have some kind of clause to indemnify themselves or if the nature of their product makes it physically possible or relatively easier for them to identify undesirable parties when compared to alternative means of communication. Holding them directly responsible for any act would require proving them to be complicit in facilitating the act and proving that the act could not have occurred without the use of Twitter. That's a tenuous gambit at best and such a legal ruling would establish precedent for all manner of other shaky cases while at the same time fly in the face of other rulings that have gone against cases based on a chain of argument and logic far more sound.

Re:So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unexpected consequences of declaring your platform to be pure and pristine, that respects everyone* with a zero-tolerance safe space to... enable... shit I don't know remember how the rest of this garbage usually goes, never mind.

Anyway, now you have more crusaders playing an older, broader card (the ol' BecauseTerrorism) demanding explanations.

And like all templars, they don't actually expect the ulterior purpose (stop terrorasms talking) to be served, they have an agenda beneath the sanctimony.

Re: So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[Anonymous Coward]

the Exxon is right over there...

Re: So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[Anonymous Coward]

Too expensive, they wont SHELL out for them!

Re:So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[mwvdlee]

Twitter has much more money that could be awarded to the plaintiff, that's the difference.

Re: So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[JaredOfEuropa]

They won't take away phones, but many countries have, or are considering, requiring customers to provide ID and be registered when buying prepaid SIMs. Which works great because no criminal or terrorist ever carries fake ID, and they never have any friends who can buy the SIMs for them.

I was pleasantly surprised at the way Mexico handled this. They started registering prepaid SIMs but stopped doing that after a few years, because studies showed that it had not helped prevent or prosecute any crime. Isn't that the way any such measures should be handled? Weigh the downsides against expected results, then actually evaluate those outcomes, and repeal the measure if it doesn't deliver.

Re: So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey terrorist, did you buy this sim?

No I just bought it for my friend the terrorist. But I forgot what his name is and where to find him.

Guess who won't be making it to Christmas dinner this year.

Re: So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[Hognoxious]

I did indeed buy it. But then it was stolen, your honour.

Re:So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[DarkOx]

Well I think there is a fairly critical difference between a device like a walkie where its hardware and once its left the manufacturer/sellers hands they real have no control over it.

A satellite or mobile phone is much more like twitter in that there is an associated server. The Phone companies though are designated common carriers because we all recognize they can't reasonably know a head of time if someone is going to use their services to do something illegal.

However even with that said if someone sold this stuff directly to the Islamic State (ISIS) without ISIS having used a front, the walkie maker, the sat phone company, or the mobile carrier would be in heaps of trouble.

Twitter really is trying to have it both ways here, they obviously can and do monitor content and terminate accounts and frequently do for reason other than criminal behavior. I say Twitter/facebook/Slashdot et al are in fact publishing companies. Its there site and they include content of their choosing. The fact they make the choice perhaps to quickly and without filtering isn't the law's problem.

Now say a hosting company where you put up your own site with all your own content might be something you could classify as a common carrier. Yes before anyone points it out I realize this view probably makes web 2.0 defacto illegal because running a website that allows comments and end user content you don't have a contractual relationship with would expose you to being charged as an accessory in just about any crime your site is used for. It will radically alter the WWW as we have come to know it, but so what?

Re:So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is TRIVIAL to write your own messaging app. I don't know why Twitter is being picked on here - it's like a genie that's been let out of the bottle - it's not going back in. Be glad that ISIS traffic will flow through something that the NSA can easily tap!

Re:So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[ravenshrike]

Except Colt, Toyota, and Sony have no control over the end products(Ignoring for the moment the PS4) once they leave their hands. Through continued curation, both Facebook and Twitter have not only demonstrated that capability, but the willingness to use it.

Re:So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[Jason Levine]

Exactly this. I run a small computer help forum on the side. Two terrorists could easily create accounts and PM each other with plans to blow up something and I'd never ban their accounts because I'd never see the messages. Technically speaking, I can look in the database and read all of the messages, but I never do this unless there's some really out-of-the-ordinary event. I might have done this one time while looking into a troll account.

By the plantiff's argument, I'm providing aid to ISIS by running a forum that they could use to trade secret messages.

Re: So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[cyberchondriac]

Better Lukoil next time.

These puns are getting so sickening I'm gonna need a TEXACOlogy test.

Re:So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[Anonymous Coward]

as far as why Twitter is being picked on is because of twitter having quite a bit of money

Re:So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that gets me is, it's not like handing them a Sat phone or Walkie Talkies... it's like putting up a satellite in orbit for the sat phones to use or regulating the frequency spectrum for walkie-talkies to use.

Handing ISIS some burner phones with Twitter pre-loaded. Now THAT would be like handing them those analogies.

Re:So sue the makers of walkie-talkies then!

[scatbomb]

For that matter, why not file a lawsuit against email providers, telco providers, etc etc. Terrorists could be making use of all sorts of methods of communication. Should we sue everyone who makes/supports these communications related products? I don't understand why twitter should be responsible for who uses their service when other companies aren't.

Other IM services

[Eristone]

So they hold Twitter responsible, but not Skype (Microsoft), Yahoo, AOL, or any of the other companies that offer IM-type or bulletin board type services where information can be passed? Hell - with a little planning, a Wikipedia article edit could be used as a communication channel, not to mention the talk portion where editing an article is discussed. Or even Slashdot - read at -1 and find your messages for the Kettle Run on the next anniversary.

Re:Other IM services

[Anonymous Coward]

nyy lbhe onfr ner orybat gb hf

Re:Other IM services

[Eristone]

WW91IGhhdmUgbm8gY2hhbmNlIHRvIHN1cnZpdmUgbWFrZSB5b3VyIHRpbWUu

Re:Other IM services

[110010001000]

Well now that Twitter has started to actively banning accounts that they feel are abusive they have less of a leg to stand on. Why can they ban people harassing celebrities, but not ISIS accounts? They opened a can of worms. Good riddance.

Re:Other IM services

[Teresita]

Twitter DMs are like two spies standing on a bridge in Prague exchanging packets. For that matter, the same thing happens when Grandma "likes" a picture of your cat.

Re: Other IM services

[Anonymous Coward]

Gross. I will not do that to ANY fast food, no matter how much you pay me..

