UN: The Problem With The Internet Today Is It's Just Too Open & Terrorists Might Use It

from the terrorists!-run! dept

Wed, Oct 24th 2012 9:28am — Mike Masnick

Ah, the UN. As highlighted by Declan McCullagh, a new report from the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force, clocking in at an unwieldy 158 pages (pdf) warns that this old internet of ours is just too damn open, and that means terrorists can use it. Thus, it has to stop the openness. The report really is just about that bad: if terrorists might misuse it, it's bad and must be stopped. The costs of locking up all this openness are brushed aside, if they're even considered at all. Among the problems? How about open WiFi?

ISPs may require users to provide identifying information prior to accessing Internet content and services. The collection and preservation of identifying information associated with Internet data, and the disclosure of such information, subject to the appropriate safeguards, could significantly assist investigative and prosecutorial proceedings. In particular, requiring registration for the use of Wi-Fi networks or cybercafes could provide an important data source for criminal investigations. While some countries, such as Egypt, have implemented legislation requiring ISPs to identify users before allowing them Internet access, similar measures may be undertaken by ISPs on a voluntary basis.

It seems like it should be a general rule that, if you're supporting something that includes better surveillance tools by saying, "Hey, Egypt -- the same country that recently had the people rise up to force out a dictator, who tried to shut down the internet -- does it!" perhaps you don't have a very good argument.

The report is basically one big "OMG! But... but... terrorists! Kill it!" It talks about things like "standardizing" data retention rules for ISPs, while we here in the US don't currently have data retention rules -- nor is everyone in agreement that such things are good. Nevermind all that... terrorists!

The development of a universally agreed regulatory framework imposing consistent obligations on all ISPs regarding the type and duration of customer usage data to be retained would be of considerable benefit to law enforcement and intelligence agencies investigating terrorism cases.

Also... all that social media stuff going on out there? Scary, scary stuff because terrorists might use it as well. They might publish propaganda on it, and we can't have that:

The promotion of extremist rhetoric encouraging violent acts is also a common trend across the growing range of Internet-based platforms that host user-generated content. Content that might formerly have been distributed to a relatively limited audience, in person or via physical media such as compact discs (CDs) and digital video discs (DVDs), has increasingly migrated to the Internet. Such content may be distributed using a broad range of tools, such as dedicated websites, targeted virtual chat rooms and forums, online magazines, social networking platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, and popular video and file-sharing websites, such as YouTube and Rapidshare, respectively. The use of indexing services such as Internet search engines also makes it easier to identify and retrieve terrorism-related content.

You hear that? All those internet companies, enabling terrorists. Oh, and they're not just handy for terrorists to promote their propaganda... but to sneak up on the dumb users who reveal important info for terrorists as well:

Particularly in the age of popular social networking media, such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr and blogging platforms, individuals also publish, voluntarily or inadvertently, an unprecedented amount of sensitive information on the Internet. While the intent of those distributing the information may be to provide news or other updates to their audience for informational or social purposes, some of this information may be misappropriated and used for the benefit of criminal activity.

Loose fingers on Twitter sink ships, as the saying goes.

Now, of course, some of this is just describing what's going on out there for those who haven't realized that any communications technology can be used by both people with good intentions and bad intentions (and no intentions at all). And we shouldn't freak out about that kind of thing. But, the report does also make some "legislative and policy recommendations," where it gets worrisome:

In order to provide effective criminal justice responses to threats presented by terrorists using the Internet, States require clear national policies and legislative frameworks. Broadly speaking, such policies and laws will focus on:
(a) Criminalization of unlawful acts carried out by terrorists over the Internet or related services;
(b) Provision of investigative powers for law enforcement agencies engaged in terrorism-related investigations;
(c) Regulation of Internet-related services (e.g. ISPs) and content control;
(d) Facilitation of international cooperation;
(e) Development of specialized judicial or evidential procedures;
(f) Maintenance of international human rights standards.

Nice of them to throw in that last one about human rights... because all of those other ones are really about ways to chip away (often with a pretty big digital bulldozer) at human rights and civil liberties. In providing examples of countries that have put in place good anti-cyber-terrorism laws... they list a who's who of countries with dubious human rights records, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. Oh, and China:

In the terrorism context, in China there are provisions criminalizing different forms of terrorist activities, including article 120 of the Criminal Law, which criminalizes activities related to organizing, leading and participating in terrorist organizations. This broad criminalization provision covers a wide range of terrorism-related activities, including those carried out over the Internet.

