Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Crime Social Networks The Internet Your Rights Online

France Will Block Web Sites That Promote Terrorism 216

An anonymous reader writes In the first use of government powers enacted after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the French Interior Ministry on Monday ordered five websites blocked on the grounds that they promote or advocate terrorism. The action raises questions about how governments might counter groups such as the self-declared Islamic State on digital platforms.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

France Will Block Web Sites That Promote Terrorism

Comments Filter:
  • Recruiting tools (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BarbaraHudson ( 3785311 ) <barbara.jane.hud ... minus physicist> on Wednesday March 18, 2015 @12:54PM (#49285171) Journal
    Why not block portions of Facebook and Twitter, which are used as recruiting tools and communications channels? (Though a block of ALL of Facebook and Twitter would be popular with everyone tired of the "chatter")?
    • (Though a block of ALL of Facebook and Twitter would be popular with everyone tired of the "chatter")?

      Never had much (for which, read 'any') use for Facebook or Twitter. But likewise, I've never understood what the problem with either or both existing is. If you don't want to Facebook, then don't. Likewise, if tweeting (or whatever it's called these days _twitting, perhaps?) isn't your thing, then don't.

      Do try to remember that even if everyone else does it, that's not actually a requirement that you do

      • And with any social media platform, you can control what you see based on who you follow. Don't want to see stupid memes, astrology posts, and endless photos of people's food*? Don't follow people who post these things. There are plenty of people on social media having actual conversations so you can follow them and completely block out the rest of the garbage**.

        * Full disclosure: I've been guilty of posting photos of my food on social media, but I try to keep it limited.

        ** Always keep in mind that one p

        • Well, there's the problem of Facebook sending messages to your circle of friends pretending to be you, recommending or promoting stuff from their advertisers in your name. Fraudulent impersonation is illegal, You agree under their ToS "you permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information". What facebook is now doing (by sending ads that claim to have been sent by YOU) goes far beyond that limited permission. It's also, since they are
    • Though a block of ALL of Facebook and Twitter would be popular with everyone tired of the "chatter"?

      Pro tip: You can stop the chatter by closing the tab.

    • It's dumb. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If you allow the site to remain accessible, monitoring the traffic to/from will give you a clear bead on terrorist sympathizers in your midst. It will also give you a reading on how effective the terrorist's campaign is, and among what demographics. All of this is very useful intel for defeating them.

      Also, being in the spotlight makes them more susceptible to public mockery.

      Blocking it just legitimizes their position (in the minds of some), and people who are interested will just work around your blocks (

  • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Wednesday March 18, 2015 @01:03PM (#49285279)

    THAT'S the relevant question here.

    • by x0ra ( 1249540 )
      Anything not in line with their policy, and those who wrote it for them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
    • Followed up with "How will the scope of this block expand in time?"

      Let's say we accept that these websites are so horrible that they deserve to be blocked. Fine, they're blocked. Except now, there are some sites that the government wants blocked because they sympathize with the terrorists (though they don't actively promote terrorism). Then, there are sites that promote other heinous illegal activities that are requested to be blocked. Then some not-so-heinous illegal activities (e.g. copyright infringe

      • So what you're saying is governments want sites that deal with illegal issues (i.e. copyright infringement) should be blocked.

        I don't think that's new.

        • No, it's not new that governments want information about how to commit illegal actions blocked, but the big issue isn't "websites engaged in illegal activities will be blocked." Instead it is "how do you know those sites actually engage in illegal activities?" It might be very easy for some random site to be accidentally added to the list or for some government official to add a site because "I think that sort of thing should be against the law." If you get a political group with enough power, this block

      • And once the technological system and legal precedent are in place to block one group, it becomes all the easier to block the next group.

      • In the US, already, various government agencies have defined "terrorists" as people who store food like the Mormons, support political candidates like Ron Paul, or prefer not to use the banking system.

        Disappearing these people under the NDAA is already legal. I guess they could block their website too.

    • Easy. Anyone who promotes speech that threatens the status quo.

