Slashdot Log In
B'nai Brith Pushes for Web Regulation
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Sep 17, 2001 06:46 AM
from the who-watches-what dept.
from the who-watches-what dept.
Baldrson writes: "Wired magazine reports that in late August, B'nai Brith Canada tried to get the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to pay attention to posts on the Islam Way weblog that solicited for volunteers to join Ossama bin Laden. According to the story: "...after media reports have suggested that Montreal and Halifax may have been meeting points for a number of the terrorists involved in the attack, B'nai Brith Canada is stepping up its efforts to get legislation passed to ban such Web activity.""
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
B'nai Brith Pushes for Web Regulation
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 364 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Bad People (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't ban it - encourage it! (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't ban such activity! Encourage it, and then let the Feds also participate and infiltrate the groups, as they currently do with pedophile rings. A free and open society does not always have to hamper the abilities of the police. Sometimes it fosters an environment where it's easier for the authorities to check things out.
Oh no, they used the Internet! (Score:1)
Fruitless (Score:4, Insightful)
Trying to censor a viewpoint, no matter how wrong the view point is, can not possibly work. If you manage to censor the web (nearly impossible - just go off and start a GeoCities page or my.yahoo page, then another and then another and...) you only move the hateful speech someplace else. Hate didn't originate with the world wide web, its been around for a very long time. It's always managed to find a forum and it always will.
You're better off spending the funds that would be wasted on censorship on free books for libraries (especially grade school and high school libraries) in order to mold peoples brains into being more accepting of others.
You know what this means... (Score:2)
It means that all cities should immediately be put under marshal law because terrorists meet in them. And if your mamby pamby concern for civil rights causes you to balk at this, you must surely agree that Montreal and Halifax (being obvious dens of iniquity) should be put under marshal law. In fact, I think we ought to nuke them, just for good measure, in case any more terrorists are hiding in them.
Internet Regulation (Score:2)
There would be nothing stopping Osama Bin Laden using a server located in a country friendly to their cause, one that considers them 'right'. One mans murdering &$%#wit terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Short of modifying DNS tables for your country or running a statewide filter proxy there'd be little or no way to halt this internet activity.
What they ought to concentrate on is teaching people that joining up with a band of weirdo rebels is simply stupid. Regulations are a good idea if they keep the more impressionable safer, but they only work on something you can actually control.
Anyone have a translation? (Score:1)
I can't believe... (Score:4, Interesting)
I fear they will not stop until we reach orwellian levels of monitoring, banning and regulation.
I find it ironic that the US are moving more towards stopping technologies that are evil, (which incidentally is a complete nonsense in itself,) yet none of us would like to live under (for example) the rule of the Taleban. Look again at the Tabeban - all they do is ban, monitor and control things they think are "evil" - just the knod of action we are talking about here.
The world needs to learn that people are good and bad. "Things" are indifferent. Banning or restricting "things" simply hides bad people from view. An interesting side effect that governments find useful from that is that it increases temporarily the perception of safety.
4
Unlikely this is real (Score:2, Insightful)
In the unlikely event that it is genuine, maybe boards like these could be a source of leads for the hunters...
shut up man
Prosecute, but NOT under any electronic-rights law (Score:2, Interesting)
(1) E-mail the ISP and ask for the message to be taken down. Self-policing of the Net!
(2) Have the government request (without threatening anything) that the messages be taken down.
(3) *ONLY IF SUCH ACTIVITY CONTINUES AND FORMS A PATTERN* _Gently_ suggest that if many messages of this type appear, the ISP could be under suspicion of *aiding the terrorists*. Do *not* even *think* about using any laws as curbs on freedom of speech or privacy. The government *will* be using every possible resource to track these sons of you-know-what down. But we should be sure that such powers do *not* spill over into other areas.
Meet the replacement for "Save the Children" (Score:2)
We had a horrible thing happen recently.. WTC will not be forgotten -- especially since this day is bringing forth issues of civil rights. This is, of course, in Canada but we know it could happen here just as well.
The sentence quoted above is one of the most troublesome ones... to say that you ban some activity is to say that it is illegal -- which is to say that someone will be monitoring data for illegal violations.
Why did everyone push for Carnivore, crypto key escrow (or backdoors), etc? To "save the children!" We are going to see a lot more of this very quickly.. only this time its going to be for "saving America from Terrorism!"
Islam way denies any involvement (Score:1)
According to this article, an individual posted the recruitment call in the message section while talking to another individual. They also say the canadian government has dismissed any action.
