Sen. Joe Lieberman Asks Google For A 'Report Blog As Terrorist' Button
from the clicking-our-way-to-a-safe-and-secure-nation dept
Senator Joe Lieberman, taking a break from his usual schedule of trying to stamp out all things Wikileaks-related, returns to his old anti-terrorism stomping grounds, sending out a letter to Google CEO Larry Page, expressing his concern that not enough stuff is getting labeled "terrorism."He bases his request on the old "because someone did something once" argument that has served the DHS and TSA so well. (See also: "See something. Say something." because that one time a guy reported a vehicle with a bomb. See also: please remove your shoes and step into the Pornoscan because one time that guy tried to light his shoes on fire and that other time a guy had bomb-laced underwear.) Recent "lone wolf" terrorism suspect Jose Pimentel was, like so many other people in the world, a blogger. Lieberman apparently believes that the prevention of future acts of terrorism should be turned over to the blogosphere in the form of an option to "flag" a blog as containing "terrorist" content.
Talking Points Memo has more info:
"Pimentel's Internet activity - both his spreading of bomb-making instructions links and his hate-filled writings - were hosted by Google," Lieberman wrote.Lieberman also points out that Youtube already has this option (thanks to Liberman's tireless complaining), so it would logically follow that Blogger enforce the same limitations. In fact, he pretty much states that the same people that can prevent forest fires can also prevent terrorism (i.e. "You," meaning "all of us"), only in this case it can be done with a simple click of the mouse.
"On his site www.trueislam1.com, Pimentel stated, 'People have to understand that America and its allies are legitimate targets in warfare. This includes facilities such as army bases, police stations, political facilities, embassies, CIA and FBI buildings, private and public airports, and all kinds of buildings where money is being made to help fund the war.' As demonstrated by this recent case, Google's webhosting site, Blogger is being used by violent Islamist extremists to broadcast terrorist content," Lieberman continued.
"The private sector plays an important role in protecting our homeland from the preeminent threat of violent Islamist extremism, and Google's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter Islamic extremism online."Oh, wait. We can't actually stop terrorism. We can only flag "Islamist extremism," which for some people could mean the site quotes the Koran. For others, all it might take is a few angry words delivered by certain foreign types. And for others, all they need is the urge to start pushing buttons.
This is another attempt by a politician to shove the culpability for terrorist acts onto the shoulders of hosting platforms. By all means, Google could add a "Report as TERROR" button to its blogging platform, but does anyone not named Lieberman actually believe that this will ever prevent a future act of terrorism? I'd rather potential terrorists bogged themselves down in the minutia of blogging (endlessly checking stats, rescuing legitimate comments from the spam container, arguing with pesky commenters, following incoming links back into malware deathtraps, gaming their Technorati rating, etc.) than actually, you know, doing terrorist stuff.
There's also the fact that "flagging something as something" has got to be the most ineffective deterrent ever devised, whether you're trying to stomp out spam or to do something more difficult, like save the world from "Islamist extremism." Not only will whoever's policing this new banhammer have to deal with a new set of false positives, this also puts Google in the awkward position of trying to decide if the blogs reported are actually harmful or just some random person spouting a bunch of untargeted nonsense.
And if Google does decide to start doing this, odds are that there will be a bunch of racially-motivated clicking going on, which will only add to the "noise" side of the signal-to-noise ratio. Once you start shutting down a particular religion based on clicks -- all because the federal government demanded it -- you're asking for all sorts of trouble in the First Amendment arena. Uglier than this is the fact that asking for a "Report" button is yet another punt by those in charge of keeping this country safe. The implicit statement seems to be "We can't figure out how to stop terrorists so we're leaving that to you," which would make this no different from every previous foiled terrorist attack. It's not the DHS, TSA or air marshals that stop terrorists. When they're not being foiled by their own incompetence, they're being taken down by fellow passengers. A plea for a "Report as Terrorism" button has all the hallmarks of another windmill tilt in the hopes of appearing to be doing "something."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blogs, joe lieberman, terrorism
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And just what does he mean when he says: 'People have to understand that America and its allies are legitimate targets in warfare.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Edit> Replace> Replace all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More than First Amendment
What's more, false shutdowns will create a divide, make people of a certain religion/group feel [more] marginalized and drive them towards radicalization.
Further, this guy was caught, so what are we trying to prevent here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
Google is supposedly a private corporation. Therefore aren't any First Amendment problems with its "voluntary" censorship. That's the end run around the Constitution that corporatism allows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
Why are you spending $100 million on a movie?
-------------------
Oh, I getcha now. Gave you benefit of doubt before, but you've come up with a little fanboy mantra that you think witty and cutting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
This seems to be the core of your belief. That you want a guaranteed return on a huge amount of money, that quite frankly, doesn't need to be spent. There have been plenty of successful movies that had much lower budgets. Every time Mike et al do come up with a new business model, you shout it down because it doesn't guarantee tens of millions of dollars for everyone who'll try it.