Re:Other IM services

[rahvin112]

Deep pockets = Someone worth suing. Tying them to it is another issue, it doesn't matter how insignificantly connected the company is. This is about money. Daesh does use Twitter, it's an open free platform designed to be compatible with SMS. But I'm sure daesh also uses a ton of other recruiting methods using all kinds of technology. I suppose what this lawsuit wants is that Twitter either filter every single tweet or we turn the friggen internet off. It's why their suit will fail.

Twitter is a common carrier and in the US at least isn't responsible for the content posted to their system. Given the volume of tweets they process I have no doubt it would be impossible for them to review with human eyes even 1%. They have to rely on people reporting stuff. Frankly it's also the reason they have such a hard time filtering jackasses and others that abuse their system to harass people.

Re: Other IM services

[Sassinak]

Oh I don't know.. why not.. its not like anyone hasn't done that with chicken before.

Re:Other IM services

[TheRaven64]

There are a couple of possible explanations:

As others have pointed out, Twitter does engage in censorship, which might make it ineligible for safe harbour provisions (which require that you do not actively take a role in the content of the communication that you host).

They are a company that doesn't have as much experience in litigation. Yahoo!, Microsoft, and AOL have all been involved in enough lawsuits that they keep a warehouse full of lawyers to airdrop on anyone with a stupid-looking lawsuit. Twitter is big enough to have enough money to be a good target, but not experienced enough to necessarily be a particularly tough opposition on court.

Re:Other IM services

[tburkhol]

Why can they ban people harassing celebrities, but not ISIS accounts?

Because they get complaints from the targets of harassment? I'm sure, if the recipients of ISIS DM's started complaining to twitter about them, that they could be subject to ban. The NSA doesn't have to read the DMs between third parties, and has to go out of their way to get them. For the NSA to claim they're being harassed by messages between ISIS and John Doe strains any definition of harassment.

Re:Other IM services

[omnichad]

dGhlIGNyb3cgZmxpZXMgYXQgbWlkbmlnaHQ

Re:Other IM services

[ArylAkamov]

So they hold Twitter responsible, but not Skype (Microsoft), Yahoo, AOL, or any of the other companies that offer IM-type or bulletin board type services where information can be passed? Hell - with a little planning, a Wikipedia article edit could be used as a communication channel, not to mention the talk portion where editing an article is discussed. Or even Slashdot - read at -1 and find your messages for the Kettle Run on the next anniversary.

Why stop there? Sue ICANN.

Re: Other IM services

[Anonymous Coward]

You dont understand the common carrier laws that protect phone companies from criminals using telephones.

But, nice try.

Re: Other IM services

[Anonymous Coward]

Once they start making decisions to ban people based on political content that is normally protected speech they risk their common carrier status.

Their legal council is either stupid, completely cowed or utterly ignored by management. I assume the last option is most likely the case.

In other news...

[dj.delorie]

Lawsuits are pending for manufacturers of cell phones, walkie talkies, regular phones, paper, pencils, pens, and tin cans with string between them.

Re: In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they go after Bic. Think of the number of secret terrorist plans that have been written using ballpoint pens.

Re: In other news...

[mwvdlee]

Kill all birds.
They've been providing quills to terrorists since before the dawn of mankind.

Re: In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

That would interfere with the IPoAC protocol!

Apples and Oranges

[Anonymous Coward]

How can providing twitter account(s) be considered akin to providing them a physical means of communications like a satellite phone? That is a real stretch imo, not that I'm a lawyer.

So they're saying Twitter founded ISIS?

[h33t l4x0r]

I thought Obama did that.

Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

ISIS (and other terrorist groups) killed 19 Americans last year. Total. Cops killed 1,125 Americans last year (it's actually a higher number, since the US gov't doesn't keep track of Americans killed by cops).

Americans with guns killed over 35,000 Americans last year.

But ISIS is used as the excuse to take away people's rights.

Re: Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

But those 19 people would be alive today if we banned encryption, bugged your phone, and installed cameras in your bathroom. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[110010001000]

Cops also saved tens of thousands of people like you, and keeps the rabble from overrunning our suburban house and shooting you in the fucking head. Go fuck yourself.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[bloodhawk]

I think you completely missed the point. It isn't that cops are murdering arseholes (though he may believe that), it is that Terrorists in the scheme of things inflict very very low amounts of damage compared to what happens in everyday life yet no where near the same resources are committed to reducing those issues. You could throw in Car crashes as well which is something like 30,000+ killed each year and another 2 million plus injured yet infinitely more resources are spent combatting the scary terrorist threats.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

Cops also saved tens of thousands of people like you, and keeps the rabble from overrunning our suburban house and shooting you in the fucking head. Go fuck yourself.

I don't live in the suburbs, and the rabble has already overrun my house.

Plus, cops get paid well, have great benefits and get to retire at 45, so excuse me if I don't break out my tiny violin. Oh yeah, and being a cop is a safer job than driving a beer truck, being a garbage man or a school janitor. We canonize cops way too much in this country.

http://time.com/4326676/danger...

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is dying of malevolent cause versus accidental death. There is a tremendous difference between the two. None of those other job have people actively trying to kill you.

Re: Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

For instance, you and your ability to spew vile bullshit endlessly, about how horrible your country is, while you rape it of it's fruits bought by the sacrifices of those greater than you.

Are you kidding? I think the US is a great country with great people. It never stopped being great. I don't see it as horrible at all. I revere the sacrifice made by those greater than myself, including my father, a first-generation Italian-American who fought with Merrill's Marauders in the China-Burma theater in WWII (and was awarded a Bronze Star), right down to the janitors and sanitation workers who have more dangerous jobs than cops. There's no place I'd rather live and raise my family. From Chicago (where I'm from) to Connecticut, California, right down to Houston, Texas where I'm writing this now, the people of the United States are just terrific.

Were there justice, you would be hanging from a fucking lamp post by your scrawny, unwashed neck, rotting like the foul piece of shit that you are.

You're a Trump supporter, aren't you?

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[jedidiah]

Most of those 1,125 were perps.

Your 35K number is pure fiction.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[HBI]

He's adding in all accidental gun deaths and suicides, which are overwhelmingly done using guns because it's fast and (presumed) less painful.

In other words, a typical lying leftist scumbag.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[BitterOak]

ISIS (and other terrorist groups) killed 19 Americans last year. Total.

That figure sounds a bit low. Does it include all the service men killed in action fighting ISIS overseas?