Don't censor out of fear... (Score:2, Insightful)
Evil Technologies (Score:1)
-dcviper
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to regulate the (Score:2)
FBI probes European short-selling-NEWS [google.com]
Yes, and those stocks were unfortunately traded on European markets, which were indeed open last week.
keep the speech, and know who the enemy is (Score:1)
First, explicit incitement to riot is NOT protected by the first amendment. If a website picks some day and advocates some awful murderous thing on that day, I'm sure the FBI can legally take them out.
Also, anyone involved in posting on a website or running one leaves a massive electronic trail, and if indeed is at some level involved, would make it vastly easier in my opinion to identify and locate. If there is a credible hate group out there, use their own web dealings to ID the members etc...
With search engines, the amount of logs kept by web sites and isps, it's hard for me to figure out how running a website is a huge plus and not a gigantic potential liability for these hate groups. It that allows infiltration, monitoring, and detection. What's easier for the CIA to penetrate, a group of 10 planning in Afghanistan or an irc chat room? It's also even harder to see what banning this kind of speech would productively do, as it would do nothing to stop any actual use of the Internet for planning horific acts.
Remember the Yahoo trial? (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't say anything about jewish orgs, because then you're accused of antisemitism. In the mean time, Ariel Sharon is *assassinating* -- by his own admission! -- Palestinians.
Do we see B'nai Brith or UEJF asking for the censorship of conservative Israëli newspapers or websites, no I don't think so.
Dont get me wrong, I hate muslim fanatics as much as the next atheist guy, and arabs don't have a monopoly on dangerous loonies.
Ariel Sharon is the biggest threat to peace in the middle east, and maybe in the whole world, after Bin Laden.
/. next? (Score:2)
"Islamway is in no way responsible for the content of postings by private individuals", the notice (on Islamway website) said.
From slashdot:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
From a lawyers view, what is the difference?
So you ban it--then what? (Score:1)
B'Nai B'rith, while a good org, is misguided (Score:2)
The problem is similar to that of Congress- Older people, without great knowledge of technology, and without being properly informed by people in posession of greate technological prowess.
I haven't been belonged to a B'nai B'rith congregation in years, or else I would call them and write them pointing out their error.
CSIS != CISC (Score:4, Informative)
let's not punish the good guys (Score:2)
While I understand the desire behind such legislation, I think it's a bit misguided. Once again, we assume that the bad guys will be deterred by legislation. They are going to be deterred by enforcement.
This particular legislation, governing website content, is going to be very tough to enforce. Especially when it is so easy to set up your own server, have restricted areas, imbed messages in
Perhaps a better solution is to take advantage of the web's openess and freedom and set up a few stings. Yeah, that sucks too, but not as much as having joe government approving my content.
Activism & instigation (Score:1)
Consider this
Similarly, is it possible that the Canadian site is just a "conduit" for terrorists? Political activism can either be good or bad
As society is becoming more and more barbaric there may be a time when we need to impose certain restrictions on our freedom
Just my 2c
Punish actions, not expressions (Score:2)
I don't know if there is an equivalent of the First Amendment under Canadian law, but I hope they consider the example of their neighbor to the south before they punish their citizens for what they say.
/. hypocrisy (Score:2)
Don't censor, but arrest (Score:1)
IslamWay.com = Terrorism ?! (Score:5, Informative)
Email me if you want : wael@islamway.com
Hello,
I read your post on SlashDot and I'd like for the sake of truth to clarify things to you
Bna'i Brith attack on IslamWay.com was very strange, as a member and volunteer of IslamWay.com team I assure that the main objective of this website is teaching people about Islam, and we have nothing to do with politics.
Then what's the story of terrorism ?!
In IslamWay.com discussion board we've more than 4000 Member and at the time of the media attack there was more than 28,000 posts!! Bnai Brith didn't only take one of the posts but even took a statement out of context to proove that IslamWay.com is a terrorist website !
Although a service provider is not responsable for what third parties write in their website, all the media started to attack IslamWay.com ( see : http://www.islamway.com/NYPost.htm )
Was it really Invitation to kill others ?
The discussion post was between two people who were fighting each others by words, one called the other one that you are a hypocrite, so the other one was very angry so he told him -I'm just giving the meaning- : Let's see who is the hypocrite, Come with me to Afghanistan and let's train ourselves there
Which is a proof that this person is a sick person or at least a one with a child mind !
The people who attacked IslamWay.com based on the Discussion Board post didn't clarify that it was mentioned in the discussion board, and they just said a post on IslamWay.com
They didn't mention it's a fight between two people but they mentioned that it's an invitation !
