Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EU "Clean IT" Project Considers Terrorist Content Database

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the consider-yourself-reported dept.

The Internet 101

schliz writes "Internet users could contribute to an official blacklist of suspected terrorist content under a budding 'Clean IT' project, backed by the European Commission. Participating governments are putting together 13 proposals in a text that commits web hosts, search engines and ISPs to helping to weed out content that incites acts of terror. From the article: 'Among those 13 courses of action is a proposal for a system that will allow users to "flag" content they believe to be illegal when surfing the web. These alarms would be sent for review to the service provider and in turn, a government agency.'"

cancel ×

101 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40240819)

First!

Re:First (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241251)

And that's why the girls don't like you.

A bit late... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40240829)

...to be inventing the abuse desk, isn't it?

Already broken (5, Insightful)

overbaud (964858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40240853)

All that is needed is malware that randomly flags sites. The amount of submissions would create so much noise the system would be unable to serve its purpose. Game over.

Ha! Broken even before that. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#40240885)

All that is needed is malware that randomly flags sites.

It's broken even without needing someone to write malware that abuses it.

Have you interacted with some of the people on the Internet? They're fucking insane already.

Giving them an opportunity to flag anything they disagree with for "governmental review" would result in them flagging just about everything.

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (3, Insightful)

txoof (553270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241017)

I believe this is called the tyranny of the majority.

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (4, Insightful)

xs650 (741277) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241083)

It's the tyranny of the uber vocal minority.

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241121)

It's the collective tyranny of a thousand vocal minorities, each caring about a single issue, and collectively covering practically every possible viewpoint.

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241125)

Don't forget some psyops to get shit shut down that would otherwise be perfectly legal.

The US military pays (and it would be naive to think none of the EU militaries don't) "soldiers" to chat and post shit online...

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241985)

Don't forget some psyops to get shit shut down that would otherwise be perfectly legal.
The US military pays (and it would be naive to think none of the EU militaries don't) "soldiers" to chat and post shit online...


It isn't just nation states doing this kind of thing. Nor are all the people involved are paid. Even nation states can have "fanboys" (including those with little obvious connection to the state in question.)

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40243541)

Even nation states can have "fanboys" (including those with little obvious connection to the state in question.)

Goddamn Danes and their fanaticism. It's craziness I tell you. Craziness!

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40243493)

And the tyranny of the media giving everyone a voice to keep their readers busy.

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241143)

So between you, the grandparent, and great-grandparent posts we have everyone covered... reminds me of Kay in Men-in-Black: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40248585)

And they shall turn the majority on their side, unless enough undecided are found. In the normal times evil is fought by the good, in times like these the evil shall be fought by another kind of evil, the sleepers and the shallow.

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40242479)

Democrazy, man.
Of course, they'll get the people to censor themselves off the net. They talked them into Democrazy, didn't they?

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (4, Insightful)

Anarchduke (1551707) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241141)

Not to mention assholes like me who will flag things just because its funny. For example, this is a prime example [marthastewart.com] of terrorist propaganda.

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40243717)

[FLAG] :-)

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40244555)

Make sure the system does not use cookies...

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241249)

Well, since the flagging is unlikely to be anonymous, that's an easy problem to fix. Just quietly ignore flags from people who cry wolf a lot. Of course, that would make the malware even worse, as anyone who gets infected would be removed from the system until there's essentially no one left in it. This really seems like a completely unworkable idea.

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (2, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241797)

A state-owned 'idiot' list. That's an seriously useful database to have. If I was an employer I'd gladly pay for a copy of that. We could also cut back on their social services payments - if they've got enough free time to sit all day on the Internet then they don't deserve benefit handouts.

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (1)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | more than 2 years ago | (#40242507)

Disclosing it to a third-party would be illegal, anyway.

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40244759)

We could also cut back on their social services payments - if they've got enough free time to sit all day on the Internet then they don't deserve benefit handouts.

Well, we don't have that problem in the US and haven't had since 1996 when they pretty much stopped welfare.

