×

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!

Report Warns That Censorship Will Not Stop Terrorism

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the shill-instruction-guide dept.

Censorship 101

concealment writes "The report evaluates the challenge of curbing online radicalization from the perspective of supply and demand. It concludes that efforts to shut down websites that could serve as incubators for would-be terrorists — going after the supply — will ultimately be self-defeating, and that 'filtering of Internet content is impractical in a free and open society.' 'Approaches aimed at restricting freedom of speech and removing content from the Internet are not only the least desirable strategies, they are also the least effective,' writes Peter Neumann, founding director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King's College London and the author of the report."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

101 comments

One Word (5, Insightful)

lionchild (581331) | about a year ago | (#42193231)

Duh!

Re:One Word (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42193347)

I believe this is called "sticking your head in the sand". :)

Re:One Word (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#42194353)

For sure...don't censor it.

Trace all the connections to the radical muslim sites....track to destinations, and then send over a friendly drone for a visit....

Problem of terrorism growing solved, and no need to censor the web/Internet at all.

Win-win for everyone.

Re:One Word (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42195125)

For sure...don't censor it.

Trace all the connections to the radical muslim sites....track to destinations, and then send over a friendly drone for a visit....

Which is another way of saying "censor it".

More specifically, "censor it via murder".

Re:One Word (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42196159)

yehe, my initial reaction was "No shit! You don't say?"

W-W-W-What??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42193257)

Mod International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King's College London +1 for "No Shit, Sherlock".

Re:W-W-W-What??? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#42193429)

I would be inclined to agree. If the article had some sort of hard data supporting the conclusion(which I believe is correct), it might be more useful, but stating the obvious without further evidence to repudiate the current strategies seems like a bit of a waste of time.

Re:W-W-W-What??? (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#42193733)

You cannot stop an idea except by discrediting it. Period. Censorship doesn't and cannot work in today's world.

In a world where almost all cell phones have cameras, everyone is a reporter. Where most smartphones have better movie cameras than news crews of 30 years ago, everyone is a reporter. When people can tweet, facebook, blog, everyone can be a reporter. With email, communication cannot be stopped.

The only thing tyrants can do now, is cut off their people completely from the modern world, and even that doesn't really work very well.

Re:W-W-W-What??? (5, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about a year ago | (#42195381)

You cannot stop an idea except by discrediting it.

Judging by the number of popular discredited ideas, that doesn't stop them, either.

Not rocket science (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42193265)

I can't imagine why anybody would trust or accept the rationale given to them by somebody who threatens them with physical force. But somehow government is different. Right.

I don't care if you're a congressman or a common thief. If your relationship with me is defined by physical force (or threat thereof), then common sense tells me that I cannot trust you. With that said, it should be blindingly obvious that censorship isn't about stopping terrorism. It's about profit, whether direct or indirect, same as 99% of everything government does.

Re:Not rocket science (2, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#42194725)

I can't imagine why anybody would trust or accept the rationale given to them by somebody who threatens them with physical force. But somehow government is different. Right.

Threats of force seem to work in suppressing speech.

BBC Covers Muslims Differently Because of Violence [nationalreview.com]

How to Stifle Speech - Lessons from the Netherlands, the University of California, and Yale. [nationalreview.com]

Self-Censoring South Park [nationalreview.com]

With that said, it should be blindingly obvious that censorship isn't about stopping terrorism. It's about profit,

At the moment it seems to be mainly about "the Prophet," not profit.

America Again Submits to the Istanbul Process [nationalreview.com]

Call to Ban Bible Under Pakistan’s Elastic Blasphemy Laws [nationalreview.com]

Obama has a solution: (-1, Troll)

fredrated (639554) | about a year ago | (#42193327)

murder the offenders outright.

Re:Obama has a solution: (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#42193389)

This has really been a U.S. foreign policy for decades and is part of why there are anti-US terrorists in the first place. Drones just make it faster and cheaper.

Re:Obama has a solution: (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year ago | (#42194535)

And Drones pay for "political contributions" to someone's campaign.

And we all know what happens when the campaign is over and there is money left over in the Super-PAC..

Re:Obama has a solution: (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42193401)

So he's following the Bush Doctrine?

Re:Obama has a solution: (3, Informative)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about a year ago | (#42193471)

No, he kinda kicked it up a notch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjniYBfsX7I [youtube.com]

"Hope. Change."