My message to the people who read the fake stories about IslamWay.com to go and visit it, and judge by your self.
http://english.islamway.com
Thanks,
Wael
islam way (Score:2)
Islamway.com did not solicit for volunteers (Score:1)
A poster on an internal message board did. In fact, he didn't solicit for volunteers, he just said that Muslims should go and fight in Afghanistan.
So I guess if the same suggestion is made on slashdot it should be shut down as well?
Directly from the IslamWay response... (Score:4, Informative)
So first, everyone relax. It wasn't like the owner of this site was actively recruiting.
Second, it sounds like the Canadian government isn't interested in pursuing the issue, which is a relief.
And third, I don't see anyone pulling for net regulation when assholes in our own country start shouting, "Nuke them sand-niggers back into the stone age! I'm gonna get me one tonight!"
As a brief side note: I'd like to remind everyone that the people of Afghanistan live in terror of the Taliban [fancymarketing.net]. Please think of the ways they're suffering before blindly calling for their annihilation.
I Don't Get It (Score:2, Interesting)
The Jewish group B'nai Brith Canada is calling for stricter regulation of hate-related material on the Internet following Tuesday's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
fit with this:
However, last year the CSIS issued a report in which it warned that "computers, modems and the Internet are enhancing the operational capabilities of terrorist organizations." The report cautioned, "Terrorists have improved their use of advanced technologies to protect and expedite lines of communication and funding, both nationally and internationally; this has increased the chances that planning for the next terrorist attack may not be detected."
Here's my question: How do these connect? My understanding is this: Hate groups want their filth seen by as many people as possible, so they put it up in the open. Terrorist groups, execpt possibly in the area of recruiting, would want to stay as secretive as possible. You don't post your plans to a message board where it can be plainly seen by anyone . Even in the recruiting aspect, wouldn't publicly posting recruitments be counter-productive? "To join (Known Terrorist Group), meet at the corner of The Feds are Waiting For You Avenue and You Idiot Street in Montreal." Wouldn't this just make certain movents of the groups more traceable, even under current law? (There would certainly be probable cause).
As far as terrorist communication via the internet goes, wouldn't most communications be done via direct e-mail? And tracking these communications would require serious privacy violations. (On a lighter note, it would be strange if a terrorist group was brought down because it got caught spamming)
So, in summary, here's my point. I don't see how restricting speech (as despicable as most agree that it is) has any effect on a terrorist organization. This may be just because I am an idiot, so feel free to explain it to me.
Confused and waiting for someone smart to explain it all to me,
Islamway.com's Response... (Score:1)
Let's see if I've got this right (Score:1)
Wow. Hypocrisy abounds these days. (Score:1)
Does anyone find it ironic here that allowing Jews to slaughter others seems to have a real, legitimate, tubthumping moment recently? I mean, after all, forty years ago Jews were in Germany while the Germans were screaming, "RESTRICT THEIR MOVEMENT! THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED! THEY ARE PART OF A SECRET NETWORK!"
Wow. I never thought that Jewish people who had grandparents that they can speak to right now who went through the Shoah would be so apt to kill, herd up, try to destroy others. Most of my Jewish friends would tell me that is has nothing to do with that, and that Jews and Arabs have been enemies forever. I would say that it has everything to do with that. I would say that it all seems to be suspicious that none of these groups can see the light of day... regardless of their pasts. There is one uniting factor of all human tribes, that the propensity of instant violence shows us that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF US IS CIVILIZED. Its amazing. We haven't learned a damn thing. These wars are going to be forever between us.
Only when something like this happens, do the victims of racism show how truly racist they are as well. This should be a real eye opener. Don't get me wrong. This is only an example. Jews are not any more racist than the rest of us, we all have a lot of spite in our hearts for our fellow man. Honestly, its time for mankind to remember what they like about each other, instead of piggybacking on someone else's fight.
The other B'Nai Brith accusation... (Score:2, Informative)
Already covered by existing law... (Score:2)
Legislators seem to think that just because the internet is "different" they need to duplicate the law books for it, or maybe they're just trying to find new and novel ways to justify their jobs.
-- iCEBaLM
It's good to see... (Score:2, Interesting)
Legislation Works! (Score:1)
-- Use your brain, no one else will.
Canadian Law vs. US Law (Score:1)
This is due to the differences in Canadian law, vs. US law.
In Canada, is it legal to fundraise for known terrorist/hate organizations. This is why Canada is a popular staging ground for these organizations (besides our lax immigration laws).
In the US (and the UK), it is illegal to fundraise for terrorist/hate organizations. IRA, KKK and such all cannot legally solicit for funds (though it happens anyways).