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

He's adding in all accidental gun deaths and suicides, which are overwhelmingly done using guns because it's fast and (presumed) less painful.

I cited the number as "Americans killing Americans with guns". Why wouldn't you include suicides in that?

The point is, ISIS is one of the least dangerous things in the United States. More people die from toenail fungus than by ISIS. You're TEN TIMES more likely to die while on a luxury cruise than you are from ISIS.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

That figure sounds a bit low. Does it include all the service men killed in action fighting ISIS overseas?

Yes, it includes them. There were four Americans killed in Afghanistan and two Americans killed in Iraq in 2015.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

ISIS (and other terrorist groups) killed 19 Americans last year. Total. Cops killed 1,125 Americans last year (it's actually a higher number, since the US gov't doesn't keep track of Americans killed by cops).

Americans with guns killed over 35,000 Americans last year.

But ISIS is used as the excuse to take away people's rights.

More from the CDC:
Heart disease: 614,348
  Cancer: 591,699
  Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 147,101
  Accidents (unintentional injuries): 136,053
  Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 133,103
  Alzheimer's disease: 93,541
  Diabetes: 76,488
  Influenza and pneumonia: 55,227
  Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,146
  Intentional self-harm (suicide): 42,773

So terrorism is 32 thousand times less deadly than heart disease in the US. Maybe Bloomber's plan for smaller sodas is a more effective solution to save lives than say "extreme vetting". (Less sugar -> lower weight -> lower triglycerides -> less heart disease).

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[HBI]

The guns did nothing. The people fucked around and killed themselves. Stop equating a terrorist group with an inanimate object.

Re: Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be when you argue against your own strawmen

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

The guns did nothing.

As a gun owner for 35 years, I can tell you that if it's loaded and you pull the trigger, a gun will do something.

Those 25k+ people who commit suicide every year while pointing a gun at themselves and pulling the trigger could not have committed suicide by putting a finger to their temple and shouting BANG!

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

The suicide stat is included merely to inflate the number by stooges who want to round up guns for the globalist controlled government. It's intellectually dishonest. I guarantee, assisted (and even physician recommended) suicide will be legal with the left leading the charge before guns are taken away. But it will be too late. No one will question the 35K number. As a libertarian, assisted (but not recommended) suicide should be legal. Why would I want to take someones's gun away so that they don't harm themself? We would all pay with our Constitutionally-protected liberties for no societal gain.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Opportunist]

It's time we outlaw cancer. Maybe if we stop reporting about it it will go away.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

When you remove justified shootings, accidents, and suicides, you are left with homicides. In the name of preventing those, the government has for a long time, both legally and off-the-books, infringed or reduced the rights of citizens. So, straw man argument on top of false equivalency.
It's amazing how much bullshit passes for logical argumentation on this site.

Re: Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! If you have nothing to fear, then the mighty have reason to fear you.

Removing your privacy is not wanted because you shouldn't have anything to hide, but because hopefully you have, and therefore will be complacent to authority. If they find that you really don't have anything to hide, you'll hit the special attention list ...

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[JaredOfEuropa]

They are completely different things. Suicide is a victimless crime (no, I'm not going to count the bereaved as a wronged party), homicide is not. Suicide is also legal in most countries, even if knowingly providing the means to commit suicide isn't. Lumping suicides and homicides together as "Americans killing Americans with guns" is semantically correct, but it's deceitful. Having said that, I do agree that the terrorist threat has been blown out of proportion.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

It's better to have people actively trying to kill you if they are much less successuff as other random things killing you in other jobs.

What kind of fool are you who thinks it matters what way you die? Dead is dead.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Mashiki]

Plus, cops get paid well, have great benefits and get to retire at 45, so excuse me if I don't break out my tiny violin. Oh yeah, and being a cop is a safer job than driving a beer truck, being a garbage man or a school janitor. We canonize cops way too much in this country.

Really? I guess it depends on where, because there's cops that only make $30k USD/year and have to buy everything from their uniforms and weapons to the fuel for their patrol cars. That still happens today. I knew cops back in the early 00's who made $18k/year(median wage $42k). Yep very well paying. Keep in mind that the median US wage is just under $50k these days. Never met a cop that retired at 45 who also didn't have 25 years of service in already either, they're also so rare that I can count the number of them on one hand. And again it depends on where you work doesn't it on "safe." If you're a long haul trucker you're pretty safe. If you pull stuff into the inner city shithole you're more likely to be shot, hijacked and so on. Same with police, if you're out in the country or patrolling the suburbs you're not at a high of a risk as compared to the guys working in the city. But you might have also missed that being a cop is still in the top 15 most dangerous jobs you can work at.

Also keep in mind that in the vast majority of those cases in those other 14 top jobs when someone dies? It's directly related to the job itself, usually mechanical failure, worksite related, and so on. Being a cop is one of the few jobs where direct interaction with the public is proportional to your chance of being killed.

I also like some of those "most dangerous" job listings. Lots of management in there, which isn't surprising. One of my first jobs was an apprentice at a auto garage. A first line manager(aka the person that deals with the people) was nearly crushed because he walked under a car which was being lowered.

Re: Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

And take so much for granted.

For instance, you and your ability to spew vile bullshit endlessly, about how horrible your country is, while you rape it of it's fruits bought by the sacrifices of those greater than you.

Which group would you say is the greaterest? The ones that claimed they could own a race of people? Or was it the ones who decided they needed to commit genocide against the native population? Or perhaps it was the ones who decided to drop a nuclear weapon on two population centers? Or maybe the ones who just decided that making profit was better than the environment?

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you heard, we just bomb them nowadays. Much safer for us that boots on the ground.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[bluefoxlucid]

So our police force has a serious problem with being an enforcement division rather than a peace-keeping division, when it's supposed to be a peace-keeping division. Police have stopped using discretion and working to maintain peace and order, and have become authoritarian in nature; this has changed them from a pillar of stability in the community to a perceived threat, and leads to an increase in violent reaction to police presence, and a general increase in crime due to a perception that the police force and thus the law in general is an antagonizing agent and thus the enemy.

Yours and many others's response is, apparently, "Well we need police, so nothing is wrong."

