×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

457 comments

Sensationalist FUD (5, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504717)

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:

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.

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 (5, Insightful)

faloi (738831) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504773)

Of all the times to need mod points... This is among the most sensational, FUD filled summaries I've seen on /., and that's saying a lot.

Re:mod parent up...further (5, Insightful)

Hierarch (466609) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505401)

Beyond that, I actually wish I had a way to apply mod points to an article instead of a comment. This is the worst I've ever seen on slashdot. (Which tells you I haven't been reading as assiduously as most of you, I'm sure...)

Re:Sensationalist FUD (3, Insightful)

etinin (1144011) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504789)

Still, look at this:

(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.
I've never seen any terrorist propaganda in the web and I don't think any american has ever become a terrorist because of the internet... They're starting with this statement, tomorrow they may pass a bill to effectively censor the internet.

Re:Sensationalist FUD (5, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504951)

I have seen terrorist propiganda on the web. Plenty of people have.
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 (5, Funny)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505157)

I've seen plenty of terrorist propaganda too. For example, look at the Lancet Report which claims that not only around 650 000 people have died between 2003 and 2006 in Iraq due to bringing democracy to that country, but even more hienously it claims that at least 30% of those deaths were caused by direct coalition actions. Clearly, this study only serves to destroy the morale of our troops and it should not be permitted to exist on the web.

Even trickier than that! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21505173)

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.

But even trickier than that, is propaganda with correct spelling! I don't get it, you spelled it wrong six times, but also once correctly? What's up with that? Is it a signal to your al-Qaeda cell, or is "propiganda" propaganda for pigs or something?

Re:Sensationalist FUD (4, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505239)

The trickiest propaganda is that which everyone knows to be false, yet habitually act as if it were true.

Re:Sensationalist FUD (2, Informative)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505249)

And propaganda is not necessarily "bad". Propaganda is a means to spread your ideas. You can be passive and hope someone goes to the library or a webpage and reads up on you or you can be active and drop fliers, knock on doors etc. Most "propaganda" on the web I wouldn't label as such. If you go to www.jihad.com you are looking for information not having it forced on you, information isn't propaganda just because a particular group wants you to know it. Heck I'd love for everyone to have a basic understanding of physics, that doesn't make it a cult, and doesn't mean I hate you if you don't agree with what I try to teach you.

Re:Sensationalist FUD (1, Informative)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505359)

You can see propaganda on mainstream news sites, if nowhere else. Look at the coverage of recent riots in France on CNN, and notice how the culprits are always described as "youths." They used to be described as "Muslim youths" a few years ago, but the word "Muslim" was dropped. Also look at the photos the BBC decided to run to accompany their article, and notice how it includes photos of burning cars, buildings, and cops-- but there's not a single photo of any of these "youths".

I'm not a crazy conservative "bomb them all" type. But let's call a spade a spade: these riots are Muslim vs. Christian.

Re:Sensationalist FUD (3, Interesting)

brunascle (994197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504965)

I've never seen any terrorist propaganda in the web and I don't think any american has ever become a terrorist because of the internet...
i agree, but it depends on your definition of terrorist.

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 (4, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505031)

They're starting with this statement, tomorrow they may pass a bill to effectively censor the internet.

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 (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505215)

I've never seen any terrorist propaganda in the web
Right, and I suppose you've never come across any pictures of naked ladies either...

Re:Sensationalist FUD (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505263)

I'm not supporting censorship by any means, but I strongly suspect that your lack of exposure to terrorist material on the Internet may have to do with the following behaviors on your part:

(1) Predominantly searching the web for articles written in some dialect of the English language (might find some ultra-militia style groups, but not foreign organizations for the most part).

(2) A lack of historical searches that actively look for such materials, i.e. if you're not interested in committing terrorist acts, it wouldn't make sense for you to go an look for the stuff in the first place.

(3) As a minor influencing factor, content filters in email and web proxy systems may have filtered your view of the web somewhat.

I assure you, there are a lot of web sites devoted to hate groups, extremist cells, whatever... and they aren't all based on extreme Islam, either. All sorts of nutjobs are out there, and the web combined with differing legal systems from nation to nation makes communication extremely easy for them. I guess that's sorta the whole point of the Internet, to facilitate free communication among diverse parties... which is why I can't support any form of censorship of the 'net. That's the "problem" with democracy: you have to accept the drawbacks and dangers if you want to enjoy the freedoms and benefits.