Canada, in light of the attack on Tues, is now looking to change this law.
B'nai B'rith censorship = Radicalization (Score:1, Insightful)
I am posting anonymously to avoid the certain backlash that I would receive from the pro-censorship forces at B'nai B'rith, and my synagogue.
Unfortunately B'nai B'rith has become increasingly radicalized in recent years. The leadership has moved far to the right wing of the Zionist movement and taken much of the membership and Western Jewry with it.
As a Jew I find this extremely disturbing.
The censorship that B'nai B'rith promotes is almost exclusively against Muslims and Arabs. What happened to fighting for human rights and fighting against bigotry and racism?
B'nai B'rith has instead become an organization that supports human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories (as documented by Amnesty International and others) and promotes bigotry and racism by its knee-jerk reactions against our Muslim and Arab brethren. The IslamWay site, which is a religious education site, is but one example.
While it still does some good disaster relief work, it does not do so in Muslim areas of the world. That kind of work would go a long way to bridging the divide between Muslims and Jews created by the Occupation.
As I understand it, philosopher Jurgen Habermas's work (having to do with post-WW2 reconciliation in Germany) tells us that until you are willing to honestly and openly see any conflict from your opponent's point of view and acknowledge those views as legitimate, then meaningful conflict resolution cannot take place.
Remember, when governments get through censoring the Arabs and the Muslims there's nothing to stop them from coming for us too.
Maybe It's Just Me.. (Score:1)
Uhh, isn't terrorism activities banned already? How will making this a law change anything? Terrorists don't care what the laws are, they ignore them.
.. And in related news... (Score:1)
It's amazing what happens when you reverse a complaint.
Welcome to the monkey house (Score:2)
I'm suprised it took you wingnuts only a week to blame an attack by Arabs on the US, on the Jews. Why don't pull your antisemitic heads out of your asses and read what OBL has to say which is to punish moderate Islamic states like Saudi Arabia for allowing the infidel US on it's soil. He can't go after the Sauds directly because it would mean the destruction of his own family so he goes after the US who trained and armed him.
But please continue, go back to blaming the Jews.
Good to get it out in the open (Score:1)
islamway's statement (Score:1)
Islamway.com has come under attack from the Canadian chapter of the B'nai B'rith Jewish organization, better known as the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL generated a story reported in the Ottawa National Post today (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/national/story.
The story links Islamway.com to the case of Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian living in Montreal, who was arrested on the Canadian border with Washington state carrying explosives. The report states: "Terrorist organizations have been making increasing use of the Internet to further their violent agendas. They use computers to communicate, spread propaganda, fundraise and organize operations. Canada may be becoming a base for such cyber-terrorism because of its technological advancement, refugee policies, diverse immigrant population and weak counter-terrorism laws."
No representative from Islamway.com or the Islamic Assembly of North America was contacted for comment, and the only quote in the story is from the executive vice-president of the B'nai B'rith organization in Canada, saying "It is a very frightening thought that there is a Web site situated in Canada that is recruiting for people to participate in jihad."
The entire story is based upon a posting by a private individual on Islamway's English language discussion board, in the context of an ongoing dialogue between two individuals. There are over 28,000 postings on the discussion board, with more than 34,000 visitors to the page everyday, and over 4,000 active members. Islamway is in no way responsible for the content of postings by private individuals, anymore than CNN.com or Yahoo! are responsible for the postings found on the discussion boards on their sites.
The B'nai B'rith met with Canadian authorities today to take action against Islamway. A reporter from an Ottawa television station conveyed to Islamway staff that the Canadian authorities have dismissed the issue as baseless, and B'nai B'rith has refused any further comment.
We urge all members and supporters of Islamway to forward the included letter to the editor of the National Post, criticizing the paper for its negligent approach to this story; relaying, without any investigation, charges made by the highly subjective B'nai B'rith organization against Islamway, and not seeking any contact or interview with the staff of Islamway itself.
We cannot allow these kinds of attempts to restrict our da'awah and slander our website. Please support Islamway's effort to correct this situation.
WE REQUEST THAT ALL BROTHERS AND SISTERS SEND A LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEWSPAPER @ :
letters@nationalpost.com
And Also to : The Writer of the article : sbell@nationalpost.com
A Sample Letter can be found at : http://www.islamway.com/replyto.htm
Exsqueeze me? (Score:2)
Lee
Hm... (Score:1)
DON't Ban IT - USE IT (Score:1)
If you ban postings of the like then you do not know whats going on. What we need to do is let them all post and then use the information to help protect us and prevent anything in the future.
islamway.com (Score:1)
You dont deserve freeom of speech (Score:1)
Talking negatively about the government leads to illegal anti government activity such as the terrorist attack, as a result freeom of speech must be taken away from all americans.