This stance is similar to telling people water is necessary for life when they complain somebody took a shit in their drinking supply.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[bluefoxlucid]

It's funny, heart disease is trivial. Human metabolism produces Vitamin C through a four-step process, and a misconfigured gene causes the fourth step to fail. Because of this, food scarcity several tens of thousands of years ago caused death by leaking arteries due to a lack of Vitamin C intake; a mutation which causes the deposit of cholesterol on the arterial walls enabled survival by patching the holes in rotting arteries. We can fix this permanently using modern gene therapy to edit each embryo so as to correct the single Vitamin C gene, and then following up three generations later with an edit to remove cholesterol build-up entirely.

The Vitamin C edit is relatively-cheap now (gene therapy on embryos is new in the market, and not dirt-cheap), and in less than ten years will be feasible as an international humanitarian program offered to any who want to ensure a healthy, permanent Vitamin C supplementation in their children and grandchildren. By the time it's reasonable to remove heart disease, gene therapy technology will have developed such that the edit is trivial. That means this is the last century in which anyone needs to be born with the threat of heart disease.

Of course, that kind of tinkering with human DNA is unethical. It would be wrong to minimize suffering and death.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

What's it like to be so brain-damaged that you use falsely dichotomous overgeneralizations to libel everyone who mentions facts that don't fit with your personal narrative? (And I use the term "personal" loosely, because I'm guessing most of it was fed to you by your homoerotic role models)

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans with guns killed around 13,000 Americans last year, not 35,000. Please don't exaggerate.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

Really? I guess it depends on where, because there's cops that only make $30k USD/

The average police salary in the US is $56,810. They can retire after 20 years at 50% of their salary

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

Suicide is a victimless crime

Thanks for reminding me. I didn't mean to limit "Americans killing Americans with guns" to just crime. I should have added accidental shootings.

Fact is, Americans with guns put a lot of holes in Americans. Way more than any other developed nation. There is a bigger danger of accidentally getting killed with a gun than getting killed by ISIS.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

cops are also citizins with guns

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

>But ISIS is used as the excuse to take away people's rights.

Yeah, totally unlike exaggerated and outright bullshit claims about guns...

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

Americans with guns killed around 13,000 Americans last year, not 35,000. Please don't exaggerate.

You're right. I was looking at the statistics from 2013, not 2015.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.23 per 100,000 U.S. citizens);[2] 11,208 homicides (3.5 per 100,000);[3] 21,175 suicides;[4] 505 deaths due to accidental/negligent discharge of a firearm; and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent",[4] for a total of 33,636 deaths due to "Injury by firearms",[4]

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[chihowa]

The takeaway message for you here should be that including your anti-gun political message in with your "ISIS is not a real threat" message led to a distraction from, and dilution of, your intended message. Introducing politics into discussions does that, every single time.

Your argument would have gone over better if you had stuck with the hyperbolic toenail fungus example from the beginning. Doubling down on the politics only cemented the derailing of the discussion, which you overly-political goofballs can never seem to grasp.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[omnichad]

Suicide is a victimless crime

Considering how much antidepressant medication messes with your brain and severely increases suicide rates, I doubt that. A suicide under the influence of drugs is not victimless.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[squiggleslash]

I think you're missing the wood for the trees here. The argument isn't "Who's the most evilist?", or "Should we ban guns?", it's"Is ISIL even in the ballpark on a list of the biggest threat to (American) lives?" Suicides, etc, absolutely do factor into that.

ISXYZ is a terrible organization, and needs to be stopped, but in the same way as Ted Bundy needed to be stopped. The entire country was not shut down to catch Bundy, and nobody felt the need to hamper channels of discussion and political discourse in order to ensure one serial killer was brought to justice.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

The takeaway message for you here should be that including your anti-gun political message in with your "ISIS is not a real threat" message led to a distraction from, and dilution of, your intended message. Introducing politics into discussions does that, every single time.

You worry about your message and let me worry about mine.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[squiggleslash]

Makes sense, didn't Obama take everyone's guns away in 2014? I heard he was going to, so it probably happened...

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[CrimsonAvenger]

Americans with guns killed over 35,000 Americans last year.

Citation? Murders, murder/suicide, and accidental gun deaths only accounted for about 13K deaths in the USA in 2015.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

Citation? Murders, murder/suicide, and accidental gun deaths only accounted for about 13K deaths in the USA in 2015.

Sorry, as I said, my statistics were from 2013 (see citation above).

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

Still entirely disingenuous; most of the "firearm deaths" are suicides. Unless these people killed themselves due strictly to the legal status of weapons and not due to depression that number is meaningless to the safety of fellow americans.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

What's it like to be so brain-damaged that you use falsely dichotomous overgeneralizations to libel everyone who mentions facts that don't fit with your personal narrative?

What's it like? It's like being a Trump supporter, without the nuance or compassion they so eloquently display.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[cyberchondriac]

Yes, surely all those people the cops shot were innocent victims that weren't going for the cop's weapon, or didn't already had one of their own and weren't threatening them or anyone else in any way, or weren't resisting arrest, or any combination of the above.
OTOH, I agree the suit against Twitter holds no water, it smacks of desperation.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

From "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States"

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.23 per 100,000 U.S. citizens);[2] 11,208 homicides (3.5 per 100,000);[3] 21,175 suicides;[4] 505 deaths due to accidental/negligent discharge of a firearm; and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent",[4] for a total of 33,636 deaths due to "Injury by firearms",[4] or 10.6 deaths per 100,000 people.[4] Of the 2,596,993 total deaths in the US in 2013, 1.3% were related to firearms.[1][5]"

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[cyberchondriac]

"..if you pull the trigger" Yes, the gun will *react* to human direction, but it doesn't do anything all on its own.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

And alcohol is responsible for nearly 90,000 deaths per year in the US, 290,000 in Europe. Yet I reckon you will kick back with a beer after ranting about how dangerous guns are and how they need to be banned.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

ISIS (and other terrorist groups) killed 19 Americans last year. Total. Cops killed 1,125 Americans last year (it's actually a higher number, since the US gov't doesn't keep track of Americans killed by cops).

Americans with guns killed over 35,000 Americans last year.

But ISIS is used as the excuse to take away people's rights.

Isn't it a bit misleading to lump 20k+ suicides into that figure since they happened to choose a firearm to do it with?

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[WrongMonkey]

We're already past embryos. New CRISPR/CAS9 methods have demonstrated gene editing in adult mice. There's no technical reason why we won't be able to perform gene therapy on adults humans.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

Isn't it a bit misleading to lump 20k+ suicides into that figure since they happened to choose a firearm to do it with?

