[Winstonm]

Here are some random, recent quotes from various websites:

Well, this first isn't recent but it starts the theme:

President Bush to the UN General Assembly, November 10th 2001:
[QUOTE] Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."

Next from Sept 7, 2006:
[QUOTE]On Tuesday Bush referred to the strategy paper as "an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing since September the 11th, 2001," that takes into account, "the changing nature of this enemy."

The document says that terrorism springs from "subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation," and that "terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories.

Fast Forward to this: October 14, 2006.
[/QUOTE] During Professor Jim Fetzer's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor Thursday night, O'Reilly equated the 9/11 Scholars with terrorists and threw his weight behind a move to have them being investigated by the FBI. "I'd put the FBI on you and that nutty Barrett and find out what the hell you guys are up to," salivates O'Reilly

Closer to home: October 17, 2006:
[/QUOTE]According to Ministry of Homeland Security don Michael Chertoff, “disaffected people living in the US may develop radical ideologies and potentially violent skills over the Internet, something that can present the next major security threat to the nation and to the world,” reports Reuters

From the same article:
[/QUOTE]As the Bush White House averred a few weeks ago, the neocons “will seek ultimately to deny the Internet to the terrorists as an effective safehaven for their propaganda, proselytizing, recruitment, fund-raising, training, and operational planning,” as the internet is a “cyber safehaven”. “Our enemies use the Internet to develop and disseminate propaganda, recruit new members, raise and transfer funds, train members on weapons use and tactics, and plan operations. Terrorist organizations can use virtual safehavens based anywhere in the world, regardless of where their members or operatives are located. Use of the Internet, however, creates opportunities for us to exploit. To counter terrorist use of the Internet as a virtual sanctuary, we will discredit terrorist propaganda by promoting truthful and peaceful messages.”

Europe is not safe either:

Oct 17, 2006:
[/QUOTE]The latest move to kill off online freedom and the spread of information comes in the form of proposed EU legislation that would prevent users from uploading any form of video, whether that be a hard hitting political documentary film or your friends goofing around with diet coke and Mentos.

A proposed EU directive could extend broadcasting regulations to the internet, hitting popular video-sharing websites such as YouTube., reports the London Times. This would mean that websites and mobile phone services that feature video images would have to conform to standards laid down in Brussels.

Personal websites would have to be licensed as a “television-like service”. Once again the reasoning behind such legislation is said to be in order to set minimum standards on areas such as hate speech and the protection of children.

Now, I ask again - Who is terrorizing whom?

[Gerben42]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Everyone has the right to publish videos on the internet, that includes you, me, President Bush and Osama Bin Laden.

[helene_t]

I happen to agree with most of what you quote. I can sypatize with the neocons being worried about terrorists recruiting via internet, as can I sympatize with terrorists being concerned that neocons recruit via the Internet.

The only thing I don't like is the mention of the conspiracy theories about 9/11 in the same breath. This is the diabolic "either you are with us or you are against us" retoric once again. But the fact that the neocons can spread this kind of nonsense while we discuss it here on BBO and the terrorists keep recruiting via internet, just shows that free speach is very much alive, for better or worse.

Restrictions on video material on the internet is ridicolous, of course. Otherwise I wouldn't be too concerned about EU legislation. EU is not an extremist organization.

[sceptic]

I think you are talking rubbish and I list my reasons below

1/.<CENSORED> peoples right not to be offended act 2006<CENSORED>

2/.<CENSORED>peoples right not to be misinformed act 2006.<CENSORED>

3/.<CENSORED>European human rights not to be aware that some may or may not be offended but we are unwilling to take the chance act 2006.<CENSORED>

4/.<CENSORED>The US you will do as you are told, we are the mightiest nation on earth (not for much longer Mr Moa thinks smuggly in his grave) act 2006.<CENSORED>

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Oct 18 2006, 04:37 AM, said:

I happen to agree with most of what you quote. I can sypatize with the neocons being worried about terrorists recruiting via internet, as can I sympatize with terrorists being concerned that neocons recruit via the Internet.

The only thing I don't like is the mention of the conspiracy theories about 9/11 in the same breath. This is the diabolic "either you are with us or you are against us" retoric once again. But the fact that the neocons can spread this kind of nonsense while we discuss it here on BBO and the terrorists keep recruiting via internet, just shows that free speach is very much alive, for better or worse.

Restrictions on video material on the internet is ridicolous, of course. Otherwise I wouldn't be too concerned about EU legislation. EU is not an extremist organization.

The reason I bring up the conspiracy theory is because most of the information is internet-driven, and it seems such a target for the neocons. Without the ability to freely challenge government claims, official doctrine, whether right or wrong, becomes the new truth. In my view, to threaten legal actions against someone for publicly stating conflicting opinion is chilling.

There is a lot of utter rubbish throughout the internet, but there are some nuggets of truth here and there which paints a portrait of that "over the top" mentality of which we must be on guard before the minority actions of a few zealots becomes commonplace - examples - the F.B.I. monitoring a Quaker anti-war rally, a photographic journalist arrested and jailed by Homeland Security fot taking pictures of an oil refinery (pictures of which were already readily available on the internet).

Are we fighting terrorists or terrorizing our own citizens into "correct" behavior?

[Winstonm]

Here's the latest:

USA Today/Declan McCullagh | October 18 2006

Quote

FBI Director Robert Mueller on Tuesday called on Internet service providers to record their customers' online activities, a move that anticipates a fierce debate over privacy and law enforcement in Washington next year.