Well in that case lets all just move to china.
Re:I wonder what I will tell my grandchildren.... (Score:1)
--why do you think the bus knows exactly where and when to pick you up?
Re:Excellent (Score:2, Insightful)
Hm, it seems like those self-imposed 'real muslims' will succeed on all fronts they're opening: first by uniting all muslims by provoking a massive retaliation against Afghanistan, and then by teasing us devils into shutting down the filthy internet by ourselves. Don't even go there, remember: the Taliban forbid all net access in Afghanistan.
The posters on the forum in question leave traces, just like everyone else, that's some more monitoring targets for the FBI/CIA. Only this time, don't lose attention.
You scare me (Score:2, Interesting)
The Web is only a means of expression of the feelings and opinions of people, yes, real live human beings - yes, organic biochemical aggregations exhibiting emotion.
Personally, I'd rather see the diversity of opinions and mind-sets being expressed out in the open, rather than being suppressed by paranoid authorities. In my profession as an alternative health therapist, I deal daily with the devastation caused by people who continually suppress their feelings until they break out in destructive ways.
As I've said in other posts, the real answer to overcoming evil in this world is to probe to its underlying causes - political, social, economic, psychological etc, and educate and empower people to heal and overcome the underlying pain which causes destructive manifestations.
Nothing but a process of education, instilling in people from an early age a sense of local and global accountability for their actions, desires and choices will make any real progress in preventing any future tragedies.
Lastly, in answer to your 'IP theft' point, let me say that IP laws add to the global scarcity consciousness, which is a major cause of crime and war. Isn't it time we recognised the immense human benefits that can come from the freeing up of information?
Osama stole Dylan's IP (Score:1, Interesting)
Unless... (Score:1)
Re:Outlaw Israeli fundraising while you at it... (Score:2)
you don't begin to address that Israel gave Sinai to Egypt. Why would an expansionist country do such a thing, at the cost of eradicating several Israeli towns both in Sinai and along the border?
Also, you fail to address how Israel is willing to make nearly all the concessions Arafat asks for, and Arafat still doesn't agree?
You also don't address that it's amazing the Israelis even come to the table, when Arafat's PLO still has on it's charter that their goal is to eradicate all Jews from the land.
I know, I know, you'll say I'm brainwashed, but I think it's nominally interesting that you choose to ignore anything that contradicts your limited world-view.
Thanks anyways.
Re:That's typically usual (Score:3, Interesting)
Just war theory: WTC vs. Iraq Sanctions (Score:2)
The US sanctions are aimed at reducing the Iraqi regime's capability to wage war. They coincidentally involve a horrific civilian toll. That's war. By some theories (which I don't fully subscribe to), this is moral though regrettable.
The attack on the WTC was deliberate harm to innocent people, to use the harm of the innocent as an instrument of policy change. That's terrorism. Only a person who sees other human beings purely as tools for his political agenda or whose sense of morality is hopelessly twisted by hatred can accept this.
The aim of US policy is regional stability. That is why we didn't invade Iraq after the Gulf war: there was no way to lay waste to Iraq without leaving a power vacuum or engaging in the massive political, military and cultural restructuring of Iraq into a US puppet state. Yes there is a certain venality to this policy: we need regional stability so we have a stable oil supply. On the other hand, the consequences of regional destabilzation offered by an militarily expanding Iraq armed with weapons of terror and mass destruction are terrifying: prolonged, widespread and bloody warfare over oil is among them. So the policy of containing Iraq is not entirely venal.
The sanctions policy achieves a kind of artificial strategic stalemate in which Hussein's regime is propped up but defanged. I think the reason this policy has lasted so long is that nobody can think of a better one. To simply withdraw sanctions and hope for the best is almost tempting, given the certainty of their humanitarian impact; but we don't know the affect of a resurgent and militarily agressive Iraq under Mr. Hussein. It could be worse. Morally, I think it amounts to the best thing we can think of; it's a moral and humanitarian disaster, but the alternatives look worse.
Re:That's typically usual (Score:1)
I'd suggest that you look a little more closely at why you've been called an anti-semite in the past. I am opposed to the current Israeli government and I'm not fond of Bnai B'rith and the way they overplay the anti-semitism card, but your post indicates to me that it probably does apply in your case. Claiming bullshit like "The jews think that they own the planet and therefore push their own agenda without regard for other concerns." makes for a pretty good indication that you are, in fact, an anti-semite.