No? Check this site reuters.com (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505327)

Now google for "reuters propaganda" and voila, propoganda, on the net. Offcourse the sites you find are also propoganda.

'Terrorist' propoganda is very easy to find, if you never come across it, well, you must have had your head in the sand. Given that you are apparently ignorant of this, why should we attach any credit to the fact that you think no terrorists have ever been recruited over the internet.

It is like you saying "I never seen porn on the internet and I don't think Y" don't matter why Y is, the first part clearly labels you as someone whose views of the world are a bit limited.

If you want to combat that this bill you are going to have to be a bit more convicing then this. "I never seen something that I could easily find by google and futher more, without doing any research whatsoever I think it doesn't happen anyway, so I am against it".

Yeah, next up, we ask newborn babies their opinion on sales tax.

Re:Sensationalist FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21504793)

Sensationalism on slashdot? Say it ain't so!

What, you were expecting anything else? (3, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504805)

I visit slashdot for two reasons now:

- 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, and maybe even have a good laugh.

No one here, is interested in actually discussing the real merits or drawbacks of this bill. Just spreading sensationalist lies based in the belief that any law related to terrorism or homeland security is really interested in oppressing Americans for purposes of control, and nothing else.

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.

Re:What, you were expecting anything else? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505193)

I come here for the trolls, and even they have seem to be getting fewer and further between.

Re:What, you were expecting anything else? (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505225)

Kuro5hin.org is famous for its trolls, and gods know it can use some more story submissions.

Re:What, you were expecting anything else? (5, Insightful)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505265)

No one here, is interested in actually discussing the real merits or drawbacks of this bill.

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? (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505305)

that any law related to terrorism or homeland security is really interested in oppressing Americans for purposes of control, and nothing else
You've just described a superset of fascism and there are a growing number of people inside the US and especially outside that think the USA is starting to show signs of a fascist regime.

And you've just completely missed the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21505381)

Just spreading sensationalist lies based in the belief that any law related to terrorism or homeland security is really interested in oppressing Americans for purposes of control, and nothing else


That was the whole quote. YOU are the type of nutter he's talking about. When he says he comes here for laughs, it to laugh at you. When he says that people here are not capable of intelligent debate, he's talking about YOU.

You proved his point perfectly and didn't even realize you were doing it.

Re:Sensationalist FUD (2, Interesting)

Gription (1006467) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504811)

Your forgetting that there is nothing scarier then people communicating!!!

(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 then once they are 'safer' they will still be much more likely to die while driving to the 7 Eleven...))

Re:Sensationalist FUD (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505133)

You've never seen some poorly socialized slob trying to pick up a girl have you?

"Scary" only BEGINS to describe it...

Re:Sensationalist FUD (5, Funny)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504847)

darn.

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.

Re:Sensationalist FUD (1)

Killjoy_NL (719667) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504971)

I'll just fly my server into some government building ;)

Now on to the Beowulf cluster version of this joke.

Re:Sensationalist FUD (0, Redundant)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505121)

tube surfing tanks? Imagine a beowulf cluster of those!

In Soviet Russia, Internet invades tanks.

Re:Sensationalist FUD (0, Redundant)

SnoopJeDi (859765) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505137)

Now on to the Beowulf cluster version of this joke.


If you had a Beowulf cluster of kamikaze-servers, you'd have processed this joke yesterday.

Hm... (2, Interesting)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504889)

Thinking over that line in the bill a bit, it occurs to me:

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 effect of interconnectedness via a series of tubes is to increase or decrease radicalization.

It's really a question about whether you trust the good information to get out at a faster rate than the propaganda.

Re:Sensationalist FUD (2, Informative)

maclizard (1029814) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504989)

I agree. Generally, I am the first to jump on the anti-government bandwagon, but this bill does not say the internet is a terrorist threat.

Re:Sensationalist FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21505023)

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.

Worked up? As in? Revolution or passively blah blahing again .... and again and again.

Sure only one usage of Internet can be found. But give it time. Look no further than the Patriot Act .... for Patriots who fight to degrade our rights. One time means nothing in our backwards word usage these days.

Re:Sensationalist FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21505067)

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.

it sure as hell does not define the Internet as a "terrorist tool that Congress needs to develop and implement methods to combat."

No, of course not. This committee you claim it defines is going to sit around and do absolutely nothing and sure as hell won't pass any laws, especially in the field of "preventing such things".