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (3, Interesting)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40242845)

You are assuming this project is done with the aim of making it work as honestly as possible.
If it's only a shell for a censorship program, giving it the pretense of being driven by people, it's perfectly workable.
In other words, the system will radomly filter and accept legitimate censorship requests from joe the public, instead it will always censor the sites that are against powerful interests when said interests express that desire.

I'm flagging this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241271)

I disagree. I'm flagging you!

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241343)

Thats right, I would flag this post!

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (1)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241439)

Giving them an opportunity to flag anything they disagree with for "governmental review" would result in them flagging just about everything.

Further, there are also the of actions of governments that in lay terms as distinct from legal terms, could be considered terrorism. For example hailing drone strikes on suspected terrorist cells, including innocent civilians in Afghanistan, or Iranian anti-Israel propaganda. Both of these examples are not directly examples of terrorism from a legal perspective, but either could be construed as such by individuals with partisan leanings in either direction. It's too easy to say someone is a terrorist, even Julian Assange is a terrorist according to some. (Rapist maybe under Swedish law, but terrorist!?!?!?)

The whole idea seems to me like a big brother attempt to entrench a singular political paradigm. It seems to me that this is a way to ensure public service employment (reviewing dodgy websites all day - what a gig!!!!) and in many cases I wouldn't trust a vested interest bureaucracy to make balanced decisions on matters like these.

Re:Ha! Broken even before that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40242053)

That is the problem with anything like this "clean IT".. Even it it did work, who dictates what gets flagged for terrorism, what do they consider terrorism? Unless you are plotting or instructing someone even these are free speech.

They want to flag anyone to begin with, I am concerned it will lead to protesters getting flagged for terrorism, or flagged for "governmental review of suspicious activity or activities"..

Sir you are under suspicion of supporting terrorism!! Oh how do you figure? You were on a forum explaining how non explosive an empty gas tank was. No I told him if he did not remove the gas tank, and it was empty it could go off. Sir you are going to have to come with us.

Re:Already broken by design (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40240907)

With the whole internet flagged then can enforce it opportunistically.

Re:Already broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40240975)

Bitch please!
We flag the EU sites, first and foremost.

It's every free citizen's duty.
And it’s fun for the whole family!
What a deal! ;)

More broken than you think (3, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241801)

Usually when illegal material is found on a server hosted by an Internet company and is removed,

If content can be illegal and be removed, the system is already broken.

Re:Already broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40242443)

Unless, of course, they also roll out an EU ID (physical) that requires you to login to flag it.
That will make it much harder, but still not impossible.

Easy solution: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40240859)

We all flag all websites of the EU and their Nazi friend as content that incites acts of terror. ^^

Factually, that's even correct, since the purpose of this whole thing is to create fear to push people into obeying one's wishes. The definition of terrorism.

Fuck you, whoever came up with this. Fuck you and everything you associate with into oblivion.

Financial services (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40240873)

I'd be sending every site owned by the "too-big to fail" pedo, anal raping, cock-sucking, motherfuckers that contribute to financial terrorism...

Re:Financial services (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241355)

pedo, anal raping, cock-sucking, motherfuckers

So, you're saying you're going to report yourself?

Captcha- violator.

Is this really about terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40240891)

If you really wanted to catch terrorists, and you knew these sites exist, why not infultrate these sites and catch the terrorists through it? Why would you want to play a game of website whack-a-mole?

Re:Is this really about terrorism? (4, Insightful)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241147)

The point isn't to prevent terrorists. Governments create terrorists.

The point is to use terrorism as an excuse for censorship, in the same way terrorism is used as an excuse for resource wars and political oppression.

Re:Is this really about terrorism? (0)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241261)

Governments create terrorists only in the sense that gay people create bigots.

I completely agree that the goal here is to create a system to simplify the censoring of unwanted ideas, but let's not pretend that there are not some very real people out there who would and do kill and maim others to spread their way of life.

Re:Is this really about terrorism? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241303)

Governments train, fund and supply arms to people with terrorist and criminal intentions. I don't know any gay people to did that to promote bigotry.