Not at all. I'm comparing danger. As an American, you're over a thousand times more likely to die from the bullet of a gun held by an American than you are to die from anything ISIS does.

But you bring up a good point about suicide. Americans are thousands of times more likely to be a danger to themselves than they are to have ISIS be a danger to them.

So why all the fuss?

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[david_thornley]

You have a seriously skewed view of antidepressants, and probably don't know anything about depression. This means you haven't suffered from it, which is good, but it also means you shouldn't be taken seriously.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Altrag]

Of course, that kind of tinkering with human DNA is unethical.

I think the bigger problem is that its unpredictable since genetics has continually proven itself to be more complex than we currently understand. At some point we might get ahead of it but we're not anywhere close to it yet. The biggest and best arguments against GMO crops and other genetic engineering is that we just don't know what the long-term results will be.

And testing on humans in order to learn more is considered unethical. If you could somehow prove that your genetic manipulation prevented heart disease without any other serious effects then you'd probably be able to get past the whole ethics issue without much trouble. But being able to prove that without testing on several hundred (or thousand) embryos is nearly impossible.

Which gives us a bit of a catch-22. We could potentially significantly improve the lives of future generations, but at the cost of treating some number of our current generations' babies essentially the same way we treat lab mice. And that's just not a trade-off we're willing to make in our current society.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[dyslexicbunny]

I cited the number as "Americans killing Americans with guns". Why wouldn't you include suicides in that?

I mean you're not wrong but it paints a picture that they were all related to homicide/violent crime when in reality two-thirds of them are suicides. Seems pretty dishonest to me. In moving to reduce the number of gun deaths in the country, would you propose the same solutions to preventing suicides as homicides/violent crimes?

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

would you propose the same solutions to preventing suicides as homicides/violent crimes?

Yes. Better mental health care and sensible restrictions on guns.

Not having ready access to a gun might have given some of those suicides a chance to reconsider. A Harvard study says 9 out 10 people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. But it's pretty hard to survive a pistol shot through the roof of the mouth, you know?. The vast majority of people who attempt suicide by means other than handgun are not successful. The success rate for the gun users is well over 90%.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/m...

Regarding homicides and violent crime, you are much more likely to be shot to death in a violent crime than beaten, stabbed, strangled, impaled, poisoned, hatcheted, smothered or thrown out of a window combined. The National Institute of Justice says that nearly 70% of homicides are committed with firearms.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crim...

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[dyslexicbunny]

What percentage of homicides and violent crime are related to gang activity? Take Chicago for example as it continuously pops up in the news. I would contend that better mental health care does nothing for them. Obviously reduced gun access would but politically that won't go anywhere here anytime soon. And even if it did, no one seems interested in seriously addressing handguns.

Suicide is certainly a complicated issue. The reasons are many and whether people should be allowed to is a complex debate (it is something I'm not sure where I stand on it). But I think unemployment and money problems are a somewhat common one. And certainly mental health care is something that should be more available and its need respected but that ties in heavily with having affordable care as what good is it if no one can use it.

A common theme between poorer communities and folks with money/employment issues is clearly a lack of money. The lazy answer is just to say give out money (and it may ultimately be the solution if UBI ends up being necessary). I had to hunt down this article (http://www.citylab.com/crime/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/) I read a while back that looked at various things and brought it up. Honestly I wish I looked into it more when I was in grad school cause I had more time to look at it.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

What percentage of homicides and violent crime are related to gang activity? Take Chicago for example as it continuously pops up in the news. I would contend that better mental health care does nothing for them.

I take a broader view of mental health besides just treating pathology. I see it in more holistic terms, that involves poverty, debt, external stress, family life, even nutrition and physical health. People without purpose in life can find purpose.

There's a reason you don't find violent street gangs in Lake Forest or Kenilworth which are as close to downtown Chicago as the far South side. And before the ACs jump in, no, it has nothing to do with the properties of race.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[chihowa]

That's exactly the response I expected. Thanks for illustrating the reasoning behind the shoddy level of contemporary discourse.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[bluefoxlucid]

The biggest and best arguments against GMO crops and other genetic engineering is that we just don't know what the long-term results will be.

That's a dogmatic argument: it's made by people who don't understand. I could give a long rebuttal about how GMO is more-predictable than all other methods in use, but the Soylent people have done it right, so I'll just put that here.

We could potentially significantly improve the lives of future generations, but at the cost of treating some number of our current generations' babies essentially the same way we treat lab mice. And that's just not a trade-off we're willing to make in our current society.

I tend to call out ethics as bullshit in a world where we define morals, ethics, and values separately. The word "ethics" comes from the greek word "Ethos", which means "Habit"; and I present, on occasion, the argument that ethics gives you a habit in the form of a bureaucratic definition of right and wrong. That is to say: whatever the situation, whatever the nuance, an ethical rule tells you a certain action is necessary or forbidden regardless of whether that action is helpful or harmful, even if you know with 100% certainty that the ethical thing to do is the wrong thing to do. People often reason this away by claiming that humans will recognize and adjust to the situation; and bureaucracies look upon those humans doing such reasoning and slap them with sanctions, license revocations, and incarceration because ethics systems are there to tell you that we've all figured out what's right in a world where people disagree over that.

From that viewpoint, why not just experiment on poor people?

Some countries have long-standing, currently-unresolvable economic problems such as poor access to nutritious food. The genetic modification I described eliminates a consequence of that situation: it ensures an absolute abolition of vitamin C deficiency. That particular edit is safe, in that it modifies a gene which is currently broken, and would mix with general population by giving you a random chance of having that trait; whereas editing out the atherosclerosis thing would be a complex genetic task involving multiple genes, thus higher-risk when bred back into population. Fortunately, this safe edit is also the one most relevant to these poor countries.

You have a choice, then. You can avoid such experimentation on people who are prone to malnutrition and its deleterious effects on health by the millions; or you can give them a chance to lead the world into a better life, at the cost of some risk for a few people who don't get to volunteer because they're reworked from embryo. One choice *will* leave millions suffering and hundreds of thousands dying of disease; the other will probably not hurt anyone, but *could* hurt dozens.

Machiavelli had an incomplete philosophy. The ends justify the means if and only if all other means of lower moral cost end in increased suffering beyond those you save. When the bodies pile up taller than your moral high ground, you fucked up.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Mashiki]

The average police salary in the US is $56,810. They can retire after 20 years at 50% of their salary

Better look up your numbers again, reality is sometimes different.