Of course, if you also get to define what counts as "terrorism," I imagine such laws can be quite handy in making opposition parties and activists disappear (or at least get them to shut up).

There's a lot more in the report like that. While the report pays lip service to "human rights" throughout, it really seems to focus on a whole bunch of ways to chip away at those human rights all because terrorists might be out there, using your internets.

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: internet, technology, terrorism, un

73 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Lord Binky, 24 Oct 2012 @ 9:30am

I read terrorists use food too. I'd start by controlling food so that a terrorist never uses it, then we don't have to worry about terrorists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymoose Custard (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 9:32am

But, I thought...
Isn't the Counter-Terrorism Task Force supposed to protect us from fear-mongering, and not behave like terrorists themselves?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 9:43am

Re: But, I thought...
This is the UN we're talking about!

What's funny is the UN writes nasty letters about rights abuses or countries preventing weapons inspections. That's it. Just a letter. Nothing gets accomplished.

Remember the letter from the UN regarding Israel's reaction to the flotillas? Yeah, neither does anyone else.

But this cyberterrorism buzz-word, fearmongering crapolla they call a "report" will actually do something. It will be used by the US to push more ACTA/SOPA/PIPA/ScrewLotsUnderThisSection legislation. Yet nothing will come of the rights abuses or war crimes or anything else that the UN does that comes without teeth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 9:45am

Re: But, I thought...
You've misunderstood the purpose of "counter-terrorism" rhetoric. It's not to protect us from fear-mongering, it's to perpetuate the fear-mongering for the benefit of the Powers That Be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jon Renaut (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 9:48am

Buy the UN a dictionary
I think someone on this task force needs to look up the definition of "criminalize" and "unlawful".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 9:53am

Lets see how does any sensible terrorist or master criminal communicate with their cronies, by phone, no it can be monitored, by internet, same thing applies, by trusted courier carrying some form of flash memory, yes that will do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 9:55am

I know that i use the roads, but don't the terrorists also use the roads? is there a way to prevent the terrorists from using the roads? Maybe we should just close some of the roads, you know, the ones terrorists use the most? Like the freeways. I bet the terrorists use them all the time. I sure would feel safer if we closed the freeways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BreadGod (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 9:57am

I know the UN will label me a terrorist for saying this, but I'll say it anyway: he who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Russ (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 9:58am

Freedom fighters
one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.

Where does Hamas fall according to the UN?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher Best (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:04am

Maybe People Will Start to Realize
How bad the U.N. really is... Or at least the General Assembly.

Sure, it's a good idea in principle: A forum for all the world's nations to get together and talk things out. Heck, that's a great idea!

The problem is when people want to give such a body any sort of power, or allow it any sort of regulatory control--primarily because it's got representatives from every nation!

Hey, guess what! Most nations in the world are despotic cesspits which are diametrically opposed to the concepts of freedom and liberty for their subjects! And yes, I use the word subject, as opposed to citizen, because that's how they view people within their borders.

Think about it this way: we know how bad the U.S. is lately in the realm of protecting their citizens' rights. Now consider the fact that the U.S. is probably still one of the best nations in the world in that respect, especially in regards to protecting freedom of speech. Scared yet?

The majority of UN member states are either:
1) dictatorships
2) ruled by religious fundamentalism
or
3) both of the above

As such, ANY policy put forward by the General Assembly is going to reflect their priorities: Control of individuals and protection of their power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Publius (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:05am

So many tools available to the bad guys
I see what you did there:

The problem with bicycles today is that anyone can learn to use them, and Bad Guys* might use them!

The problem with underwear today is that anyone can wear them, and Bad Guys might use them!

*Don't want to say the "T" word. I heard if you say three times you'll be teleported to Gitmo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yogi, 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:09am

UN Speak
How can anyone take the UN seriously?

The UN Human Rights Comission is manned by human rights' luminaries such as Sudan, Syria, and Libya. I think the UN understands human rights in a completely different way than most of the readers on TechDirt.

Similarly, since most of the countries making up the UN are dictatorships of one sort or another, "terrorists" in their context probably means "citizens" in the regular world.

Citizens are surely a threat to any regime, and since the internet can be used to promote both human rights and civil participation, than internet=terrorism and must be controlled.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:11am

Re:
They also use cars and houses too. Must destroy them all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:12am

Re: Maybe People Will Start to Realize
I disagree on a couple of points:

1) "Most nations in the world are despotic cesspits which are diametrically opposed to the concepts of freedom and liberty for their subjects"

Most?