Pull my other one, quick!

Re:Sensationalist FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21505105)

lets see, plans for a nuclear bomb on the net
                    ingrediants for a fire sale
                    neo-Nazis sending out hate mail
                    pictures of cowboy neal in a thong

    hmm..is the internet dangerous..? you decide.

Re:Sensationalist FUD (5, Funny)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505111)

There are problems with your post:

(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...

Prescient (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21505119)

The title of the summary is absolutely correct. The internet has been labeled a terrorist threat.

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.
There it is, plain as day. Internet, terrorism, done.

Is the commission's job to think of the children and do something? Yes. In fact, the very next piece of the legislation says precisely that.

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.
If the internet has already been singled out as the only medium specifically mentioned, as it's own Finding no less, in the bill and the very next statement is a call to combat, then I think intent is quite clear and written plainly.

Clearly, the discussion is spying. Or, if you prefer, intelligence gathering. Listening in. Tracking, recording, sorting, organizing, identifying, and then prioritizing targets "that the Commission considers important."

Now, I appreciate your effort was probably to interject some modicum of rationality in analyzing the summary as given. But I do think your conclusions are more incorrect than the story you chastise. The summary of the story is entirely correct. To summarize the summary, it says the bill identifies the internet, and only the internet in this instance, as a source of terrorism and then goes on to create a commission to combat it.

And that's exactly what the bill does say.

The summary doesn't talk about any "outlandish plan to regulate the Internet." You, sir, created that strawman from thin air or dark places all by yourself. But perhaps you're merely prescient on that issue, given the consistent and repeated actions of the federal government. But don't use that to slander the story submitter who more-or-less accurately summarized the legislation.

Let's see... (4, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504735)

Sponsored by a Democrat.

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:Let's see... (2, Insightful)

andytrevino (943397) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504853)

The bill even includes an entire section on how any actions the DHS takes "shall not violate" civil rights and civil liberties, and requiring an auditing mechanism of those actions:


`SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY-BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.

`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

`(b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security's commitment to racial neutrality issued in an Department-wide Memorandum on June 1, 2004.

`(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security will develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not result in a disproportionate impact, without a rational basis, on any particular race, ethnicity, or religion and include within its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.

Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21504877)

You must be new here.

Re:Let's see... (1)

snarkh (118018) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504885)

"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.


The statement may sound plausible, but do you have any evidence that it is factually correct?
It seems to be just an opinion, not fact.

404? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21504987)

Passed 404 - 6.
404: Bill not found?

Re:Let's see... (1)

Carik (205890) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505043)

"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.


It's entirely factually correct! Every time I look at an American news site, I'm exposed to "broad and constant streams" of propaganda about terrorism. Of course, it's not quite the type the folks who wrote the bill were thinking about, given that it mostly consists of stories about contries invading, or threatening to invade, other contries without cause, but...

Re:Let's see... (2, Interesting)

wytcld (179112) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505089)

providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens
There have always been "broad and constant streams" of every sort of propaganda available to "United States citizens" because of that pesky Constitutional "right" called "freedom of the press." That is, if we're willing to call narrow and intermittent streams "broad and constant." That's a matter of perspective, maybe. But any good public library has a broad selection including radical materials that any citizen can, if she desires, spend every waking hour reading. So from her perspective it's "broad and constant," even if it's not even one percent of the books in the library - or 1 percent of the political/religious material on the Net.

Can anyone provide a single example of a terrorist act that resulted from an individual in isolation reading propaganda on the Internet? It looks like all the Muslim terrorists - even though they use the Internet - have been primarily motivated and coordinated through their mosques. So should the first thing to go be freedom of speech, when freedom of religion is much closer to the source of the terrorist threat? The Christian Web sites that have provided names and addresses of physicians providing abortions, then crossed them off as they were assassinated by the faithful, might be closer to what the Congress shows fear of. Even in that case, the prime motivators of the assassins were their preachers and congregations, not their solo reading of a hateful Web site, afaik.

Re:Let's see... (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505307)

The entire premise of your comment is wrong.

No one is saying speech, or freedom thereof, should be the first of anything to "go".

They're simply stating that the internet is used as a tool for radicalization, and it is: it allows people who may be susceptible to such views, for whatever reasons, to cooperate, organize, communicate, and reinforce one another's positions and ideas. It's significantly different than the conventional press, because the internet, and information sharing in general, is a much greater force multiplier for smaller organizations, or even single persons.