Re:Is this really about terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40246971)

A gay evangelical priest hating himself is a gay person who manufactures and spreads bigotry and hate.

Re:Is this really about terrorism? (1)

gox (1595435) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241309)

Governments create terrorists only in the sense that gay people create bigots.

let's not pretend that there are not some very real people out there who would and do kill and maim others to spread their way of life.

I hope you'll notice the irony in your comment...

Re:Is this really about terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241413)

I don't see any. Care to elaborate?

Re:Is this really about terrorism? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241493)

You must have voted for Bush

Re:Is this really about terrorism? (1)

gox (1595435) | more than 2 years ago | (#40242473)

I hope we can all agree that governments (or more correctly, states) are by far the dominant force that kill and maim people to spread a way of life. Whether they do this to empower the will of their peoples (spreading some regime, religion, etc.) or some ulterior motive is of course debatable. I think it's some mixture of both in all cases.

Re:Is this really about terrorism? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241447)

Some governments might commit acts comparable to terrorism, but the supposedly insightful statement "The point isn't to prevent terrorists. Governments create terrorists." is a load of crap. When was the last time Norway went around killing people? And yet they had a bunch of children massacred all the same.

Terrorists exist independent of governments, and governments do want to prevent terrorist acts. To say otherwise is unbelievable dishonest.

Re:Is this really about terrorism? (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 2 years ago | (#40242111)

Some governments might commit acts comparable to terrorism

Some governments, e.g. the US and UK, have been caught supporting, funding, even training terrorists. (Including turning a blind eye to them or releasing terrorist suspects from police custody.) Some governments, e.g. France, have been caught carrying out things which cannot be distinguished from those carried out by "terrorists".

Re:Is this really about terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40242321)

Alright, alright. But apart from recruiting and funding and training and arming... what has the government ever done for the terrorists?

Re:Is this really about terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40243139)

No. The US trained the Muhajidean (spelling) resistance during the Russian-Afghan war. These people were not terrorists then.
Some of them later joined terrorist groups and brought that training and equipment with them.

Some did so out of belief, others because like has happened to many a man after combat, they got hooked on the fighting. They like the prestige, the fighting, the rush, or they simply have no other way to get "things" cause they suck at farming/working.

This is much like the risk many years ago associated with hiring/outfitting Privateers. They were supposed to only raid "those guys" but sometimes they would turn to outright piracy.

But they were not terrorists when trained/equipped originally, nor were they trained to be terrorists. We trained them how to use AA missles against helicopters. How to stage an ambush. They were NOT trained to use IEDs. They were NOT trained to point rockets in the general direction of a base on a 3 hr timer, and run away. They were NOT trained to blow themselves up.

Governments don't create terrorists. People choose to become terrorists. Some dictators who are now dead used terrorists, but they already existed independently of those individuals.

Re:Is this really about terrorism? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248761)

On a national level the same group previously used the old "child abuse" pretense to gain support for their plans to implement country-wide snooping systems and net filters.

The only real terrorists involved in this thing are such bastards who continuously try to undermine our civil liberties.

Purely Hypothetically... (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40240893)

If one, by way of a thought experiment, imagines that there existed a corrupt, secular, society ruled by satanic decadence, impious appetite, and foreign policy injustices, could it theoretically be argued that jihad would constitute a duty under certain historically extant strains of abrahamic divine command theories of ethics?

Flag or no flag, team EU?

In all seriousness, this seems like a dreadful idea both on just about every level.

Cultural? I'm trying to think of ways to make more of a mockery of the sort of Enlightenment ideals that Europe managed to produce at one time. I'm having a hard time thinking of one. Yeah, why not build a massive system of sniveling, anonymous censors in order to combat a 'threat' that kills fewer people than seasonal hot/cold snaps by at least an order of magnitude. Good plan there.