"Terrorists coordinate their plans cloaked in the anonymity of the Internet, as do violent sexual predators prowling chat rooms," Mueller said in a speech at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Boston.

Sorry, but allowing the F.B.I. to monitor private usage of the internet does not make ME feel safer. If they feel they must protect me, how about monitoring the number of drunks in the local bar - I have a hell of a lot better chance of being killed by a domestic drunk driver than by a foreign terroist calling for jihad on youtube.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Oct 18 2006, 02:49 PM, said:

The reason I bring up the conspiracy theory is because most of the information is internet-driven, and it seems such a target for the neocons.

Sorry if I wasn't clear: I have no problem with you bringing up this subject, what I don't like is stuff like Bush's ".... malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves"

As if the fact that Bush is a criminal makes Bin Laden any less criminal. Actually, some of the conspiracy theories are about a conspiracy between Bush and Bin Laden.

What's next? I suppose that the Kyoto protocol, "The Origin of Species" etc are part of the anti-Bush campaign, which is identical to the pro-Bin-Laden campaign.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Sorry if I wasn't clear: I have no problem with you bringing up this subject, what I don't like is stuff like Bush's ".... malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves"

I was just cutting and pasting and that was the quote - but it would have been best to stop at "conspiracy theories" because that was the point of the quote to me - that Bush early on talked about conspiracy theories and now we see evidence of moves toward restricting the main avenue of contrarian dialogue - the internet.

I could have left the "terorists themselves" part out and had the same idea but wasn't paying close attention - just cut and past. Sorry if that offended.

I have a problem with zealots, whether in caves in Afghanistan or sitting in the White House - the zeal with which this U.S. administration is conducting its campaign against terrorists reminds me of the zeal that led to the Inquisition and the Crusades - there can be no ultimate safety, and having Big Brother move deeper into our lives in the name of "righteous watchdogging" is not an avenue I wish to see pursued.

This U.S. administration is using the war on terror to expand the executive branch powers in what is to me a frightening example of zealot self-righteousness - and to me there is as much to fear from an overpowerful government as there is from the terrorists.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Oct 18 2006, 06:50 PM, said:

Here's the latest:

USA Today/Declan McCullagh | October 18 2006

Quote

FBI Director Robert Mueller on Tuesday called on Internet service providers to record their customers' online activities, a move that anticipates a fierce debate over privacy and law enforcement in Washington next year.

"Terrorists coordinate their plans cloaked in the anonymity of the Internet, as do violent sexual predators prowling chat rooms," Mueller said in a speech at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Boston.

Sorry, but allowing the F.B.I. to monitor private usage of the internet does not make ME feel safer. If they feel they must protect me, how about monitoring the number of drunks in the local bar - I have a hell of a lot better chance of being killed by a domestic drunk driver than by a foreign terroist calling for jihad on youtube.

i'm not as net savvy as some, but can't you surf anon now via proxy servers? encript emails, etc?

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Oct 21 2006, 05:50 AM, said:

i'm not as net savvy as some, but can't you surf anon now via proxy servers? encript emails, etc?

Yes and no. Suppose FBI wants to trace Richard's and Winston's IRL identity because of some anti-Bush things they wrote on this forum. Richard and Winston could protect themselves by accessing BBO via an anonymizer. But:
- It's kinda inconvenient. If Richard and Winston don't suspect they're being spied, they probably won't bother.
- They may actually want to disclose their IRL identity, if not to the whole forum then at least to some "friends" who could be under-cover agents or victims of espionage themselves.
- Who knows if some of the anonymizers are traps set up by the FBI?
- FBI could put pressure on BBO not to allow access via anonymizers, or at least to report deatiled information to FBI about anonymizer traffic.

In practice, the best protection of our privacy is the sheer amount of suspect material floating around on the internet. FBI can't look through terrabytes of log files everyday, as the process can't be fully automized.

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Oct 21 2006, 03:47 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 21 2006, 05:50 AM, said:

i'm not as net savvy as some, but can't you surf anon now via proxy servers? encript emails, etc?

Yes and no. Suppose FBI wants to trace Richard's and Winston's IRL identity because of some anti-Bush things they wrote on this forum. Richard and Winston could protect themselves by accessing BBO via an anonymizer. But:
- It's kinda inconvenient. If Richard and Winston don't suspect they're being spied, they probably won't bother.
- They may actually want to disclose their IRL identity, if not to the whole forum then at least to some "friends" who could be under-cover agents or victims of espionage themselves.
- Who knows if some of the anonymizers are traps set up by the FBI?
- FBI could put pressure on BBO not to allow access via anonymizers, or at least to report deatiled information to FBI about anonymizer traffic.

In practice, the best protection of our privacy is the sheer amount of suspect material floating around on the internet. FBI can't look through terrabytes of log files everyday, as the process can't be fully automized.

I used to work for a company called GN Nettest.

I was the product manager for a line of network analyzers. One of our main claims to fame was that our expert system could automatically export any/all fields from an IP datagram into a relational database. One you had this in the database, you could do anything you damn pleased with the data. For example, you could graph all the TCP sequence numbers over time an visually scan for retransmissions or other flow control problems. Alternatively, you could reassemble an entire data file and look at it using a web-browser. We were doing this work 10 years ago and I suspect that the NSA was miles ahead of us at that time.

I don't think that traffic volume offers all that much protection these days.