Nice way to bring the crazy elements of Christianity into it, by the way, when in reality the radical Islam problem is about where Christianity was about a thousand or so years ago. I still continue to be amazed that people think that Panislamic radicalism is a manufactured problem, or that, if it is a problem, the US is somehow almost exclusively to blame for it even though we've only been around a little more than two centuries.

Re:Let's see... (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505217)

"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."

Hey jackass, the same statement can be applied to Libraries, Churches, Civic centers, public places of gathering. Anyone of them can contribute to "... facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism..."

The bill is saying "ideas are dangerous."

So does that mean Randall Terry's group Operation Rescue is now a terrorist organization because they "facilitate violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and homegrown terrorism." Does that mean they should be locked up at Gitmo?

But then you are one of those liberals that need the government to do everything for you, aren't you.

Re:Let's see... (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505235)


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.

There's a larger premise here. If you mention anything specifically as "aiding/creating/whatever terrorists", it must mean it's some kind of special class of thing that's doing that. I'd say that the interstate highway system "has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process", so has the phone system. Neither of those are mentioned. Ryder trucks rented a truck to the first bombing of the WTC. How come they're not mentioned? The statement is just as "factual" if you ignore the whole premise it's trying to convey.

So we're left to think that "the internet" must go above and beyond the normal infra-structure that everyone uses (including the bad guys). You might as well say the water distribution system "aids in facilitating violent radicalization.. blah blah blah".

Re:Let's see... (1)

db32 (862117) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505283)

Well unfortunately for you, rational thought was declared a "thought crime" already. Please report to a processing center where we can waterboard the intelligence right out of you. They are after all "gathering intelligence" right?

In all seriousness its depressing to see this trite on front page like this. Talk about lost credibility. I frequently point people to the more technical/science related articles on what the government or megacorps may be up to and then this kind of insanity shows up. I am all for supporting sane, measured, RATIONAL attempts at combating terrorism. Big brother methods of the right and head in the sand methods of the left are both incedibly unappealing.

Re:Let's see... (1)

INT_QRK (1043164) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505289)

I agree that the characterization of the bill "defining the internet as..." is misleading and is obviously intended to evoke an emotional response. The bottom line is that, in my assessment (and I'll bet others), the internet has indeed become a battle-space. It is a battle-space in that mutual adversaries conduct operations against each other in this space. This says nothing about the inherent goodness or badness of the space itself, or even the character of the mutual adversaries, although I know which side I'm on. Many otherwise idyllic tropical isles were battlefields in WWII, for example. But they became battlefields nonetheless, and it behooved the adversaries engaging warfare therein to understand the advantages and disadvantages that the terrain had to offer. Adversaries that got to know the terrain and learned to use it to their benefit gained an advantage. What this bill appears to suggest is that we should get to know the battle-space that the Internet has become a little better. Doing so will help us defend against our adversaries who seek to use the Internet to their advantage against us. I would agree with that.

Re:Let's see... (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505313)

All that hot air, and no actual insight. Barely even informative.

Yes, the text is sponsored by democrats. Where's the relevance? Considering the consensus behind it, Teletubbies could have come up with it. Yes, it is important to look into preventing violent radicalization. Duh. As you so eloquently said, the how is the problem.

Here's why I'm at the very least mildly suspicious of this: Congress has proven time and time again that it will use the threat of terrorism to pass any bill, and that the powers in that bill will be abused. Furthermore, the near consensus on it is guaranteed to be due to the calculation that a vote against this bill will be used by opponents as a vote for terrorism (witness how Romney's comment about potential muslim representation in his cabinet was transformed into "he hates muslims" by his opponents).

So there are two reasons why this is a bad bill:
1) It is incredibly vague and full of feel-good statements.
2) This was a low-profile bill, as you said - why the hell is a bill that attempts to analyze the root cause of terrorism a low-profile bill?? This should be a far more important bill than the patriot act. Yet, it isn't.

The only thing positive I see in this bill is that it actually doesn't DO anything specific. However, I can guarantee you that the paragraph in the Findings section about the internet is going to be at the root of a whole lot of bad ideas and bad bills.