Re:Obama has a solution: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42193509)

So what your saying is...
*puts on subglasses*
He turned it up to 11?

YEEEEEEEAH!

Re:Obama has a solution: (-1, Troll)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about a year ago | (#42193525)

Don't you have boots to lick or something?

Re:Obama has a solution: (0)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about a year ago | (#42195161)

So, in the opinion of the esteemed moderator, what would motivate someone to make light of this?

No wait, don't even answer. You're fucked, and you're fucking us. Kill yourself. Now.

Re:Obama has a solution: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42195573)

Making light of a situation does not imply approval of the actions that created it. You were rightfully modded down.

Re:Obama has a solution: (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about a year ago | (#42199525)

Making light of a situation does not imply approval of the actions that created it.

Yeah yeah "it's only a joke". Kill yourself though.

Re:Obama has a solution: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42200815)

In other words, you know that I'm right and you're having a tantrum because you can't deal with that knowledge.

You will now prove me right again.

Re:Obama has a solution: (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#42200743)

No, he kinda kicked it up a notch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjniYBfsX7I [youtube.com]

"Hope. Change."

Ah, Chomsky and the Iranian news in one youtube video! The esteemed Dr. Chomsky approaches truth in an almost clinical fashion, preparing the most potent concoctions he can develop, in a homeopathic [wikipedia.org] sense: the more dilute the "medicine", the more "powerful" it is. I must admit that diluting his already minimal truthfulness in the sea of lies of the Iranian news is a stroke of homeopathic genius! The result is more dilute than a needle of truth in a haystack of lies, and therefore so much more powerful. A pity the video is so short, there is obviously so much potential from that collaboration.

Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome [wired.com]

Here are words that you never thought you’d hear a Pakistani general utter about the drone strikes that batter Pakistan’s tribal areas: “A majority of those eliminated are terrorists, including foreign terrorist elements.”

That would be yawn-worthy if it came from the CIA, which never misses an opportunity to credit its drone strikes with taking out al-Qaeda and its affiliates. But it was the main message of an official briefing from Maj. Gen. Ghayur Mehmood in Miram Shah. He’s the commander of Pakistan’s Seventh Division, charged with leading troops in North Waziristan.

“Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many,” Mehmood said, according to Dawn, “but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.”

Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge – The Observer [frontpagemag.com]
Noam Chomsky: The Last Totalitarian [frontpagemag.com]
The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky [frontpagemag.com]

Re:Obama has a solution: (1)

anagama (611277) | about a year ago | (#42196737)

Um ... no. Obama has taken us places GWB couldn't have because if GWB decided that his opinion alone sufficed as "due process" in the phrase "no person shall be deprived of life ... without due process of law," Democrats would have gone apeshit on him. But, when Obama says his opinion alone is "due process" (citation [theatlanticwire.com]), Democrats say nothing at all. It's despicable partisanship.

So, the Bush Doctrine had some limits -- in the hands of a Democrat, there are none at all.

Anyway --- you should really think about that friendly kind peace loving Democrat Eric Holder's statement that "due process" does not mean judicial process. That is opening the door even further into authoritarianism -- a state where the President's unchallenged opinion is all that is required to kill you or put you in a gulag.

Re:Obama has a solution: (4, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | about a year ago | (#42193637)

I don't know why this wa modded as 'troll' except for perhaps a lack of knowledge about recent history wherein US Born Anwar al-Awlaki was murdered by drone attack, without the application of any due process whatsoever, because of things he said. In other words, Obama murdered an American over exercising free speech rights. And yeah, Alwaki didn't say nice things, but think about the implications.

Think about the characteristics of leaders of the worst authoritarian governments, think about how the president believes he can kill anyone or jail anyone without trial. Think about how the president has usurped the power to make war from Congress totally (i.e., Libya). Think about the massive prison system based in our Land-Of-The-Free which houses more people on an absolute basis than any other in the world. Think about all this stuff and you might start rationally fearing the future.

Re:Obama has a solution: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42194793)

He was killed for being an al qaeda leader in Yemen. Not for saying mean things. Retard.

Re:Obama has a solution: (0)

fredrated (639554) | about a year ago | (#42195193)

So you say, but the government presented no evidence of this, made no accusations, did not indict him or in any way prove what you say.
Dangerous retard.