2) "we know how bad the U.S. is lately in the realm of protecting their citizens' rights. Now consider the fact that the U.S. is probably still one of the best nations in the world in that respect"

lately?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:14am

Re: UN Speak
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Heck - that's what they called a bunch of guys that dumped tea in Boston Harbor some time ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher Best (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:20am

Re: Re: Maybe People Will Start to Realize
Most?

I'm allowing for the chance that there are some nations out there that I am unaware of that don't fit that bill. I'm pretty optimistic about Iceland, for instance.

lately?

When did I say they were better in the past? It doesn't matter, anyway. The only relevant data is their current behavior.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nimas, 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:24am

Re: So many tools available to the bad guys
I hear terrorists can use carrier pigeons, before their extremist rhetoric encouraging violence could only have been distributed to a relatively limited audience.

And *gasp* we have to laws for retaining information on carrier pigeons! The horror!

*******************************************************

As an aside, they really use "relatively limited"? Dear god, EVERYTHING is relatively limited, and *every* *single* *advance* in communication has effectively increased audience in what could be described as some, "a relatively large increase".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trish, 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:24am

Gutenberg?
Better shut down that printing press, Gutenberg, terrorists might use it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shmerl, 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:25am

Re:
Don't forget. Terrorists breathe too. Aren't they worried about the availability of air?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yogi, 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:27am

Re: Re: UN Speak
Oppressing people is not equivalent to not oppressing them.
Raping black animist because they are not Muslim, is not the same as letting them live their lives and not raping them.
Enslaving Asian workers, not paying them for years and then killing them when they try to run away is not the same as paying your workers a salary and so on.

You can argue that every society has the right to live within its own values, but I cannot see how all values are morally equivalent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:29am

Re: Re:
Yeah seriously it sounds pretty dumb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:32am

any truth in the rumour that terrorists breath? i heard it somewhere

are the idiots in the UN really voted into positions and paid out of public funds? any of them actually got the interests of the public in mind or are they just another bunch that are bought and paid for by the entertainment industries? do they need sacking and quickly, or what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CaitlinP (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:38am

Oh No!
This is reminiscent of Freedom of Speech. God forbid we limit that in any way shape or form when it comes to doing it in person in the name of religion. "We can't do much about hate speech when they're yelling it out on the streets." is what I hear in response to stuff like the Westboro Church or other entities.
Yet when it's out on the Internet it's, "Terrorism!" somehow. Like saying something in text as compared to out loud is somehow inherently different in meaning.
It's interesting to see how people automatically shut down and act defensively in silly ways as soon as they hear any word associated with fear. Maybe we should stop calling it Terrorism and start calling it what it is. Sad.

The Internet is simply another avenue of human expression. It should not be limited because to limit it would be akin to limiting ourselves. Limiting access to the Internet simply because Terrorists use it is like saying we should discontinue Welfare or Medicaid because there are lazy people who abuse those services as well.

Oh wait...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:39am

Re:
Voted in by by who? When did you have an election for UN representatives??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Russ (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:45am

Re: Gutenberg?
I think the Pope had that idea when luther was loose with all those dangerous notions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gregg, 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:50am

I'm not sure what a Terrorist is anymore. Are protesters terrorists? are revolutionaries terrorists? are all Muslims terrorists? Are anti-Americans Terrorists? are Civil Rights activists Terrorists? Is Greenpeace a Terrorist organization? are all Palestinians Terrorists? Are Israelis's Terror's? Are bloggers terrorists? .....And now Scientists Terrorists or just criminals????
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:55am

Re:
No need to close them.

Just have every driver show ID when entering and exiting the roads and retain that information along with the entry/exit times and locations, number of stops, average speed, etc... for a minimum of 5 years just in case it could help law inforcement catch bad guys.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:58am

Re: Re: Re: UN Speak
I agree, but it is rarely as simple as "oppressors" vs. "non-oppressors".

There are horrible people that do horrible things, but you have to be very careful that dealing with them does not have a profound effect on people that simply disagree. When does a "freedom fighter" become a "terrorist"? When they hold a protest in the street? What if their protest causes a fatal car accident? How about burning a flag? Burning an empty building? Shooting back at an oppressive military?

