Slashdot Log In
U.S. House Says the Internet is Terrorist Threat
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:18 AM
from the so-is-my-chilli dept.
from the so-is-my-chilli dept.
GayBliss writes "The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R. 1955) last month, by a vote of 404 to 6, that says the Internet is a terrorist tool and that Congress needs to develop and implement methods to combat it."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Sensationalist FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy crap, that title and summary is misleading.
I just read the bill (linky [govtrack.us], it's not that long), and the Internet is mentioned only once:
That's it, nothing else. The bill's purpose is to establish a committee to study violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism, and to assist federal officials in training and education efforts to prevent such things.
If you disagree with spending tax dollars to do that, then I don't have a problem with that. If the committee comes up with some outlandish plan to regulate the Internet as a result of their research, then I agree we need to get worked up about it. But the bill does not say that the Internet is a "terrorist threat," and it sure as hell does not define the Internet as a "terrorist tool that Congress needs to develop and implement methods to combat."
mod parent up...further (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:mod parent up...further (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:mod parent up...further (Score:5, Funny)
Re:mod parent up...further (Score:5, Funny)
Re:mod parent up...further (Score:5, Interesting)
Would you really expect anything less from CmdrTaco? Not that I think the people who work for the major media and went through 4 years of it in college are doing any better a job, but I think that he (and thereby
You know, actually, I think a system to apply mod points to articles themselves and perhaps not just the person who passed along the article, but the editor who posted it would be a nice addition. Add karma into the mix, and perhaps we'll eventually see who the best of the
Re:mod parent up...further (Score:5, Funny)
Or maybe the real question is, if you work for Slashdot then what website do you go to when you're just wasting time? Cause if you're on slashdot, and you work for slashdot, then surfing slashdot is actually you working, which means you're not wasting time, which means...
Re:mod parent up...further (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:mod parent up...further (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:mod parent up...further (Score:4, Interesting)
Or a troll. About the only way I could see it being more inflammatory is to have the article say, "The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R. 1955) last month, by a vote of 404 to 6, that says the Internet is a terrorist tool... and so is your mom."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sensationalist FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
I've also seen US propiganda. For that matter, I've seen propiganda for every country and continent with a significant population or wielding significant world power (i.e. not Antarctica). Beyond that I've seen [insert religeon-of-choice here] propiganda, political party, and corporate propiganda,
Propaganda is all over the net. It doesn't take much effort to find it for any PoV,a nd often times, it finds you without you looking. The trickier propiganda is the more subtle kind - the kind that is either well developed or subtle.
Re:Sensationalist FUD (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sensationalist FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
A)Simple disagreement with an idea that is being widely spread automatically makes it "propaganda" to the one disagreeing.
B)Many of our politicians have argued that some accurate speech should not be spread because it can cause feelings that they disagree with, such as low morale for our soldiers or high morale for our enemies. Unfortunately, they've been very effective at silencing those that disagree (see above) with this line of reasoning.
Some people accuse the Lancet Report of being inaccurate. I don't know if it is or not, but if you think it's inaccurate then say so. As soon as you start arguing that it's hurting morale, then I know you're full of shit. If it was simply wrong, then saying/proving that should really have been enough.
Not SUCCESSFULLY Discredited! (Score:5, Informative)
The article's authors defended their research, claiming that their work was the only active study of the death toll, and that this is more accurate than passively counting reported deaths.[26] They cited a number of factors that could lead to smaller figures from other sources; for example, the Islamic requirement that bodies be buried within 24 hours of death. They claim that the sources of bias in their study push the figure down.
An Oct. 11, 2006 Washington Post article[4] reports:
Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true," and added that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have."
See also: ORB survey of casualties of the Iraq War [wikipedia.org]
On September 14, 2007, ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent UK based polling agency, published an estimate of the total casualties of the Iraq war. The figure suggested by ORB, which was based on survey responses from 1,499 adults, stands at 1,220,580 deaths, with a margin of error of 2.5%. This estimate, although conducted independently, and using a different polling methodology, is consistent with the Lancet findings.
Re:Sensationalist FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sensationalist FUD (Score:4, Interesting)
going by most peoples' definitions, e.g. Al Qaeda, then probably not. but if you include anarchist groups, earth first, etc, then there are plenty of examples. and i'm pretty sure the government's definition is the latter.