Practical? Well, let's see here: As with the relentless 'zOMG Craigslist prostitution!!!' moral panics, what better place for those who wish you harm than shouting about it on the internet? Highly visible, way less anonymous than it feels unless you really do it properly, and comparatively easy to see which fish are biting. You want to drive them away from the venues where your pet geeks can monitor at wire speed and into more clandestine locations where you need to groom human intelligence assets with convincing beards and accents? Dumbass.

Technical? Bots will probably be programmatically flagging things in order to downrank them more or less as enthusiastically as keyword comment spam is currently deployed to uprank things. Never mind the less relentless; but more dangerous and focused, potential for assorted political/commercial/psycho ex/psycho roommate drama.

Legal? Say hello to endless wrangling about what is and isn't 'incitement', most likely with clumsy overreactions against the harmless, clueless, and impolitic, along with free traffic in assorted slang, inuendo, and more or less subtle dog-whistle stuff.

This plan has holes that(where one to be so inclined) a truck bomb could be driven through...

Re:Purely Hypothetically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241157)

This project should be a F/OSS dht/p2p/w/e website filtering/blacklist /browser plugin/. .. Maybe.. What it is, ..is a monster.

Re:Purely Hypothetically... (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241395)

If one, by way of a thought experiment, imagines that there existed a corrupt, secular, society ruled by satanic decadence, impious appetite, and foreign policy injustices, could it theoretically be argued that jihad would constitute a duty under certain historically extant strains of abrahamic divine command theories of ethics?

Christian jihad is exempt from the usual scrutiny. It's only people who dress and act differently than us that are terrorists. Everybody knows that. -_- And all this legislation would do is codify our prejudice into law... today it's terrorism, before that it was communism, before that, fascism... there'll always be an intangible "ism" that we're at war with, and this "ism" will be all the justification our government needs to become an "ism" itself to its people.

Christian jihad is a laughable concept (2)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#40242683)

People like you are quick to point to a non-existent double standard that allegedly benefits Christianity, ignoring the fact that Christian violence toward Islam has almost always been either in self-defense or irredentist in nature. You ignore the fact that most of the land in the Middle East that is Muslim used to be Christian, Jewish or Zoroastrian; Syria, Lebanon and North Africa were predominantly Christian when conquered and forcefully converted by the Muslim Caliphate. Two hundred some years prior to the first Crusade, Muslims had marched up the Iberian Peninsula and were stopped in France by Charles Martel at the battle of Tours.

This has been the norm for Islam. Muslim armies were marching on Europe to annex and conquer-by-the-sword even into the Enlightenment period. That's how recent this unrelenting pattern of expansion-by-the-sword by Islam has been since the very beginning of Islam's power. But heaven forbid Christians fight back harshly or invade some minor provinces of the Islamic world to regain some of the ground taken by the sword.

"Christian jihad" is exempt from mainstream scrutiny because it is something that has never really existed. The closest moral equivocation that can be made is to compare a handful of anti-abortion extremists who use violence against what they believe to be cold-blooded murder of babies to a mass movement in the Islamic world that attacks people because of their religious beliefs and/or what their governments are doing.

Re:Christian jihad is a laughable concept (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40245347)

No, you are right, it was not a jihad, it was missionaries backed by colonizing armies. The Christian imperial nations colonized far more land than the Muslims ever did - including said Muslim countries. When Spanish soldiers went out into cities to test their newly sharpened swords on the local population in South America, it was all in fun, not a jihad. So yeah, there hasn't been a Christian jihad, because they called slaughtering the natives something else.

European imperialism was about trade (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#40246801)

The very reason they went to explore was to find an efficient trade route to India. Once they realized it wasn't India, they returned to gain new land and gold. It was imperialism, plain and simple.

The Spanish hardly conquered the Aztecs on their own strength. Do you really think 500 white guys with 15th and early 16th century muskets defeated the over 100,000 strong Aztech imperial army on their own strength and with the aid of Smallpox? Bullshit. When they marched into Tenochtitlan, they did so at the head of a multi-ethnic army composed of tens of thousands of soldiers recruited from the ethnic groups that were sick of being victims of Aztec sacrificial state terrorism.

