Report Warns That Censorship Will Not Stop Terrorism 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."
One Word (Score:5, Insightful)
Duh!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, they were censored. Wait, wat?
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
and then send over a friendly drone for a visit....
Hmm. Hostile drone might get better results.
Re: (Score:1)
Terrorism...the new term for copyright infringement.
W-W-W-What??? (Score:1)
Mod International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King's College London +1 for "No Shit, Sherlock".
Re: (Score:2)
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??? (Score:5, Insightful)
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??? (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot stop an idea except by discrediting it.
Judging by the number of popular discredited ideas, that doesn't stop them, either.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot stop an idea except by discrediting it.
Tell that to the Flat Earth Society [wikipedia.org]
Not rocket science (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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]
Who cares about trolls (Score:1)
The real worry is offline radicalization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obama has a solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
So he's following the Bush Doctrine?
Re:Obama has a solution: (Score:4, Informative)
No, he kinda kicked it up a notch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjniYBfsX7I [youtube.com]
"Hope. Change."
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Yeah yeah "it's only a joke". Kill yourself though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 ab
Re:Obama has a solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
He was killed for being an al qaeda leader in Yemen. Not for saying mean things. Retard.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Probably because it's not an "Obama thing" so much as it's a "humanity thing".
Everybody poops, as the learned tome says.
Re: (Score:2)
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 Unit
Censorship doesn't stop much of anything... (Score:2)
Re:Censorship doesn't stop much of anything... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 Hol
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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 hopef
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
That wasn't their question. It was mine. Thanks for not even looking at usernames.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorism (Score:1)
What does this remind you of (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
twentytwenty (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll write an article too (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In this case I would call "terrorists" freedom fighters and "free people" terrorists.
lol (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you'll let me know when they recall the entire year's production of ground beef from all domestic producers as well as all imports?
Would you concede that recalling even a trifling million pounds from a single producer might have an adverse impact on their profitability let alone their ability to stay in business?
just some observations about "important" people (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:2)
Did we really need a study to figure that out?
How fucking retarded are we as a species?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, what? (Score:2)
Aren't censorship and terrorism orthogonal?
Wrong (Score:1)
No, really? (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
shooting yourself in the foot (Score:3)
Other way around, mate (Score:2)
So what's new? (Score:2)
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.
Bingo! (Score:2)
*Report* *Warns* That *Censorship* Will Not Stop *Terrorism* - (Bullshit) Bingo!
Easy solution (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
"Terrorism" a tactic, NOT a thing you can fight.. (Score:3)
"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. (Score:1)
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 (Score:2)
Going after the supply works people. Just look at the hugely successful 40 year old War on Drugs.
Re: (Score:1)
Law makers are self serving; they route around insight and common sense.
FTFY