In short, the problem with this bill is that it does absolutely nothing useful (the cynic in me says that that's a good thing) and that it lays the groundwork for future wild goose chases. Would you rather get worked up while nothing bad has happened, or would you rather wait until Congress actually does do something stupid with this? Personally, I'd rather try and stop people ahead of time, rather than try to pick up the pieces of whatever disaster this will cause.

(not?) First post (-1, Troll)

ceeam (39911) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504737)

Allah akbar!

And your point being ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21504893)

Christianity has, and will continue to be the single biggest provider of GENOCIDES on this planet !!!
Islam was never used to justify the eradication of whole indigens, either Americans (North & South), Australian, and so on ...

And for the love of Buddha, please dont even try to get me started on the 'greatness' of USA ... unless you first read Chomsky's !!!

Re:And your point being ??? (1)

MagicBox (576175) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505079)

When it's all said and done, Cowards will remain Cowards. Don't you agree? Coward?

Re:And your point being ??? (0, Troll)

mooreti1 (1123363) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505295)

Why, thank you, flamebait, for that absolutely worthless contribution to the discussion...idiot.

Re:(not?) First post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21505269)

I think thats spelt
Allah-u-Ackbar
Translation: God is the Greatest

Even christians would agree with that

Keep in mind. (2, Informative)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504743)

Just because it passed in the House doesn't mean that it will get anywhere in the Senate.

The House tends to do stupid things that the Senate will ignore or stop.

So, can you explain to me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21504883)

...how this is "stupid"?

I'm not saying it is or isn't, but from a reading of the bill, well, let's just say I don't see what other people seem to be pulling out of thin air.

Regulatory power grab (1)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504745)

If the Internet is labeled a terrorist tool, you can bet we'll see a great deal more of regulation and wiretapping on the part of the US government against its citizens, while also inadvertently providing a shield for tyrannically governments such as Syria and the People's Republic of China, who can just use the "terrorist tool" excuse for their repression, and point to the US.

Re:Regulatory power grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21504953)

Not only that, with all that added U.S. Gov wire tapping, you'll be much more likely to see Syria and China setup a parallel non-U.S. controlled internet. Then we really will be able to refer to "the internets".

And I say .... (1, Flamebait)

drdanny_orig (585847) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504751)

... the US House of Representatives is a terrorist threat. They've done nothing but bend over for the Bush regime for years now, and I call that aiding and abetting. So there!

Re:And I say .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21504843)

..defines the human body as a terrorist tool that Congress needs to develop and implement methods
to combat.

Re:And I say .... (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504931)

Yes, but are you ready to declare a "WAR ON THE US HOUSE"? This war would not be a complex social problem, but declaring war always fixes the problem. (war on drugs, war on terrorism).

Re:And I say .... (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505341)

They've done nothing but bend over...

You gotta admit, it's pretty hard to stand upright without a spine.

I'm know one congressman who probably voted (2, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504759)

against this. He said he would never vote for controlling the internet in general.

But I guess he voted for the terrorists now.

Re:I'm know one congressman who probably voted (5, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504785)

If you're talking about Ron Paul, he wasn't present for that vote.

-jcr

Firehose (5, Funny)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504771)

I'm sure glad we had the Firehose to filter out crap like this.

Oh, wait...

Re:Firehose (1)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505075)

I'm sure glad we had the Firehose to filter out crap like this.

Oh, wait...


A filter like this is only as good as the people using it. The good ones have to use it regularlly in order for it to be effective.

Oh C'MON! (4, Informative)

rindeee (530084) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504781)

How did this submission get green lit?!?! This is completely irresponsible. Cripes Taco, go back to posting dupes or something.

The biggest theat (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21504791)


is this war profiteer [whitehouse.org].

Re:The biggest theat (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504969)

I read the link text too fast and thought you linked to whitehouse.com which was far more enjoyable but made less sense in context of war profiteering...

Informative article regarding the bill at Slate (5, Informative)

higgins (100638) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504795)

Slate has a pretty decent write-up about the bill [slate.com].

Re:Informative article regarding the bill at Slate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21505291)

So we have a Slashdot item that is being attacked for being "sensationalistic" because the bill only mentions the Internet once. Fine.

And then we have Slate, who gives us the whole story and we find out it really was all about the Internet. Go figure.

Communications tools can be used for good or evil (2, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504849)

The Internet is a communications tool, just like radio, the telephone, and the telegraph.

I'm sure all have been used by insurgents, terrorists, and rebels.

These same tools are used every day for good purposes.