  • Because those channels promote terrorism carried out by US... Sorry I mean freedom love and ponies to underdeveloped nations
  • by rbgnr111 ( 324379 ) on Wednesday March 18, 2015 @01:12PM (#49285387)

    so... to protect the free speach of Charlie Hebdo, they ban or block speech that fall under the loose term of "terrorism"

  • They should just redirect all incoming traffic to a Rick Astley video.
  • Containment (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bhlowe ( 1803290 ) on Wednesday March 18, 2015 @01:36PM (#49285623)
    I think if you want to support ISIS and fundamentalist Islam in a Western country, you should be given a one-way ticket to the Islamic country of your choice. Islam and Western civilization do not mix well. Trying to fight ISIS (or the 20% or so of Muslims who tacitly support it by wanting Sharia Law applied to all) is a terribly bloody idea. Better to let the people of a country run it the way they see fit-- and if that means a 7th century lifestyle, so be it. I am opposed to a "war on ISIS", but not opposed to expelling ISIS sympathizers from any country that doesn't want them. So.. Recruit away... and off ye go to an Islamic Utopia.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • This. A billion times this.

      Dear religious nutjob: You wanna fight for your imaginary buddy? Be my guest. Go there and, as far as I care, die there. But stay there. You showed that you reject western values, western "decadency", western... you name it. Then enjoy your 7th century paradise.

      To me this whole shit feel a bit like them going on a "war vacation". You know, like, checking it out and "enjoying" that good ol' country style, a bit like those "back to the roots" and "all natural" tourists spending thei

    • Trying to fight ISIS is a terribly bloody idea.

      So what do those people do who don't want to live under an ISIS government, but ISIS has rolled into their neighborhoods and are subjecting them? They should just suck it up and not fight back?

  • by bwcbwc ( 601780 ) on Wednesday March 18, 2015 @02:02PM (#49285893)

    of a bunch of politicians who were soap-boxing about freedom of the press and "je suis Charlie" engaging in this kind of censorship. All speech is free, but some speech is more free than others. I don't think there's anyone alive who is in a position to form an unbiased judgment of whether a terrorist site, a porn site or Charlie Hebdo is more offensive. Offense, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder.

  • A more appropriate terminology is "hide". There is zero improvement in the gov' capacity to actually block such websites from the source (which would at least have a chance to be effective). Instead, they just mess with the DNS to "prevent access" to a list of websites containing gods know what. I wouldn't know such blockage exist without news outlet since I'm not using my ISP's DNS.
    And there's not much uproar about these "weapons" (the media call the recent laws "arsenal") being targeted at everyone, ver
  • don't censor. mock. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by v(*_*)vvvv ( 233078 ) on Wednesday March 18, 2015 @02:45PM (#49286349)
    The Japanese twitter meme contest was a far better counter attack than or censorship or war.

    Terror is a feeling and humor is the antidote. Just as the Scary Movie franchise ruined classic horror, once it's mocked and funny, those giggling are no longer scared. They are empowered and immune to that pattern of fear. The Daily Show is also founded on this, as is/was Charlie Hebdo. France agrees with Charlie, but still fails to understand the guiding principles.

    ref: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli... [nbcnews.com]
    • they did mock. and they were violently murdered. just for mocking

      so humor helps, but it is not a valid antidote alone. you can't rely only on humor and nothing more if someone is ready to murder you just for laughing at an idea

      what happened to charlie hebdo proves humor alone is not enough. if there is a committed, long term, and serious ideology ready to murder people just for satire, then it is time for a new approach

      humor is not enough

      • But neither is censorship. Also humor is not the antidote for murder or war. It is the antidote for terror. The distinction is crucial. Censorship is not an antidote to anything. It just delays the inevitable flow of information.
        • censorship of what?

          censorship is not valid for pictures of naked ladies or insults to people's prejudices or criticism of the government

          censorship is 100% valid for speech which proposes death and violence at specific people

          for example: "obama is a poopyhead and i hate him"

          ok. do not censor

          "we should murder obama"

          not ok. censor

  • Because they bent for the music industry and actively went against downloaders, the infrastructure (massive use of VPN's in another country) to circumvent censorship is already in place.

  • "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]

    Michael Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue".[1] Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance. Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."[2]

    to me it's simple: everything should be free speech, except that speech which calls for the violent removal of free speech

    only that should be censored, and there is zero logical contradiction

    because to allow free speech to promote the destruction of free speech is self-destruction

    like how germany outlaws nazi imagery: to me, an american, this feels like arbitrary censorship incompatible with the idea of a free society. but to a german, what nazism represents is the violent destruction of freedoms. therefore, censoring symbolism which is all about destroying freedom is not a contradiction, because they have first hand experience with what allowing violent freedom destruction actually leads to

    intolerance itself, and intolerance of intolerance, are completely opposite concepts. it's not hypocrisy at all

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Working...