I want to know WHY you must spend $100 million. WHY you don't want to try lowering your costs. I want a well thought out and logical answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
Because that would be logical and good business sense, like not restricting content to a small proportion of the potential market or delivering a product that's not deliberately broken. These people don't actually want to do good business, they just want free money no matter the cost for others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
Rikuo appears to be responding to all of OOTB's comments with that.
--------------
That's because "Rikuo" doesn't have any substance, so thinks to nag me. It's all he can manage, so applaud his "special" talent.
Look, guys, just contradicting me manifestly isn't effective. IF you have some view, THEN STATE IT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
If it's all I can do...then why is it that I only started doing this recently? Seriously, click my profile name and you'll get a whole history of my comments here, 90% of which aren't about the whole 100 mil schtick I've got going on.
Once you're able to explain your position and give a decent answer to my question, I'll be satisfied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
So perhaps instead of us telling you how you can do things? How about for once, you tell us why you are dead set on that $100 million?
All you have to do is answer the question and people (or Rikuo, and good for him for nagging you about it, the same way you do Mike) will drop the issue?
But when you routinely respond to things Mike writes with "I want a guarantee that I recoup my $100 mil investment", well... you open yourself up to getting questioned and nagged about that figure. You brought it on yourself. Now either drop the issue entirely (as in never mention that figure again) or simply answer the question. It's not that hard to do. B*tching about it takes more effort than actually saying "I refuse to answer, I won't bring it up EVER again" or "I say $100 mil for Reasons A, B, C and E, but not D because I don't like D".
Kapeesh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
Here's where Rikuo started. You have yet to explain why you're spending $100 million on a movie.
You sound like a Viacom employee at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
I know the amount of filling that is in a pop tart isn't near what it used to be 20 years ago.
PepsiCo attempts to force people to purchase 20 packs of pop instead of 24 packs because people got used to paying $5 for a case a pop.
The size of Little Debbie snack cakes have been reduced. As well as the amount of filling in a Hostess Ding Dong.
The point is, other industries are forced to find ways to reduce costs to make a profit.
I think what Rikuo's point is why should the Entertainment Industry be allowed to pass laws to preserve an outdated business model, when all other companies must actually innovate, and/or slash costs to stay afloat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
Actually, the amusing thing here is that times aren't lean at all for the movie industry. It looks set to be yet another record-breaking year for Hollywood with 26 movies so far having broken $100 million at the domestic box office (according to boxofficemojo.com), and several having surpassed $1 billion internationally. Many are (or should be if not for Hollywood accounting) in profit before they even leave the cinemas and on to secondary markets with the potential for significant long-term revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kettle - this is the pot, "You're black!"
That's because "oob" doesn't have any substance, so thinks to nag me. It's all he can manage, so applaud his "special" talent.
Look, guys, just contradicting me manifestly isn't effective. IF you have some view, THEN STATE IT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
But I think the queen of maunder is OOTB.
She just doesn't know it yet. (Will she ever?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's actual censorship, plus the danger of Google,
So when TechDirt agrees with you, your complaint is that they don't agree with you enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google already provides a tool for that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can we report the white house?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's pretty much the gist, right? I have two points:
1. It's useless because you can't really determine the clicker's intent for clicking on the button. For all we know the reporter is a troll or bigot.
2. It's redundant because if the site/post is really of concern, you can just call the cops. It's smarter IMO to truly know who's reporting, and their reason for doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Joe Publius
Lieberman is a political terrorist.
The war on terrorism is terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Joe Publius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Joe Publius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Joe Publius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Page o' Buttons concept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Page o' Buttons concept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Page o' Buttons concept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, like, when does Lieberman retire already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Muzzling the Net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need Google to scan YouTube for copyrighted material.
We need Google to pay for ads pointing out US drug costs are dumb.
We need Google to pay because I heard a Prince song in the background of a baby dancing.
We need Google to turn over all of their money because we shouldn't have to compete in the market.
Maybe instead of making Google responsible for America's safety and security maybe the Senator could ask why is it all the terrorist plots that come to light are all shepherded along by FBI agents and informants?
That with the billions being spent to keep us safe the entire safety of the country rests on Google adding a button.
Or maybe it is time to admit that Congress doesn't understand the internet, is terrified by it, but seeks to exert some sort of control to feel empowered... only to end up looking like a bigger old fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree 100 per cent. You can substitute Congress with RIAA or MPAA or any other AA. The internet is one of the best innovations of all time, yet some just don't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
RUN! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I was living the dream where I hoped a turkey joke would have won for last week...