The irony is that the treatment the Christian Spaniards gave them was far more humane than what the Muslims or some of the advanced pagan civilizations of antiquity would have given a people who practiced a religion as barbaric as the Aztec religion.

Re:Christian jihad is a laughable concept (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248813)

People like you are quick to point to a non-existent double standard that allegedly benefits Christianity, ignoring the fact that Christian violence toward Islam has almost always been either in self-defense or irredentist in nature.

So the four crusades, 10 year war, etc., -- all self defense, right? Christianity has a long and bloody history.

Re:Purely Hypothetically... (1)

kermidge (2221646) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241771)

Nicely put.

Well, they got rid of the Stasi but it seems they want the informers back - this time with the whole planet for their playground.

Re:Purely Hypothetically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40242457)

>Yeah, why not build a massive system of sniveling, anonymous censors in order to combat a 'threat' that kills fewer people than seasonal hot/cold snaps by at least an order of magnitude. Good plan there.

Hey, who are you kidding?
Remember, we are slowly trying to kill all sense of seasons right now by changing the climate.
Soon, it will just be all hot and no cold. Not even in shadows. Those shadows will be a cool 90. (F)
Ah yes, I love living on the sun.

Re:Purely Hypothetically... (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40242663)

You're spot on, but you miss the point.

The point isn't to DO anything constructive. DOING THINGS takes work, determination, money, and (above all) persistence and courage - all things anathema to modern political leadership.

This is another example of 'security theater' - most famously practiced by US DoHS in airports. Minimal/no actual increase in security, but a clear and visible example of government "doing something", which can also conveniently be used to funnel $billions in public funds to political supporters. The key detail is that there is no metric for success/failure, or even evaluation.

Beheadings videos are illegal? (3, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#40240903)

From TFA:

“So why not try and create a database where internet companies can check it to see if it's known illegal material? There are many known YouTube videos, for example, with content like be-headings. You don’t need to watch them to know if they are illegal or not.”

So what is the answer? Is a beheading video illegal? Why? What is the law that makes a beheading video illegal? What happens if it's legal in one country, but not in another? Does this magic content filter know where a user is watching content? Is it illegal if it's in a depiction of a beheading from a movie? How about if I stage a fake beheading of my own in my back yard, but I claim it's real, is that illegal? Likewise, what if I post a beheading and claim it's fake.... but it's so well done, no one knows if it's fake or not. Is that illegal?

(I'm ignoring the obvious questions like, what happens if my movie promo with a fake beheading gets flagged as illegal (even if it's not), and now suddenly it's banned from the internet and I can no longer show my promo)

Re:Beheadings videos are illegal? (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 2 years ago | (#40242033)

(I'm ignoring the obvious questions like, what happens if my movie promo with a fake beheading gets flagged as illegal (even if it's not), and now suddenly it's banned from the internet and I can no longer show my promo)

If your promo is banned you could probably expect that the potential audience for your movie has increased by a couple of orders of magnitude. Which is what usually happens when a movie (or record) is banned. If your movie is very bad people might suspect that the ban was deliberate on your part though :)

Re:Beheadings videos are illegal? (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 2 years ago | (#40242281)

So what is the answer? Is a beheading video illegal? Why? What is the law that makes a beheading video illegal? What happens if it's legal in one country, but not in another?

The idiots behind this project explicitly don't care about the legality of censoring the web, or any accountability of their decisions. From the Clean IT project website [cleanitproject.eu] :

The main objective of this project is to develop a non-legislative framework that consists of general principles and best practices. The general principles will be developed through a bottom up process where the private sector will be in the lead. Through a series of workshops and conferences, the private and public sector will define their problems and try to draw up principles. These principles can be used as a guideline or gentlemen’s agreement, and can be adopted by many partners. They will describe responsibilities and concrete steps public and private partners can take to counter the illegal use of Internet.

Re:Beheadings videos are illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247039)

So what is the answer? Is a beheading video illegal? Why? What is the law that makes a beheading video illegal?