Re:Obama has a solution: (1)

anagama (611277) | about a year ago | (#42196933)

Evidence? I mean aside from the president said that. Do you have any actual evidence? I thought not.

In East Fuckyostan, the leader's word that you should die is good enough being a dictator and all that.

In America, we're supposed to have the right to contest the evidence against us and to be punished only after it is proven we ought to be.

Anyway, enjoy the Democratic Peoples Republic of America. Long live our dear leader: Obama.

Re:Obama has a solution: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42196949)

His son was killed as well

He was 16 and born in Denver

As unpopular as it may be nowadays, it's innocent until proven guilty

Re:Obama has a solution: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42198983)

As popular as the misquote is, it's 'Innocent UNLESS proven guilty' (even though everybody is guilty of SOMETHING, so maybe the misquote is apt.

Re:Obama has a solution: (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#42201513)

I don't know why this wa modded as 'troll' except for perhaps a lack of knowledge about recent history wherein US Born Anwar al-Awlaki was murdered by drone attack, without the application of any due process whatsoever, because of things he said. In other words, Obama murdered an American over exercising free speech rights. And yeah, Alwaki didn't say nice things, but think about the implications.

I'm afraid the lack of knowledge is pretty much entirely yours. al-Awlaki received all of the due process he was due under the Law of War which was the basis for the attack that killed him, not criminal law. Mark that - killed him, not murdered him. He was no more murdered than these men [youtube.com] shot down en mass by the US Federal government without warrant, arrest, trial, conviction, or warning - and appropriately so. Al-Awlaki put himself in the same category as the men in that video. Al-Awlaki left the United States, entered Al Qaida controlled territory, and joined up with them in body to complete what he had already been accomplishing in word and deed. He made his intent known [youtube.com]. He was connected to multiple terrorist attacks. He certainly appears to have earned his Hellfire, in this life [wikipedia.org] and the next [bible.org]. And yes, the United States is at war with Al Qaida as authorized under the terms of the Authorization for Use of Military Force [findlaw.com] passed by Congress which is legally equivalent to a declaration of war - a point of well settled law.

Censorship doesn't stop much of anything... (1)

robot256 (1635039) | about a year ago | (#42193335)

Censorship doesn't stop much of anything--it only stops people from talking about things where you can see them. In terms of totalitarian utilitarianism, a police surveillance state is much more effective than blunt force marshal law.

Re:Censorship doesn't stop much of anything... (4, Insightful)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about a year ago | (#42193407)

That's okay, the goal isn't to stop criminals, the goal is to ensure that everyone is guilty of some crime or another.

FTFA (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#42193341)

Instead, policymakers should focus their attention on the demand side of the radicalization issue, Neumann argues, with the government spearheading outreach initiatives that would bring together schools, community groups and businesses to advance awareness and media literacy and offer a competing narrative to that presented by sites that traffic in radical propaganda.

There's no way this would work in the U.S. It sounds like socialism. It also incorporates zero bombs. A bill to attempt such a thing would be regarded by the right wing of this country as an encroachment on freedom far worse than censorship(of people they disagree with).

Re:FTFA (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42193417)

Instead, policymakers should focus their attention on the demand side of the radicalization issue, Neumann argues, with the government spearheading outreach initiatives that would bring together schools, community groups and businesses to advance awareness and media literacy and offer a competing narrative to that presented by sites that traffic in radical propaganda.

And this is exactly why it won't work in the US. Imagine if suddenly all the US voters became aware of how to spot propaganda, it's the politicians', aka the "radical propagandas'" worst nightmare.

It's all propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42194221)

Trust only your own senses, but verify what your senses tell you.

Re:FTFA (1)

Ltap (1572175) | about a year ago | (#42193547)

Also, seriously, it's implying that stopping radicalism is a good thing (which it is, from the perspective of elites who want to maintain power, I suppose).

Re:FTFA (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#42193751)

Instead, policymakers should focus their attention on the demand side of the radicalization issue, Neumann argues, with the government spearheading outreach initiatives that would bring together schools, community groups and businesses to advance awareness and media literacy and offer a competing narrative to that presented by sites that traffic in radical propaganda.

There's no way this would work in the U.S. It sounds like socialism. It also incorporates zero bombs. A bill to attempt such a thing would be regarded by the right wing of this country as an encroachment on freedom far worse than censorship(of people they disagree with).