Re:Sensationalist FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
The government's definition of terrorist is so plastic that, like justification for traffic stops, it can be made to fit any case. I imagine without too much imagination someone like me could be called a "terrorist" in the government's eyes because I expressed faux shock in an earlier post today that Ron Paul and B. Obama, being so sensible, haven't been shot yet, since nobody so sensible should ever get to be president in the US. (Note to Secret Service: still kidding. Seriously.)
The problem is, people organize for all sorts of reasons, and frustration (justified or otherwise) often leads to radicalization, and along with that, rash words. If the government was really serious about combatting terrorism, esp. domestic terrorism, it would seem more sensible to go after root causes than to waste a huge heap of resources policing the great wide world of the Internet for anything that sounds even remotely scary and dangerous.
Re:Sensationalist FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
In that case, then let's all get worked up about it tomorrow. I don't like the idea of creating a movement and protesting stuff that may happen. Right now, they just want to study it and help in education efforts against it, and that's fine with me. Like I said, if you don't think the tax dollars are worth it, that's one thing, and I can respect that opinion. But to present it as if the bill itself is an attempt to censor the Internet is just plain incorrect.
Re:Sensationalist FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sensationalist FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
The personal, as everyone's so fucking fond of saying, is political. So if some idiot politician, some power player tries to execute policies that harm you or those you care about, take it personally.
Get angry.
The Machinery of Justice will not serve you here -- it is slow and cold, and it is theirs, hardware and soft-. Only the little people suffer at the hands of Justice; the creatures of power slide out from under with a wink and a grin. If you want justice, you will have to claw it from them. Make it personal. Do as much damage as you can.
Get your message across. That way you stand a far better chance of being taken seriously next time. Of being considered dangerous. And make no mistake about this: being taken seriously, being considered dangerous, marks the difference -- the only difference in their eyes -- between players and little people. Players they will make deals with. Little people, they liquidate. And time and again they cream your liquidation, your displacement, your torture and brutal execution with the ultimate insult that it's just business, it's politics, it's the way of the world, it's a tough life, and that it's nothing personal. Well, fuck them. Make it personal.
As told by Quellcrist Falconer, and I have to agree.
What, you were expecting anything else? (Score:3, Insightful)
- Force of habit to see the lion's share of interesting articles related to science and technology, even if some are a bit old.
- To see what politically driven garbage gets submitted and accepted to the main page today,
Re:What, you were expecting anything else? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I'd already submitted this [slashdot.org] for discussion back on the *2nd*, 'cause I'd noticed some provisions in the bill that are a little vague... Read the passage I quoted there for an example.
FUD aside, it has more potential for abuse than the DMCA, and that's saying something...
Re:What, you were expecting anything else? (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know the folly of prohibition. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. I think that applies here. The Internet does NOT need to be singled out, and by doing so elected officials are signaling their intent to scrutinize and censor the Internet. Do you really think that the Internet had anything to do with the OK city bombing, or the Unabomber? Do you think that the Internet helped the DC snipers? do you think that law enforcement will use any valid data they get on terrorist activities from the Internet... or will they fsck it up like they did with the relevant data they had about the 9/11 plan to use planes? To date I have not seen ONE case where post 9/11 knee jerk reactions and Patriot Act provisions have helped to stop any terrorist activity. In fact, all the actual successes I've heard of came about through standard pre-9/11 law enforcement methods.
Don't naysay people who worry just because your myopic view of the writing on the wall is all blurry. Remember, in the beginning the Patriot act seemed like a good idea to a lot of people. In fact it seemed like a good idea to the very people that are suggesting this bill be passed into legislation. fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me !
You, and the rest of the world, would do well to be VERY worried about anything that even suggests a hint that it might be the intent to monitor, datamine, censor, or filter the Internet by the government. Do you think that the Great Firewall of China is a good idea? You should read how the Chinese government describes it.
If the Internet is abused in anyway in the name of security from terrorism, sit back and wait until you need permission to buy bug spray for your house, or you get a visit from the Feds when you purchase household chemicals in one month period that can be used to create explosive devices. Wait till your car/truck has to be searched prior to entering any major metropolitan area.