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[PopeRatzo]

There's no indication on the link you cited as to when or where they get their data. Here's something sourced a little better:

http://money.usnews.com/career...

Re:Stop with the hysteria

[Mashiki]

Uh, reading skills? It's right there on the page. It's directly drawn from participating police forces in the US, verified user data, and "Total Pay combines base annual salary or hourly wage, bonuses, profit sharing, tips, commissions, overtime pay and other forms of cash earnings, as applicable for this job. It does not include equity (stock) compensation, cash value of retirement benefits, or the value of other non-cash benefits (e.g. healthcare)."

Even your usnews doesn't actually have all the data, it's missing the first 10 years of wage data and starts at "patrol officer" aka someone with more then 8 years experience.

Tweets don't kill people, people kill people

[Anonymous Coward]

Tweets don't kill people, people kill people

Re: Tweets don't kill people, people kill people

[Anonymous Coward]

We need sensible tweet control. And a ban on assault tweets.

Re: Tweets don't kill people, people kill people

[Anonymous Coward]

You can have my tweet when you pry it from my cold, dead smartphone.

Re: Tweets don't kill people, people kill people

[Opportunist]

That's already in place. Look how well it works.

So remove DM and then...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you remove Twitters DM feature, and they easily move to the next thing. This whole nonsense is very much like when Sun Microsystems was banned from selling computers with more than 2 processors to some countries. You can link them by network and get the same effect. And yet the government kept it up (ignoring the obvious). So you remove DM, and there are only 1000 other ways they can communicate (the internet is easiest, and you can encrypt the hell out of any message prior to transmission, and you don't need to use an encryption scheme anyone else uses). There are even ways to do it without using the internet, and some of them don't need to be near a cell tower or router. Drunk drivers use DM too, and social activists, and people who support political prisoners. DM isn't aiding and abetting terror. This is rubbish.

Mod Parent Up!!!

[jddj]

This is really it.

In what way is ISIS an "existential threat" to the USA, if toddlers with guns kill roughly three times as many citizens?

Re:Mod Parent Up!!!

[currently_awake]

Americans like having existential threats, it saves them from having to think. Buying politicians only works if the voters don't keep track of what they do, meaning voters are directly responsible for the awful shape the USA is in.

Re:Mod Parent Up!!!

[unixisc]

Toddlers w/ guns aren't deliberately trying to cause mayhem. Toddlers w/ guns ain't trying to subvert the US constitution. Toddlers w/ guns ain't trying to get everybody to recognize their supremacy.

ISIS on the other hand has grand goals. They consider themselves a caliphate, and want to bring the entire world under Islamic law. Initially, the thought was that they were just Iraqi & Syrian Sunnis fighting for a fair shake, but that's been rapidly disproven. It's not like they'd be satisfied w/ their own territory, which they have and it's an area the size of the UK. It's that they want to bring the entire world under Islamic rule, where they'd be recognized as the ultimate authority.

Their goals include, but are not limited to, making the constitutions of Western countries subservient to Islam, just like is the case in many Muslim countries. Toddlers w/ guns don't have such ambitions.

Re:Mod Parent Up!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

...Toddlers w/ guns ain't trying to get everybody to recognize their supremacy.

ISIS on the other hand has grand goals....

...Toddlers w/ guns don't have such ambitions.

Yes, but there are tons of White Supremacists, Black Nationalists, MRAs, Sahara Club members and other complete assclowns actually on this continent with ambitions to run everything, and they're also not as big a threat to life and limb here as are toddlers with guns.

I don't give a single shit about ISIS' goals, nor does a dead guy or girl care much about why they're dead. You want fewer dead people? Solve real problems - things that demonstrably are happening, vs. what might happen. ISIS isn't even at the level of a black swan like the Cali levees bursting.

Re:Mod Parent Up!!!

[david_thornley]

There's always people who have grand goals of conquering or subverting or destroying the US. If I worried about every group that had it in for me as a US citizen, I'd never get any sleep.

Find me some people who not only want world conquest but have some ability to get it started near Western civilization, and I might start to worry.

Also, have you known toddlers? Lots of them are in it for the mayhem and for the attention.

Re:Mod Parent Up!!!

[Altrag]

I don't know why they're the target but France has been hit by numerous attacks that ISIS have laid claim to. Its not that big of a stretch to think that they could hit the US if they wanted to. Not all attacks have to be the twin towers to get noticed.

That said, there's a reason we call them "terrorists" and not "murderers" (though sometimes both of course.) Their goal isn't to make us dead. Their goal is to make us fear. And on that tack, they've had enormous success in the US and elsewhere.

It only takes one or two coffee shop bombings to terrify us even if the numbers show that we're far more likely to die by drowning in our bathtubs. People are very very bad at statistics and knowing there's a malevolent actor makes us far more afraid than any number of accidents or acts of nature.

That's just retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not at all the same, you still need a sat phone or other carrier to carry said messages to twitter and then to another party...

Twitter Supports Terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter supports terrorism like Tor supports cyber crime, just saying.

Anyway, sue Walmart for selling walkie-talkies?

[raymorris]

I'll let them say that providing online communication is just like selling walkie-talkies. So they plan to sue Walmart for selling walkie-talkies? No, that would be ridiculous? Yep, same as this.

Someone tipped there hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a gentle enough slippery slope. We see where you want to go, everything is equivalent to anyone being a traitor.

or any other internet communications

[FudRucker]

how about all the other instant messaging, or IRC, or what about internet forums, email, messages can be passed & forth a multitude of ways, laying the blame all on Twitter is a load of horse shit to me, i hope the Twitter lawyers wins this, and the plaintiffs are blacklisted from any litigation ever again

Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, the freedom loving democrats support the same logic against people who manufacture or sell guns.

Re:Democrats

[youngone]

There a very good reason for that:have a look at this link

If you look at the numbers, the NRA spend almost nothing with Democrats, but nearly $600,000 with Republicans.

If they want support from Democrats, they need to pay for it like everyone else. Don't go pretending it has anything to do with ethics or beliefs.

Re:Democrats

[DaHat]

There a very good reason for that:have a look at this link

So because Democrats aren't getting the sort of money Republicans are from the NRA... that justifies their rather anti-second amendment views?