Privacy laws protecting the victim and his family would make a beheading video illegal.

Re:Beheadings videos are illegal? (1)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248139)

Privacy laws protecting the victim and his family would make a beheading video illegal.

In which country? Can you provide some specifics?

Re:Beheadings videos are illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40250429)

I was thinking about the laws regulating official documents and their handling for example in Finland (perhaps on other Nordic countries as well as we tend to copy each other somewhat). Sorry, this obviously doesn't apply as it for the video itself, but how it's publicity is dealt with in a court case or a police investigation.
There are other, more softer principles such as self-regulation of the press which might be legally binding when something such as a beheading is going public, but that would usually not be a criminal matter.

I read some of the suggestions on the CleanIT proposal and I have to say it is really vague at this point and clearly a political document. It also radicalized me personally a little bit more.

Wrong Priorities (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40240919)

In the current economic crisis they really do not have anything better to do than create proposals which we know will not work, will not address the root causes of terrorism (which really is a negligible issue within the EU anyway) and which will add costs to IT companies? Way to get your priorities wrong.

The European Commission is the biggest mistake in the whole EU structure; unelected, not accountable and downright underhanded when dealing with legitimate opposition from the at least democratically elected European Parliament.

Captcha: "behead"... go figure...

Re:Wrong Priorities (0)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40240937)

Thankfully, we will be able to realize considerable savings, since the scheme is so draconian that we can probably just purchase a Great Firewall implementation from the Chinese at everyday low prices...

Re:Wrong Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241153)

Thankfully, we will be able to realize considerable savings, since the scheme is so draconian that we can probably just purchase a Great Firewall implementation from the Chinese at everyday low prices...

You've got it backwards. Where do you think we've been beta-testing our cheap for-export version for the past six years [arstechnica.com] ?

Pay no attention to the fact that if you have cookies and Javashit disabled, Google no longer sends you to "the-url-you-wanted", but instead to "http://www.google.com/url?q=the-url-you-wanted&sa=(hmm)&ei=(thatsneat)&ved=(wonderwhatthathashesto)&usg=(nowaythatcouldbeunique)", it's just one of those coincidences.

Have any of these geniuses ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40240963)

Ever actually used the Internet?

Re:Have any of these geniuses ... (4, Funny)

Lussarn (105276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241201)

Of course they have. They found Facebook like buttons, Google +1 buttons, they like it and want in on the deal.

"Carefull there, I will +Terror your post. See you at Gitmo loser."

Clean IT, White IT (2)

jeti (105266) | more than 2 years ago | (#40240971)

Even the name sounds like White IT, another recent attempt to indroduce blacklists in Europe. Last time it was child porn, now it's the terrorists. This gets old fast.

Re:Clean IT, White IT (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40240983)

Welcome to the EU, you will be assimilated. Resistance is futile...

Until our currency collapses and we go screaming down in flames anyway.

Re:Clean IT, White IT (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241469)

Until our currency collapses and we go screaming down in flames anyway.

The world is waiting for that almost as eagerly as it's waiting for China or the USA to collapse in on itself. Keep waiting; there will be massive manipulation.

Re:Clean IT, White IT (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40242673)

Yeah. Some how I don't see that working, been paying attention to the bond markets? Germany was -0.0055 the other day. That's people paying the government to take money at a loss as a 'safe haven' for 10 years. -0.0022 for 5 year. I expect it to hit -1% around the 18th of the month depending on how the greek voting goes.

Roughly half of the eurozone is underwater with debt at 150-200% of their GDP. And unemployment, the by-country stats not the EU normalized stats give between 18-55% unemployment rate by various age groups. Saying it won't happen is naivete, it will happen. The only question is, how bad is it going to be when it goes.

Re:Clean IT, White IT (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40243439)

Last time it was child porn, now it's the terrorists. This gets old fast.

If by that you mean that the next step will be "infringing content" you are absolutely correct... oh wait [europa.eu] ...

This could for instance include defamation terrorism related content, IPR infringements, illegal online gambling, child abuse content, misleading advertisements or incitement to hatred or violence on the basis of race, origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc.