"I cannot see how all values are morally equivalent"

I would argue that morality itself is relative. Some people believe it is immoral to kill and eat animals. I can see how their argument makes sense, but I still like bacon. You may view something as extreme and someone else may view it as normal. I would never agree with some of the crazy violent things that have happened in our history (and are still happening), but I do recognize that my view of right and wrong may differ drastically from someone else's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 11:03am

Re:
Western governments are trying to terrorize their citizens into giving up their rights. Does this make them terrorists?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 11:09am

is there any country, any government, any official organization that doesn't want to take complete control of the internet or doesn't object profusely at the ordinary people using it? is it just the facts that the various bodies above are not getting the amount of tax from it or simply that they dont like the way people can talk to each other thousands of miles apart, inform each other of the shit that is going on in the other persons country or that they can organize themselves into a formidable opposition to propositions that have not been agreed by the public?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Harrill (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 11:11am

Regulate the TV News
From the report:

The promotion of extremist rhetoric encouraging violent acts is also a common trend across the growing range of Internet-based platforms that host user-generated content. Content that might formerly have been distributed to a relatively limited audience, in person or via physical media such as compact discs (CDs) and digital video discs (DVDs), has increasingly migrated to the Internet.

They left out the part where the news media also distributed the extremist rhetoric (think all of Bin Laden's video/audio). We need to regulate the TV news and lock it down so it only tells us what those in power want to say. That shouldn't be a problem at all should it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 11:20am

The first stage of the Holocaust was identification.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 11:27am

Oh NO!
But how would the UN know who the terrorists are?

unless.....

THEY ARE THE TERRORISTS!!!!!

RUN EVERYONE RUN!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TasMot (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 11:28am

We need to pass laws to make unlawful activities illegal

In order to provide effective criminal justice responses to threats presented by terrorists using the Internet, States require clear national policies and legislative frameworks. Broadly speaking, such policies and laws will focus on:
(a) Criminalization of unlawful acts carried out by terrorists over the Internet or related services;

Can anyone (without having a laughing fit) please explain why we need new laws to make illegal activities illegal?

Seriously, I want an answer because I don't understand. Please help.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 24 Oct 2012 @ 11:35am

Re: We need to pass laws to make unlawful activities illegal
Great question.

It would also be great to get an explanation of why we should only criminalize unlawful acts when they are carried out on the internet - because I think in-person unlawful acts should also be illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bengie, 24 Oct 2012 @ 11:41am

Re: Re:
I'll start burning tires right now! I'm a true patriot.

Hopefully by the time I'm done, all the terrorists will have died from me poisoning the atmosphere.

I'm doing it For The Children(tm)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bengie, 24 Oct 2012 @ 11:43am

Re: We need to pass laws to make unlawful activities illegal
Haven't you been to a patent office lately? "On the Internet" makes things new and different.

Illegal activities "on the internet" are not illegal.

/headexplodes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 11:44am

No comments yet on one important line
This one:
(c) Regulation of Internet-related services (e.g. ISPs) and content control;

Notice the provision for content control? Sounds like our old Hollywood-based buddies have their filthy lobbying tentacles in the UN these days as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 11:45am

Re: Regulate the TV News
And he cleverly used them to distribute by using courier and mail to get it to them. Note the TV stations and news organizations are where it got onto the net! Better get them check with the authorities before they broadcast or publish anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 11:47am

I like how:

"f)Maintenance of international human rights standards."

is the last point on their list. Just goes to show how much they care about it, and how they didn't just throw it in there at the end to not freak out human activists.

Seriously, what is it with Governments lately trying to gain full control of the Internet and wanting to know everything everyone says online? Are they really that scared of their own population?

And do they actually think the terrorist threats will scare us? They are so transparent when using this excuse. It's so obvious they are using it to gain power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 11:50am

The word terrorist I think, no one knows the definition of it. Ugh. Anyone could be a terrorist. Lets all just live in a bubble together to get away from the terrorists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gregg, 24 Oct 2012 @ 12:03pm

Re:
Exactly! then one by one groups were identified, targeted, scapegoated and sent off to their death.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gregg, 24 Oct 2012 @ 12:05pm

What about the Telephone?
Could Terrorists by chance use a Telephone, Fax machine, Telegram, Postal Service, Video Camera, two cans and a string??? How about Telepathy???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hans B PUFAL (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 12:07pm

Re:
Not to mention air and water.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher Best (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 12:07pm

Re: We need to pass laws to make unlawful activities illegal
Can anyone (without having a laughing fit) please explain why we need new laws to make illegal activities illegal?