If you look at the numbers, the NRA spend almost nothing with Democrats, but nearly $600,000 with Republicans.

In that case... if we look at this link... does that mean that Republicans are perfectly justified in seeking to de-fund Planned parenthood (who unlike the NRA, receives federal dollars) as they didn't get most of the 600k+ which was spent in the current cycle?

If they want support from Democrats, they need to pay for it like everyone else. Don't go pretending it has anything to do with ethics or beliefs.

Or... some people/groups have beliefs which are not so easily swayed by campaign contributions... so the $$$ spenders notice this and end up giving money both to those who can be swayed, but also in support of those who already share their view.

Re:Democrats

[rickb928]

"If they want support from Democrats, they need to pay for it like everyone else. Don't go pretending it has anything to do with ethics or beliefs."

Sure. Where do I send my check? The DNC isn't interested, they claim to oppose gun ownership for a variety of reasons, and pay-to-play isn't at the top of the list, by their own reckoning.

And despite all this discussion, they intend to subvert the Second Amendment, and are talking like they would also subvert the First Amendment. Which make sense if you're a dedicated statist and socialist (not entirely redundant).

You may be guessing I'm opposed to such dimishment of these constitutional rights. Yup. When these are gone, all the others are easily denied. More to the point, however, claims that Twitter is enabling terrorists with tools and functions that permit communication could be lodged against any pre-paid cell phone carrier, payphone carrier, newspaper (classifieds), the list goes on. This is unfortunate, but unavoidable unless you grant the State the permission to intercept all your communications.

I'm not yet ready to do that. The State has shown itself untrustworthy, and my private communications will only be saved for future use if gathered ever. They will not surrender them, never delete them, and share as they wish, with any state or agency. At best. More likely they will lose them to the inevitable hax0r who finally digs in and gets it. Or the whistleblower whose outrage gets the better of them and carries it out the door.

Twitter is not the problem.

Re:Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

So because Democrats aren't getting the sort of money Republicans are from the NRA... that justifies their rather anti-second amendment views?

Basically, yes.

A supermajority of voters say we need more corruption and that money is still not playing enough of a role in policy-making. We keep going to the polls, saying "more Ds and Rs."

The people have spoken. That these parties respond to money the way that they do, is something we have approved and made clear that we all need, and we will vote against anyone who doesn't.

If the Ds were to change their position without getting paid, that would be a major betrayal of the public trust. Similarly, if the Rs were to change their position in spite of being paid, that would be a similar betrayal. These parties have been given their powers with the understanding that they will only support what they're paid to support. If they were to renege on this social contract, there would be chaos.

Re:Democrats

[Altrag]

they would also subvert the First Amendment

To be fair, a lot of republicans would like to subvert the first amendment as well. Freedom of speech is somewhat anathema to politicians (which is why its important!) Maybe not in the same ways or for the same reasons but nonetheless.

When these are gone, all the others are easily denied

First amendment I'd agree with, if only because that would allow the government to silence anyone who raises protest against future rights revocations.

Revoking the second amendment on the other hand would have little consequence for anyone other than gun owners. The US is well past the ability for citizen militias to have any chance of overthrowing their government, no matter how corrupt and the more modern reinterpretation of the second to "defending yourself" has little applicability to national policy either.

Sure you can claim the slippery slope argument, perhaps with some justification, but its not like it would be the first time in history that laws were revoked, even constitutional amendments (the 18th.) Not saying we should revoke amendments all willy-nilly by any means but the first is the only one that would have direct and obvious impact on the ability to uphold the others (well and maybe to a lesser extent the fourth.)

never delete them

Oh quit being so pessimistic.. they'll happily and quickly delete anything that might become an embarrassment to them!

Re:Democrats

[david_thornley]

The Second was gutted by the end of the Reagan administration, in that it was illegal to go out and purchase a new infantry rifle. For all the whining by idiot gun owners, the Democrats have done damn little to take away people's guns.

Everybody wants to subvert the First. A large number of Republicans want to establish a state religion, for example. Both parties are leery of peaceable assembly. Both generally want to put undue limits on speech.

Re:Democrats

[youngone]

Sure. Where do I send my check?

Neither party is interested in your money. You're not a huge corporation.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I mean, Islam wasn't a threat to any nation 200 years ago. At least 20 nations have been conquered by Islam in my lifetime. But, those were mostly brown people, so it couldn't happen in Europe, much less America. Except, of course, Turkey has gone from a secular government to an islamist government in the last 5 years. Albania is next, BiH will probably resist for another 20 years, but not much longer.

Re:Really?

[unixisc]

Which 20 are those?

Re:Really?

[omnichad]

I'm sure at least half of those 20 were Islam nations that were conquered by a different sect of Islam.

Re:Really?

[unixisc]

The only ones I can think of are Malaysia, Bosnia, Albania & Kosovo. The 6 stans became independent in 1991, but not one of them have had an Islamic government, which is what I would think as being conquered by Islam. Even if one did consider it that, the number would be at the most 10. Countries like Syria or Libya don't count - they were always Islamic, just experienced regime changes.

Oh so what?!

[Anonymous Coward]

They let Trump have an account, what's the damn difference? Hell, Limbaugh is on the radio. I bet you can attribute more American deaths to him than to ISIS.

Re: Oh so what?!

[Anonymous Coward]

it is no surprise you posted as AC. /. has some really dumbass shit but you won this hour's blue ribbon.

Re: Oh so what?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your boilerplate groupthink response!

Better

[Roger W Moore]

It would be better just to hand them a regular satellite phone and let the various intelligence dragnets scoop up the ISIS members and all of their like minded contacts. While we are stuck with all these massive privacy invasions we might as well reap some benefits from them.

Re: Better

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes ISIS is the next boogie man, surpassing Russia and an excuse to keep funding the military-industrial complex

In support of terrorists?

[ITRambo]

I don't like Twitter. However, to state that it's offered in support of terrorism is stupid. It's offered to everyone. It's service is neutral.

Satellite phone

[phorm]

And if somebody buys a Satellite phone and then turns out to be an ISIS member, who then speaks in code so he's not detected, do you then go after the phone provider?

You want info, get a warrant. But the fact that the service exist doesn't mean it does so for the purpose of servicing a terrorist organization.

I hate Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

But man this lawsuit is a retarded troll attempt.

It tells you Skype is backdoored + WhatsApp

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, they are attacking Twitter DM because Twitter refused to give them backdoors into their comms.