It was probably the UK that put "defamation" in the same list. All hail the Web STASI!

Re: content they "believe to be illegal" (2)

rnturn (11092) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241027)

"Among those 13 courses of action is a proposal for a system that will allow users to `flag' content they believe to be illegal when surfing the web. These alarms would be sent for review to the service provider and in turn, a government agency."

And will the people doing this flagging be trained to know what is and what isn't illegal content? Didn't think so. I don't think the proponent of this idea has thought enough about the unintended consequences of such a capability.

Re: content they "believe to be illegal" (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40242255)

And will the people doing this flagging be trained to know what is and what isn't illegal content?

Since ignorance of the law is not an excuse, everyone should know the law already ;)

I don't think the proponent of this idea has thought enough about the unintended consequences of such a capability.

Don't you already have a place online you can tip the police? I checked and here in Norway the police do [politi.no] . The categories listed there are:

- Hate speech
- Human trafficking
- Sexual exploitation of children
- Economic crime
- International crime
- Other crime

Nothing prevents me from taking an URL and pasting it in under any of these today. I suppose with a "flag this" button you save about 10 seconds of Googling, you don't need to hit Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V but apart from that I'd say the opportunity is there already today. Unless you want to automatically take down sites if it gets enough flags, that surely couldn't be abused in any way....

erm.... (1)

Mistakill (965922) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241053)

What could possibly go wrong?
and remember, whats illegal in X country, isn't illegal in Y country

Re:erm.... (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248969)

While you are remembering that, also remember that getting extradited from country X to country Y for something that you did while being a citizen and residing in X is a distinct possibility these days. Of course, it's only true for one particular country Y, and a somewhat limited set of Xs (for now), but even so.

aaah crap... not again... give it a rest... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241145)

This whole we must regulate EVERYTHING is getting old fast... I don't think I want to live in Europe anymore... The US and Australia is not much better... Canada has other issues... Africa is... well... Africa... Maybe I should just go live on an island somewhere where there is no internet... Then no-one can attack my rights :D

What a great idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241301)

Let the first addition be the website they host this on!

crowd sourcing has its limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241337)

So, judging by the comments to this post, crowd sourcing, which is praised for so many things, is a despicable failure when it comes to identifying terrorist threats.

Better just leave it to DHS/FBI/CIA then.

It's the Red Scare All Over Again (2)

Scorch_Mechanic (1879132) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241499)

"Internet users could contribute to an official blacklist of suspected communist content under a budding 'Clean IT' project, backed by the House Un-American Activities Committee . Participating representatives are putting together 13 proposals in a text that commits web hosts, search engines and ISPs to helping to weed out content that incites or advocates communism. From the article: 'Among those 13 courses of action is a proposal for a system that will allow users to "flag" content they believe to be communist when surfing the web. These alarms would be sent for review to the service provider and in turn, a government agency.'"

There, that adequately represents my feelings on the subject.

Re:It's the Red Scare All Over Again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247127)

It only takes defining communism as an organized movement with specific leaders allegedly aiming for the replacement of the legal government via illegal means like in a revolution.

censorship is bad! child porn, terroism, copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241503)

I don't care what you are censoring it's wrong. Child porn, terrorism, copyright infringement, and dangerous opinions all included should not be censored. While there are certainly actions beyond that of communication which should be restricted the opinions and communications of people should never be censored. It is too high a risk to the population at large which will not understand the dangers.

You can't have a free state and then censor the communications of the populous. It doesn't matter if some of those ideas are harmful or the actions connected to those ideas harmed people. You may be able to take away certain freedoms- but under no circumstances should you be able to take away the right of communication of any kind. I don't care if the person is in prison and has committed atrocities. There are no exemptions for those directly responsible for genocides or past dictators and other unfathomable crimes. There can't be exceptions.

Once you start censoring (restricting in any way shape or form) or exempting then there is no legitimate government. Taken to the extreme a government could then arrest and release significant portions of the population for petty and almost non-existent criminal acts. Did you drive over that yellow line when you turned left?