Why would this work at all? A first move in radicalization is to cut off the target from rival propaganda. Second, who really thinks the problem here is that people aren't indoctrinated enough? The real problem is societies that breed lots of terrorists and pretty nasty ideologies. That's not going to be cured by some feelgood on the internets.

It also depends on Hollywood and other US media centers, the people who profit the most from currently portraying the US as the bad guys. You'll just have some Hollywood or ad people making lukewarm propaganda, and then turning around and making some anti-US blockbuster. What's going to be the net effect?

Re:FTFA (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#42193795)

Actually, I'd like to point out that Hollywood gets huge amounts of freebies from the US military for portraying the US as the good guys.

I cannot actually think of an example from the past decade where the U.S. was portrayed as evil in a movie.

Re:FTFA (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#42194047)

I cannot actually think of an example from the past decade where the U.S. was portrayed as evil in a movie.

The Hunger Games is a pretty obvious one in the top 10 list for 2012. A common ploy is to denigrate US society and culture (see, for example, "The Help" a 2011 movie). Even when a movie doesn't focus on this aspect, you can get driveby insults (eg, a brief, shallow cameo by the stereotypical "ugly American" tourist, narcissistic yuppie, or an ignorant soccer mom).

Re:FTFA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42195351)

The Hunger Games is a pretty obvious one in the top 10 list for 2012

Hunger Games takes place in a fictional nation of Panem, which just happened to be located in North America. It's not obvious at all. You might as well say it's a shot at Canada (Blame Canada! Blame Canada!)

A common ploy is to denigrate US society and culture (see, for example, "The Help" a 2011 movie).

"The Help" depicted a young AMERICAN white woman fighting for justice for her fellow AMERICAN women (the maids).

I say that movie is praising US society and culture, in how strong individuals (the protagonists) prevail, correcting the wrongs of America's own past and leading America to a better more hopeful future.

I say the movie existing itself is a triumph for US society and culture: it doesn't try to white wash its own history - it owns up to its own past and isn't afraid to show it in film.

Contrast that to say, Japan, who still denies a lot of things almost every other Asian country say they did in WW2.

So no, I say the common Hollywood ploy is to depict the US as benevolent. Even in times when US did something wrong, it'll be Americans themselves who fix the mess (and it's almost always an American individual fighting back against the American government, and winning - isn't this what you right wing types love? To see government being bad?).

Contrast that to if some third world banana republic did something wrong, then America World Police (and even that *that* movie makes up some analogy involving dicks and assholes to justify America being the lesser of two evils) needs to step in, cuz those people are just so powerless on their own.

Even when a movie doesn't focus on this aspect, you can get driveby insults (eg, a brief, shallow cameo by the stereotypical "ugly American" tourist, narcissistic yuppie, or an ignorant soccer mom).

As opposed to the portrayals of mobsters and drug dealers with foreign (non-American) accents, French being depicted as cheese-eating surrender monkeys, Asians either being nerdy geniuses or crazy kung fu masters, Russians liking vodka, Australians being quirky rural folk with boomerangs and bowie knives, Canucks being maple syrup drinking lumberjacks living in igloos,etc?

And how any of the above could be the antagonist (so they aren't just some drive by insult, they whole movie is about them being the bad guy... those evil Canadian lumberjacks!), who gets foiled by a rag tag band of heroes led by an American (inspired from the days when a rag tag band of colonists won independence from the Big Bad British Empire)?

Methinks you're paranoid, looking for insults where they don't exist. Might as well say Jar Jar Binks is a shot at the US, since he's obviously a shot at both the Average American (dumb, ugly, and annoying), and also to American politicians (became a senator despite his idiocy, and is an unwilling and unwitting pawn that helped the bad guy gaining power)

Re:FTFA (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#42195433)

Hunger Games takes place in a fictional nation of Panem, which just happened to be located in North America. It's not obvious at all. You might as well say it's a shot at Canada (Blame Canada! Blame Canada!)

So you're not going to be serious about this? I answered your question with a high profile movie in the past ten years. This thread is done as far as I'm concerned.

Re:FTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42196757)

So you're not going to be serious about this? I answered your question with a high profile movie in the past ten years

Yes, but as the other AC pointed out, your answer was wrong.

Re:FTFA (1)

hazah (807503) | about a year ago | (#42198945)

Something is up with your reading comprehension. The comment is serious, and it addressed your concern. Unless you do not actually understand literary devices you're just being a dick about it.