What it confirms, is pretty much what we already knew, that US tech industry has rolled over and handed the NSA the keys to our private communications on excuse of terrorism.

Skype, Yahoo, AOL and all the other companies named, HAVE BACKDOORED THEIR TECH.

Skype, Yahoo and AOL were offically named as PRISM supporters in one of the Snowden leaks, that's not to difficult to understand, but it also means WhatsApp etc. is backdoored, whatever Facebook is pretending, nobody has been bitching about how 'WhatsApp messages" are using to spread terrorist agendas.

By The Same Argument...

[ytene]

... anyone manufacturing and/or selling a firearm to the public in the United States must reasonably expect at least one of their weapons to be used by terrorists, just as was the case in San Bernardino.

Are the plaintiffs against Twitter in this case arguing that since it is possibly for even *one* gun that is sold to a civilian in the US to be used for crime and/or terrorist activities, then all gun sales should be banned?

Please note - I'm not a US citizen and don't generally support the idea behind the Second Amendment. However, in this case I am using it to try and highlight the potential inconsistency of the argument being put forward.

used american cars.

[Anonymous Coward]

ISIS also uses used american cars, let's ban all american car company's aswell. What kind of a manipulative idiot must one be to come up with this?

But satellite phone are easy to target

[Aryeh Goretsky]

Hello

The funny thing is that equipping a target with a satellite phone improves the ability to identify them. In the case of a journalist and photographer team operating in Syria a few years ago, it was their satellite phone that allowed their location to be triangulated and subsequently attacked.

I would think it would not be too difficult to come up with some interesting usage patterns of DMs (sending messages in languages commonly used by ISIS, using certain phrases common to ISIS, geoIP location, access only from Tor nodes, proxies, VPN connections and so forth as selection criteria for further intelligence collection. Frankly, using DMs sounds like a great way to be targeted by state security services.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

Re: Anyway, sue Walmart for selling walkie-talkies

[TheMeuge]

So does that outrage mean that the left will agree that holding firearm manufacturers liable for shootings is fucking ridiculous?

Sue the United States of America

[Anonymous Coward]

they literaly gave the terrorists guns and explosives.

Just set the 'terrorist' bit in the IP header

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, that'll help prevent issues like this. Just like the copyright 'bit' did

isis already has satellite phones

[Anonymous Coward]

obama got them some, and probably some watermelon too

Re: Anyway, sue Walmart for selling walkie-talkies

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it means that if this case is won by the litigants, the anti-gun community will have a strong argumentative basis for arguing that firearm manufacturers are liable for shootings.

You'll find very few people on the "left" currently agree that they are. While gun control is more popular with the left than right, a sizable number of left wingers are anti-gun control, and almost of all of those who are are well aware that guns have peaceful uses and don't want to ban guns completely.

WWJD?

[Anonymous Coward]

What would Jesus do, if you gave a young thirsty Hitler a glass of water?

It has nothing to do with Islam.

[Anonymous Coward]

Islam is peace. That' what everybody says on television after yet another attack by a confused person with mental issues. Now we know it aren't only mental problems or being confused that lets non Muslim people kill other people. It is all Twitter's responsibility! So many billions spent on protecting schools, train stations, festivals, Jewish communities because some evil persons thought it were radical Muslims who were behind the terrorist attacks. But it is so simple: Islam is peace so no Muslim can ever kill another person. All those billions to protect potential targets are wasted. We just had to ban Twitter and there would have been no more terrorism... How stupid could we be? Now lets inform Israel that they don't have to build a wall, just ban Twitter and there will be finally peace in the Middle East! (and North Africa, and Afghanistan, and Chechnya, and Bangladesh, and Nigeria, and Sudan, and Somalia, and ...)

Good god, AYFKM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, these liberal fuckers should all be crucified. First, guns are responsible for murders (people are, I mean really!). Bars are liable for drunk drivers. Soda makes kids fat. And now Twitter made ISIS. What utter nonsense. It's NEVER about personal accountability and responsibility with you idiots, is it?

Lots of knifings lately, gonna ban them next?

America has lost its ever loving mind.

Re:Good god, AYFKM?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's NEVER about personal accountability and responsibility with you idiots, is it?

Which idiots? Liberals who think big government will save us all? Or conservatives who think big government will save us all? "Soda makes kids fat" - the NYC soda ban is word-for-word exactly why marijuana is banned (it's a health crisis! it costs the economy billions! people can't control themselves!) And personal accountability? That is literally the opposite of limited liability corporations, another big government creation backed by pro-capitalist conservatives.

Postal service

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, and the government's postal service is responsible for any and all terrorist activities happening through letters and packages: communications, money, materials, envelopes with anthrax...

Better sue Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they provide email services.

Also cell phone companies (hardware and network).

Also the government, for building the roads used by the turrists.

Full blown.

[Anonymous Coward]

Retards.

All ISPs, all wire-owners.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if we follow the same logic, all companies which provide communication services are guilty of aiding all crimes assisted by communications.
Drug dealers, pedos, death threats, etc. etc.
This would include all ISPs, Apple, Google, postal/escrow services, crypto services, etc.etc.

Benghazi

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we know who's really to blame - Twitter. Time to move one.

Well, Twitter does side with ISIS.

[sethstorm]

Given some of Twitter's investors and their lack of removal of ISIS/pro-Islamist material - while eagerly purging sources of inconvenient truths (e.g. Milo Y.) - should be enough proof of their loyalties.

let's sue the air

[slashmydots]

If ISIS members are talking to each other, we better sue the air for carrying the air waves! But seriously, can't Twitter take basic steps to not allow ISIS propaganda on Twitter and also try and block them from using DMs?

NONSENSE SUIT

[JimSadler]

Enemies tend to use almost anything they can find against you. The notion that one could sue Twitter is half witted nonsense. A 40 year old, land line telephone could also aid terrorists. Cell phones must be a dandy for terrorists and GPS obviously can aid bad people as well. Any drunk can use an automobile to commit a mass murder. The idea that the selling of a device or service that may, at times, be misused by bad people should not make a company liable. If my neighbor decides to commit suicide with a pistol should I be allowed to file a suit for proximity, traumatic stress syndrome, because i saw his brains on my lawn?

Re: Anyway, sue Walmart for selling walkie-talkies

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the right agree to a well regulated system of gun control? (And the gun manufacturers also support it?)