I has a sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I click funny or insightful, that means that the comment I read made me laugh or I think its a good read, that it had some thought behind it. What will it mean if I click "Terrorist!!!111!!!" Does it mean I actually think that the author of the comment is a terrorist? Do I have proof that they are planning a terrorist act? Or will I merely be over-reacting because I got scared? Will others click "Terrorist" for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorism, maybe because they are biased against the author for whatever reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Come to think on it, I'd love to see some stats behind the 'report' button we have here. Do comments in arguments tend to get more reports? Do account holders or ACs make more reports?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Judging by the comments that make it into the Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week posts based directly on those voting buttons, I'd say you're completely wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not close the whole Internet down ?
Why not add little buttons for every vice imaginable ?
Why not add a "whitehouse.gov" as our Government no longer serves the needs of its people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How out of touch?
Almost every utterance from these visitors is nonsensical and irrational to our ears, but makes perfect sense to them. They walk a different walk and dance to a different tune. We have very unrealistic expectation for these visitors from another world.
Sit back and laugh at this foolishness and realize that if they want it, you cannot stop them. Nothing you can change their directions and decisions. If it fits their agenda or program or direction… they get what they want. You and I cannot stop them. So… get some popcorn and a beer and enjoy the show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well thought out as ever, Senator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
McCartyism Revived
Won't be long before we have a new "House Committee on Un-American Activities". I also suspect, based on Newt Gingrich's comments that we may soon have a Federal PreCrime police unit authorized to arrest people on the simple belief without evidence that they may commit a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: McCartyism Revived
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: McCartyism Revived
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's because there's far less of it then people like him want us to believe.
If there's more to be fearful of, that gives those in office more power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mark Twain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, kinda cool
Not that he would be persuaded by the obvious reasons it unfortunately can't work
Nonetheless I continue to be astonished that he wants to make it harder to find bad guys! It's almost like he supports terrorism (which I don't believe he does)!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like this idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the implicit statement in your statement is that the government should somehow be able to stop terrorists. (If I am misinterpreting, I apologize.) Terrorism is a tactic used by desperate people. It cannot be stopped because it is not defined by any specific set of parameters, and it's definition changes based on the whims in Washington. Today's heroic freedom fighters are tomorrow's dangerous terrorists.
The fact is, terrorism will always exist as a tactic, and it exists in direct relation to the breadth and depth of foreign occupation. The stronger the occupying country, the more likely it is for the people of the occupied country to turn to terror instead of war. The more intrusive an occupying country is, the easier it is for terrorist organizations to recruit from those who oppose the occupation.
In short, we can't stop terrorism. That so-called war is one without end that will ultimately bankrupt our country, along with much of the Western world. However, we can make the right moves to stop terrorism from being focused on us. We can stop doing things that provoke anger and retaliation. The "report terrorism" concept is only another form of oppression: the elimination of free-speech rights based on an accusation of "dangerous" speech. Such oppression will not stop terrorists. Indeed, such an atmosphere of oppression may serve to exacerbate the problem by creating a new terrorist where one did not exist before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fraudulent click control would be handled by a short questionnaire / EULA which must be completed before the "Report a Witch" button is enabled.
1) How do you know (s)he is a witch, does (s)he look like one?
2) Did you dress him/her up like that?
3) Provide a description of the nose.
4) Does (s)he have a hat? Any warts?
5) Did (s)he turn you into a newt?
6) Does (s)he weigh the same as a duck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He may be afraid of getting caught up in a wave of "throw out the incumbent bums" and needs an issue to hang his hat on. Yelling "TERRORISM" is his thing. It's been his thing since the Bush administration.
Crowd-sourcing some intelligence gathering could be beneficial. However, this tactic will probably just lead to a bunch of false leads, more radicalization instead of less, and the harassment of innocent people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lieberman is America's #1 Terrorist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
> legitimate targets in warfare. This includes facilities
> such as army bases, police stations, political
> facilities, embassies, CIA and FBI buildings, private and
> public airports, and all kinds of buildings where money
> is being made to help fund the war.'
That target list sounds an awful lot like the targets the U.S. military has been hitting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere. Generally the U.S. doesn't bomb embassies, but everything else on the list is considered to be legitimate by the U.S. military.
So if WE consider those legitimate targets, why would anyone expect our enemies to leave such targets alone? Just because they're ours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Great Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it cuts both ways
I'm serious. This person terrifies the hell out of me. As a U.S. senator, he has massive amounts of power to take away my freedom, waste public money, destroy property, push for war, and generally use the leviathan of government to work his twisted will.
I didn't elect him (in fact, only a vanishingly tiny, unrepresentative constituency in the country's smallest state elected him), and yet he has the ability to screw up my life far worse than any member of Al Qaeda.
Every time this man opens his mouth, I'm scared. Where's my "terrorist" button to label Joe Lieberman?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it cuts both ways
http://www.taxrefusal.com/public-enemies.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should have thought of this sooner, but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can... are you saying there's a button on youtube that lets me report videos as terrorists?
Just like, any video I want, anything I don't like as a terrorist act?
Cause if so.... man fuck I've got some reporting to get done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bookmarklet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dealing with 'Public Enemies'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Lieberman
Senator Lieberman is the only Democart I trust!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]