How long will it be before you give up all your freedom for these little efforts that don't ACTUALLY say that they intend to use them to take your freedoms?
And finally: For fsck sake man! Why are we now fighting 'home grown terrorism' at all? when the Unabomber was active.. did we need this? When the DC snipers were active, did we need to fight home grown terrorism? When the OKC bombing took place, did we need laws to fight home grown terrorism? The short answer is NO. The reason that we need it now is so that the executive branch can continue to push war powers privileges to further shrink the rights of citizens. As long as there is a WAR on terror or drugs, they will get to push your rights right down the toilet. Terrorists, and the origin of the term comes from the French Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism [wikipedia.org] and guess which side the 'terrorists' were on? Every successful terrorist has broken at least a couple normal laws that are already in force. Making special provisions or laws for crimes committed by people who are 'deemed' terrorists is nothing more than a tool to take your liberties.
Should we call mass murderers terrorists? Should we call arsonists terrorists? Should we call anti-war protesters terrorists? Should we call gay-bashers terrorists since they are promoting their ideology through violent action? Sure, now lets just lump in all hate crimes... hell, lets just make any violent crime a terrorist offense. That kid that started the fires in California: is he a terrorist? And you are totally screwed if you do something unusual in Boston, perhaps there we can call jaywalker
Did you read the bill before you got the vapors? (Score:5, Insightful)
It establishes a commission, which will study some things, and suggest some things, any or all of which are required to be Constitutionally valid. It also calls for the establishment of a vaguely defined academic center to study the problem.
It doesn't prohibit anything. It doesn't call for the prohibition of anything. In theory the commission could come back with suggestions to prohibit things, but a) they might not - they could come up with monitoring strategies, figure out why the terrorist propaganda works on some people, and provide counter-propaganda strategies, and b) suggestions of prohibition would still have to become law.
Commissions are generally a way to look like you're doing something, when in fact nothing is being done.
So unclench.
Re:What, you were expecting anything else? (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't it? The fact that anti-terrorism measures oppress the american people is self-evident. This might be permissible (might) if it was actually done to increase our security. What evidence is there that this is the case? Has ANY measure taken since 2001 done anything to actually prevent terrorism?
Frankly I don't see any, and the only conclusion I can come to is that the entire "homeland security" debacle is a power grab pure and simple.
When you're that jaded, to the point you really believe that, I guess I can see how it wouldn't be possible to have any real debate or intelligent consideration of the topics.
That's a nice ad hominem dismissal of a very important viewpoint. I think you're the one who doesn't want any real debate on the issue. Otherwise you wouldn't dismiss it without intelligent consideration.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(The sad part is that it is that while it is a funny statement, it is basically true and some fool will probably try and ban unapproved communication so they will feel safer. (and
Re:Sensationalist FUD (Score:5, Funny)
I wanted to see them get lost planning where to send the tanks on the invasion of the internet... They have to find tubes big enough for the tanks after all!
Or GWB trying to decide which of the internets to invade.
Hm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Communication of *any kind "has aided in facilitating violent radicalization" -- because all communication can be propagandistic.
The question vis-a-vis combating terrorism is whether the (pun) *net
Re:Sensationalist FUD (Score:5, Funny)
(1) You apparently read the article. We don't "read" around here... we telepathically absorb article details from around the globe.
(2) You took time to derive logical deductions and causation factors from the ideas presented in the article. Way too much effort; your time would have been better spent trying to one-up the wild assertion that is the story headline.
(3) You implied that Congress has acted in anything less than a knee-jerk, know-knothing, insert-more-hyphenated-words-here manner. Anyone Slashdot user with half a brain knows that Congress has never produced any meaningful debate or results in all of history.
Sheesh, man... go drink some coffee and wake up, or something...
Re:Sensationalist FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Partially true. Why specifically name the Internet? We could substitute the word with any of the following: Postal system, library, school system, etc. This sets a horrible precendence and seeds the idea that the Internet must be controlled or even dismantled.
Re:Sensationalist FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's play word-substitution here:
The Free Press has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
Freedom of Speech has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
I don't see any difference between a "Press" and "The Internet". Paper and web sites are both just media for publishing. The fact that a lot of stupid or misleading stuff gets published is not new. One definition of "propaganda" is "speech by your political opponents". Political speech is, of course, the most highly protected form of free speech.