It's not unimaginable. People get arrested for such 'crimes' every day. The difference right now that keeps governments somewhat legit is most aren't denied the right to vote. The problem is they can be under this logic and a well organised minority government could abuse this. We (most governments) already do abuse it to deny minors, prisoners, and others a say in the affairs of the country.

I don't think there are many (if any) legitimate governments today. You can't deny a segment of your population the right to vote. I don't care if they are indigent, minors, foreigners, ex-prisoners, terrorists, communists, murders, genocide ex-dictators, or prisoners. Anybody able to place an x on a sheet of paper (with assistance where needed) should be able to vote.

Censoring any group prevents that population from making an educated decision on there rights to elect leaders. You can't deny any group or person from associating, politicking, or running from elections under any circumstances.

So long as everybody is allowed to do these things there isn't a risk to the population at large. Deny them any of these rights and you put the population at risk.

free of gov interference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241531)

It would be nice if the government would take their hands off the internet. Why is it that they're so desperate to control and have the ability to censor it? How much does anyone want to bet that within a decade of this "filtering" system, they will say that users are unreliable, so the government has special people appointed to determine if a website is appropriate.

Here's one major terrorist site (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40241699)

Resposible for multiple murders in Iraq, Afhganistan... oh the list is endless...

http://www.army.mod.uk/join/join.aspx

Openly recruiting via the internet !

Terrorist files (1)

detritus. (46421) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241805)

So we shoud submit stuxnet and flame? That is THE definition of terrorist content that executes actions -- far more dangerous than the simple free exchange of ideas, even if offensive or morally wrong.

Wrong kind of terrorist (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 2 years ago | (#40241841)

What's going to happen when the "wrong" kinds of terrorists start getting reported? What about when (n.b. not if) someone finds terrorists supported by a "friendly" (or possibly their own) government.

This is just to get buy in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40242013)

They probably don't even plan to look at what people mark. Hey, this reminds me of the two party state election...

The STASI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40242017)

They're back...

Blockwartmentaltät (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 2 years ago | (#40242043)

Some Germans (me is one, however, I am not elegible I guess) should be especially qualified for this job.

Reminds me of my youth when my mother tended only to whisper fearing that someone could hear what was being talked about (During the 'Drittes Reich' a person with the fuction of 'Blockwart' was installed for every apartment building, spying on the renters.)

CC.

Mirrors of the database (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40242163)

Maybe the terror database can be widely mirrored, and help the fight against terrorism.

China (1)

SvenLee (2624751) | more than 2 years ago | (#40242225)

Governments create terrorists. Middle East,China and India.

Slashdot already has this DB (1)

lixns21 (1887442) | more than 2 years ago | (#40242273)

Have you all not noticed a little flag next to each published comment. Where do you think your contact details go when I click it?

There goes the internet! (1)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | more than 2 years ago | (#40242471)

helping to weed out content that incites acts of terror.

Let's see, there's the bible, then the koran and all other forms of aggressive, conservative proselytizing religions including BTW scientology... then there's the right wing parties such as the nazis and the klan ...oh and climate change deniers...

But this would amount to a form of leaving these people alone amongst themselves. Isn't sunshine , mockery, debate, parody and shaming the best antiseptic in these cases?

Ideological Purity Comission (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40242715)

In post-Reconquista Spain, one shouldn't harbour 'unclean thoughts'. One shouldn't do rituals at home. Having books and knowing how to read and write is definitively ground for suspicion - ergo, inquest. However the mass of 'good people' is only too willing to help. You know, collaborate, 'n all.

This is great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40246449)

Now we can flag those terrorists over at microsoft.com for the UEFI secure boot vandalism. I say, BRING IT ON!

First they flagged... (1)

knorthern knight (513660) | more than 2 years ago | (#40252623)

...the Jews, But I wasn't a Jew so I didn't speak up. Then they flagged the Communists, but I wasn't a Communist, so I didn't speak up... etc.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>