*YAWN*

lol... morons (0, Troll)

Anik315 (585913) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504879)

That's exactly why everyone thinks they are fucking stupid, and ignore everything they do.

May I be the first foreigner to say (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21504911)

Lol, yanks

Of course it's a terrorist tool... (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504921)

After all, we helped build it, and look at how we're terrorizing the world right now. Damn right it's a terrorist tool - *OUR* terrorist tool.

Re:Of course it's a terrorist tool... (1)

MagicBox (576175) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505189)

After all, we helped build it, and look at how we're terrorizing the world right now. Damn right it's a terrorist tool - *OUR* terrorist tool.

Fuck you. Straight up. Fuck you. Are you going to tell us something new and meaningful, or are you going to keep barfing the same thing over and over again. You damn fool! You think you have figured it all out don't you?

Download it for Analysis (2, Funny)

mfh (56) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504933)

"Sirs, I respectfully suggest we begin an operation to download the Internet for further analysis. Budgetary requirements to fulfill this necessity will begin at 500 Billion USD, adjusted for our bad dollar value to approximately 800 Billion USD."

"I concur! Commence downloading! The sooner we start, the sooner we'll get to the bottom of this Internet conspiracy!!"

[[Thunderous applause]]

The real thing we should be worried about (2, Funny)

Lord Aurora (969557) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504947)

(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.
No fucking way am I going to sit by and let my government take advice from sissy countries like Canada and Australia. Write your congressman and tell him that we need to ignore completely any and all progress made by other nations...the future of America depends on it.

Re:The real thing we should be worried about (0, Troll)

MagicBox (576175) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505033)

Seem angry there boy. What happened? Did your right hand grow too much hair? Use the left one.

Not just dems... (1)

binaryspiral (784263) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505025)

Last time I checked, there was not 404 Democrats in the house. So a vote of 404 to 6 would most likely include Republicans as well.

And I'd like to know why the 6 voted against it - after RTFA (you did, didn't you?) it seems like the bill is worthy of passing.

..and cars, pens, telephones... (1, Troll)

Timo_UK (762705) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505053)

and I have heard that terrorists have used AIR to breathe when planning attacks! Ban air now!!

You're a fool (2, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505209)

You're a fool if you can't see that the internet is a SIGNIFICANT force multiplier for organizations much smaller than traditional governments, such as terrorist networks.

There's this paradigm shift in progress now...some academics call it the "Information Revolution". Perhaps you've heard of it?

But the premise of your statement is all wrong, because the summary is complete garbage and you obviously didn't RTFA (surprise). No one wants to "ban" the internet, or anything close. They simply concluded that the internet is one of many elements that aids in radicalization and "homegrown terrorism", and the bill is looking for ways to study and understand these phenomena.

Ooh! Scary!

Internet not found! (4, Funny)

GreatRedShark (880833) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505093)

Does anyone else find it amusing that the number of votes it passed by was 404?
I guess to reflect what will soon happen to the internet...
(and the captcha was "congress". hmm...)

Definitions... (4, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505141)

"`(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."

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

honestly... (0, Troll)

Anik315 (585913) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505153)

No one cares what they do, or what they say, because they're all so fucking stupid... seriously, they are all dumb as fuck, and it's not going to change in the near future, so just ignore them.

To stop the terrorists.. (0, Offtopic)

lstellar (1047264) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505185)

you must stop the internet...

to stop the internet, you must...

STOP AL GORE!!!

Seriously . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21505271)

The description on this article and the actual bill passed are completely unrelated. Come on Slashdot -- I DEPEND on you. Which is probably my fault. I also get my news from the daily show. That could be a problem too.

OMG! The Internet is falling!!!111one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21505301)

Dear GayBliss,

    You are a tool. No, really... you are.

Sincerely,

Mark

Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21505337)

From the floor speeches:
"National commissions have a long and successful history in this country...the National Commission on Terrorism, which operated in the early 1990s, was on the cutting edge of the terrorism debate. That commission provided the Nation with the blueprint of how to address the threat of terrorism long before the September 11 attacks."
Yeah, that one really worked out well for us.

Nice try (0, Flamebait)

JosefAssad (1138611) | more than 6 years ago | (#21505399)

This is clearly a hoax. I read the bill, and it says "terrorist" and not "terrrrrrrist". This definitely isn't the work of the American government. Quick, pull the other one.
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...