Re:FTFA (2)

grenadeh (2734161) | about a year ago | (#42194325)

Yea that's not socialism in the slightest bit, that's business as usual for America - bringing together schools and community groups and businesses to advance awareness and literacy, etc. At least that's how it used to be. And I hate to break it to you, the Left has been the major culprit in the history of this country, especially in the past 12 years, when it comes to censorship and constitution and bill of rights-raping/ass-wiping. What Bush started, the administrations since have made exponentially worse on a daily basis. I believe now that you are being sarcastic.

Terrorism (1)

BeTeK (2035870) | about a year ago | (#42193363)

I call this report as terrorist reports since it would suggest to take more lenient approach against it :D

What does this remind you of (1)

I Mean, What (2778851) | about a year ago | (#42193423)

Sounds a lot like the war on drugs to me. But terrorists demand that we be afraid, so let's give them what they want.

And nothing will change... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42193433)

Just like the DRM papers from 10-20 years ago that predicted DRM wouldn't stop piracy, censorship won't stop terrorism. And just like the DRM example, these reports and studies will be ignored because someone stands to make a lot of money if the reports are ignored.

Re:And nothing will change... (2)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | about a year ago | (#42193495)

And best of all, we the tax payers are left holding the bill for laws and policies that erode our individual freedoms and human rights.

Re:And nothing will change... (1)

hazah (807503) | about a year ago | (#42198985)

Hey.. there's always a threshold. Otherwise no-one would ever be in the grips of fear of societal collapse. Like babies, they push the boundries just enough to see what's possible without being scolded. It's pathetic.

I'll write an article too (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#42193557)

Here's my deeply researched article I wrote that upstages this one:
Censorship won't stop a damn thing. It won't stop anything copyrighted, illegal, dangerous, or terrorism-related. It will just be used to control people and enforce IP-holders' business models to make them more money (in their opinion).
The End
Citations:
Common sense, reality, and past experience with internet stuff

My 0.02 (1)

DaMattster (977781) | about a year ago | (#42193573)

If anything, censorship will only harden the resolve of terrorists and will only further fuel their personal justifications for enaging in the act.

lol (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#42193675)

Their first mistake was in thinking that the censorship was designed to stop terrorism. Terrorism is an excuse, like WMDs... the real goal is control.

Re:lol (1, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#42194893)

The United States will recall a million pounds of ground beef if a half dozen people are killed by tained meat, and you can't figure out they just might, might, want to prevent this [realclearpolitics.com] from happening again? I'll meet the moderators that gave you that +5 half way - you do have a rare insight, but I wouldn't give it a +1.

BTW - is the tainted meat recall about control too?

Re:lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42195803)

more people are killed by police than terrorists.

Re:lol (1)

reboot246 (623534) | about a year ago | (#42198801)

A million pounds of ground beef may sound like a lot to you, but it's just a drop in the bucket.

U.S beef production is between 25 and 30 BILLION pounds a year.

Censorship Stops Terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42193779)

Like gun control stops domestic violence. Like banning Big Gulps stops obesity. Like making people take off their shoes at an airport makes us safer.

just some observations about "important" people (4, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#42193785)

I have this nasty habbit of watching the behavior of other people, and am very interested in how stereotypes develop, how they relate to group demographics, and how they also fail to describe individual people.

I have had the great (mis)fortune of being able to observe "important" people in many niches, and levels of "importance", and have come up with some general rules of thumb concerning their behaviors. These are stereotypes, of course, and should not be seen as gospel, or as describing individuals.

That said, the stereotypical "important person" (I keep using that phrase, because it covers a large demographic ranging from senior managment to politicians, to police officers.) Is actually very insecure about their position. They have worked very hard to get into their "important" position, and are terrified of being displaced, either through their superiors replacing them with a better employee, or through discovery of their being a crook.

This insecurity makes this stereotypical person very paranoid, and prone to establishing elaborate plans and collusions to prevent the possibility of competition for their position. It also makes them very susceptible to "terror", and they react very agitatedly and aggressively toward any 'percievied' threat.

A good example of this comes from a friend of mine who works with/near city government of his small town. Shortly after the sept 11 tradecenter attack, this small city government (under 100,000 residents) "increased security", was actively looking for terrorists, and had a major panic attack when a passing pedestrian left a backpack in the lobby while sad pedestrian used the public bathroom. (For real, they thought he was a bomber.) The recognition that they were simply not that important to attract the attention of organized terror agencies simply didn't kick in even once.