Seems to me the bill is facially unconstitutional.
Let's see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Consponsored by 10 other Democrats (and 4 Republicans).
Passed 404 - 6.
The summary:
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
Wow, sounds like something we really shouldn't be looking into!
The bill contains the word "Internet" ONCE in the Findings section, in the sentence:
"The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
Hmm. If someone could explain to me how that isn't a factually correct statement, I'm all ears.
Also, if someone could explain how that implies that the "Internet" is exclusively defined as a terrorist tool, as is the implication of the summary, that'd be great.
It says what it says: "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
True or false?
And we, as a nation-state that ostensibly values our own existence and structures of government, shouldn't be looking for ways to prevent "violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism"? Of course it all matters how it's done. But it appears there was a good deal of consensus here -- almost complete consensus -- and no one can argue it was done for publicity or because of pressure, since this was a relatively low profile bill.
Conclusion:
Terrible, terrible, terrible summary, from someone who probably buys the hype that every homeland security or terrorism related law is a secret plot to create a police state, shut down the internet, or trample the Constitution -- anything other than, you know, actually legitimately trying to find ways to do what they say they're going to do in the text, and which is the actually the charge of many components of government (e.g., counterterrorism).
Why not include all the articles about the Senate version, too, and how it eviscerates free speech, guts the Constitution, creates a world of "thought crime", and how the mainstream press are covering it all up because they're administration lapdogs, and how liberal Democrats really don't understand what they're authoring, sponsoring, and passing (or, better yet, how Democrats are really far right, and Republicans are ULTRA, super far right, and no "liberals" are left in Congress)?
Or maybe we can just use slashdot as a pulpit for more crackpot garbage instead of any real debate?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Keep in mind. (Score:3, Informative)
The House tends to do stupid things that the Senate will ignore or stop.
I'm know one congressman who probably voted (Score:3, Insightful)
But I guess he voted for the terrorists now.
Re:I'm know one congressman who probably voted (Score:5, Informative)
-jcr
Firehose (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait...
Oh C'MON! (Score:5, Informative)
Informative article regarding the bill at Slate (Score:5, Informative)
Internet not found! (Score:4, Funny)
I guess to reflect what will soon happen to the internet...
(and the captcha was "congress". hmm...)
Definitions... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, that's it then. This bill renounces the motivations behind the Revolutionary War.
I want a law banning Independence Day celebrations, any burning of the Gaspee in effigy (Tea in the harbor? Wimps. _We_ burned a British tax ship to the friggin waterline), Bunker Hill battle reconstructions, and anything else related to "violence in the name of ideology"
What a fucking joke.
--
BMO
An Inconvenient Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, ok. (Score:5, Funny)
Keep crying wolf (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet another reason (Score:5, Insightful)
It was just a few years ago that someone asked "Who represents you, the geeks, to Congress?"
He started an organization and it died because all the people who complain about things like this don't bother to provide support to groups that would help prevent this kind of thing.
If you haven't learned yet, you can't unring a bell. Once something becomes law (DMCA, Copyright extensions, PATRIOT Act, etc, H1B laws) it is damn near impossible to get rid of it.
Quit bitching about it and do something about it. Help create a group to educate and lobby Congress on our behalf.
Here is the act in its entirety (Score:4, Informative)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.
(a) In General- Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new subtitle:
`Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
`SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
`For purposes of this subtitle:
`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.
`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
`SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.
`The Congress finds the following:
`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.
`(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.
`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
`(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.
`(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.
`(6) Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.
`(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.
`(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
`(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.
`SEC. 899C. NATIONAL CO
Gallagher said it best (Score:4, Funny)
"There's a reason 'Congress' begins with the word 'con'. 'Con' is the oppsosite of 'pro', so 'Congress' must be the opposite of 'progress'."
My friends, wiser words have never been spoken.
buried, inaccurate... (Score:4, Insightful)
A really digg-worthy headline though. I must commend whoever put it together. Would have hit frontpage on digg in 3 seconds with misleading garbage like that.
You're a fool (Score:3, Insightful)
There's this paradigm shift in progress now...some academics call it the "Information