Due to this hysterical paranoia, they seek any and all means to "feel safe", which means they have absolutely no mental barriers against locking innocent people into padded rooms for discussing "scary" topics, or even just discussing the shortcomings of our stereotypical "important" people.

We can see manifestations of this in the US government, where serious discussions of enacting "indefinate detention" without a trial, or oversight "for national security" took place not all that long ago, and was narrowly struck down.

Being told that the measures that make them feel the most secure, are demonstrably the worst measures they could ever attempt when wanting to actually BE secure, will usually make them confrontational, and increasingly paranoid. They have an uncanny tendency to have a superiority complex, that prevents them from accepting professional advice, if that advice goes against what they believe. They view such offers of policy advice as attacks against their credibility and viability as leaders, and not as the healthy, helpful professional advice that it is. In order to get them to enact outside advice of this nature, they have to be duped into thinking it was their idea first.

That has not occured with this study. This study directly contradicts the currently held practices of important world leaders in dealing with people discussing "dangerous and scary" things, and will be viewed with derision, and outright contempt, (and more than a healthy dose of fear.)

It will be mocked and ridiculed behind closed doors, completely ignored in public commentary and the press (unless the press brings it up, then expect diversionary tactics), and burried. The researchers themselves might even experience difficulties getting more grant money, though the cockblock will be subtle.

In short, don't expect this study to bring enlightenment in our leaders.

The obvious question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42194623)

they have to be duped into thinking it was their idea first

How do we do this?

How do we trick officials into installing wetware that is in their best interests?

Trojan? Think positive. How could discrediting censorship be presented as being a tough-on-terrorists idea by our Fearless Leaders?

Huh? (1)

jerep (794296) | about a year ago | (#42193801)

Did we really need a study to figure that out?

How fucking retarded are we as a species?

Re:Huh? (1)

hazah (807503) | about a year ago | (#42199085)

Are you seriously asking? After 2 world wars? After the roazy theatre thereafter? Look, we still say to ourselves that killing is sometimes an option, obviously we've not actually moved anywhere in our plight. So as a species, we are exactly as retarded as we were for the past 10,000 years or so. Learning nothing.

Yes it will. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42194021)

Censor stuff and you thereby censor the terrorists. You censor the terrorists then they cant spread their message thereby convincing others to their cause and they have a tougher time communicating with eachother.

Tough times call for tough measures and if you have a problem you cant always have an easy solution, sometimes you have to bite the bullet. And this time that bullet is censorship but lets all face facts, you can still think as you please but oh no you cant post your stupid opinions about something on a blog! Oh no the world will end! Get over yourselves, internet censorship changes nothing because aside from you, no one cares what you write on it.

Re:Yes it will. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42194509)

So censorship will help fight terrorism, but at the same time it changes nothing?

I realize you're just trolling, but you need to put some thought into it or it's too obvious to work.

Re:Yes it will. (1)

hazah (807503) | about a year ago | (#42199123)

Biting the bullet that sees no resolution is as dumb as it gets. Yeah, tough times call for tough measures, but they don't call for stupid measures that do even more harm and solve nothing. When your vilige is in danger, you put guards up on the wall, not lock everyone in their tent. Why? Because they're on your side and will help you when the village is in danger. You lock them in their tents and they'll hope whoever attacks you will set them free.

Wrong (1)

grenadeh (2734161) | about a year ago | (#42194181)

You need a brit to tell you this? Of course it won't. The revolution will not be censored. You can try all you want, it will only embolden them and us. And make no mistake, readers, "terrorists" is a transparent bullshit term used by an establishment stuck in 2001 who thinks we are too stupid and afraid to see reality anymore. This is and has and will continue to be used against normal, law-abiding Americans and other citizens of "free" western societies to keep us in line. Don't let it.

No, really? (0)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about a year ago | (#42194197)

Good God, someone was *paid* to do a study to figure this out? Oh, by the way, sex education doesn't reduce masturbation or pre-marital sex either. And ads from the RIAA don't stop music piracy. In other news, nobody trust banks, politicians or other forms of mafia.

Re:No, really? (1)

hazah (807503) | about a year ago | (#42199153)

Well, sex education isn't meant to stop masturbation nor pre-marital sex, so it failing on both counts is expected. You're failing it for not attaining the goals it was not meant for?

shooting yourself in the foot (2)

DriveDog (822962) | about a year ago | (#42194253)

Aside from the free speech issues, what it does is chase off a few noncommitted types and drive the serious ones deeper underground where they're harder to find. Good policing and intelligence work involves staking out the site and watching who comes and goes and what they do. Pushing them off onto Freenet or somewhere eliminates that opportunity for observation. Worried about exposing impressionable persons to such rhetoric? Then provide alternatives, built by someone who really cares and understands how to reach them. What happened in the Cold War? Communist Bloc radio wasn't jammed. Instead, the West transmitted their viewpoints (VOA, RFE, etc).

Other way around, mate (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year ago | (#42194255)

If a censored Internet is anathema to a free and open society, the Security Organs are implementing the solution already: eliminate free and open society. After all, if you've done nothing wrong...

The goal of censorship is not to stop terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42194507)

That is just lip service. Stopping terrorism through censorship is probably not on the agenda of our masters.

So what's new? (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about a year ago | (#42194801)

Those who don't know that "Terrizm" is just an excuse to justify censorship, please raise your hands. Governments are thrilled that they've found this convenient boogyman to scare people with and demand conformity.

censorship induces terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42195053)

repression, regardless of the form it takes, inevitably does that. Sometimes is goes by another name, such as "revolution" or something.
What it ends up being called usually depends on who won.

Easy solution (1)

alexo (9335) | about a year ago | (#42195277)

Filtering of Internet content is impractical in a free and open society.
Therefore, we should first get rid of this free and open society.

I don't remember exactly where and when this decision was made, but most national governments are already in full-swing implementation mode.

Report Warns That Censorship Won't Stop Terrorism (1)

halcyon1234 (834388) | about a year ago | (#42195353)

... and the report was quickly suppressed as a threat to national security.

Why, of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42195453)

As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny.
The once-chained people whose leaders - at last! - lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.

"Terrorism" a tactic, NOT a thing you can fight.. (2)

Paracelcus (151056) | about a year ago | (#42196195)

"Terrorism" a tactic, NOT a thing you can fight a "war" against!

"Terrorism" with the exception of 911 is just background noise, it's been going on for hundreds of years, everywhere!

The government of these USoA's have joyously pounced on "Terrorism" as an excuse to radically seize/expand more power and destroy even more of the Constitution in the process! Wasn't it Bush that said "It's terrible to let a disaster go to waste" or something along those lines?

Everytime you drop a bomb, fire a missile, shoot a .50 and miss your intended target, and. You blow up some farmers hooch, kill a bus full of school kids, kill the village "holy man". The skinny farmer who in burying little bloody rags of meat that used to be his family, becomes a man filled with a kind of hate that very few of my fellow Americans (thankfully) can understand, and the only thing that can stop him is a bullet, he cannot be frightened, bribed or reasoned with, that errant bomb has created a "Terrorist"!

Slowing it is better than stopping it. (1)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | about a year ago | (#42196345)

Look, this thing people do where if you don't win it all then you're a loser entirely misses the point. I'd rather slow terrorism than not bother with it. And committing to the tactic of "censorship" does NOT preclude me from pursuing other strategies, so why would anyone even bother arguing against it? People's lives are a lot more important to me than whether you think some principality has wasted money and infringed on a terrorists' right to have a website.

Bullshit (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about a year ago | (#42197315)

Going after the supply works people. Just look at the hugely successful 40 year old War on Drugs.

I presume they mean MUSLIMS... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197599)

What a joke. Islam cannot stand open debate, nor free speech, which is why muslims kill people on a DAILY basis, to prevent both. Islam is the province of THICK idiots, who can't think for themselves.

This is more bullshit from our Jewish 'masters', as if anybody in the general public is calling for MORE censorship of speech. You should try living in the U.K.

We can defeat Islam easily, if we have free speech. Muslims always reveal their blatant insanity as soon as their shitty cult is questioned, because it can't stand up to any questioning at all. Insane people don't like debating. (That also applies to the insane Lefties who are responsible for FORCING muslims onto white people, who clearly don't want them living in OUR countries - why would we?)

www.prophetofdoom.net

Next Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197611)

"Report Warns That Censorship Will Not Stop Terrorism"

"Lawmakers Ignore Report"

Self healing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42197841)

Terror networks are self healing; they route around damage.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...