I'll take a shot at it: If you're a citizen of country A, and you break the laws of my country (B) on the Internet, currently I can't have you arrested. (Unless country B in this case is the USA, but for the sake of argument let's forget about that for this moment.)

So maybe they want to fix that little "loophole" in the law.

That way, all those criminals won't get away with insulting the President/Monarch/Prophet or whatever other crazy laws these dictators like to impose on their subjects.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Igor, 24 Oct 2012 @ 12:40pm

disband the UN
This report is just another sign that the US has outlived its usefulness and has to be disbanded
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aaron, 24 Oct 2012 @ 1:06pm

Response to: Lord Binky on Oct 24th, 2012 @ 9:30am
While I read this article I thought up several "then outlaw ___ because terrorists might use it" statements. From realistic to absurd. However none of them were able to so succinctly show he rediculousness of the statement as your was. +1 internets for you and -1000 reality points for the UN people involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lord Binky, 24 Oct 2012 @ 1:08pm

Re: Re: So many tools available to the bad guys
Stupidity is relatively limited to the earth as far as I have seen so far.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lord Binky, 24 Oct 2012 @ 1:15pm

Re: Re:
Even if it doesn't help with terrorists, at least I'd know who ran over the squirrel and didn't clean it up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Arthur (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 1:36pm

Re: Danger! Danger!
I hear terrorists use politicians to further their activities! Let's get rid of all politicians!

Wait, that actually works!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 1:37pm

And video games too?
Might have seen this one yesterday on Kotaku, and wasn't there at least one part of the report that attacked video games?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
thetech, 24 Oct 2012 @ 1:41pm

Re:
It would be nice if you gave credit to the person who originally said the quote you are using.(B.F. if you do not remember)

Thanks,
Reddit member
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Arthur (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 1:42pm

Think of the children of terrorists!!
It used to be, when you wanted to slip some dodgy bit of legislation through, you'd always say "It's for the children!".

Now it's "Terrorists!"

Same ol' dodgy legislation, new the-sky-is-falling excuse.

Let's give them the ultimate excuse to ram through bad legislation, "It's for the children of terrorists!!"

Arty
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 1:42pm

Re: Re:
The sad thing is the police in the UK already monitor where you go in your car and take pictures of you all around the M25, reading, and Surrey.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ldne, 24 Oct 2012 @ 1:50pm

Re: Oh No!
Comparison fail.

The internet is supported by the fees paid to the ISP's for access, paid to the companies for purchases and the advertisers who pay to place ads on the sites. It's voluntary, if you do not wish to use it you simply don't pay for the services. If someone chooses to offer an open connection to people, such as at a coffee shop or restaurant, they pay for it and it's up to them to voluntarily provide the access. Medicaid and Welfare are not financially supported by the people who use it, or by volunteers, it is supported by forced taxation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BreadGod (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 1:59pm

Re: Re:
Then again, it's been said so many times it's pretty much embedded itself into the culture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
k, 24 Oct 2012 @ 2:17pm

The needs...
The needs of the many out weight the stupidity of the few.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Law Abiding Citizen, 24 Oct 2012 @ 2:42pm

I laughed.
Lets be honest. We have more chance of a piano falling on my head at your front door than to be attacked by a so called terrorist.

Its clear to everyone that the people behind the terror are the ones with all the money. Arabs aren't the problem, Jews aren't the problem. Zionism is the problem my friends.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 2:44pm

Re: Re:
Clearly, we need to detonate enough nuclear bombs to burn away the atmosphere. This will not only prevent terrorists from stealing our air, it will also finally win the war on terror. (Unless silicon-based lifeforms evolve or something.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 2:57pm

Re: Re:
this system shouldn't be intrusive and not difficult to use. The name should signify its ease of use...i think EZPass is an appropriate name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 3:42pm

Re: Re: Re:
With this EZPass, we could link the vehicle to the owner with their complete address and maybe even their bank account. Genius!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymoose Custard (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 9:29pm

Re: Re: But, I thought...
.... Which is terrorism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymoose Custard (profile), 24 Oct 2012 @ 9:36pm

Re:
Any person who would spread fear - terror - is engaging in terrorism.

People who detonate explosives in public places to destroy and cause death and chaos do it not to kill people, but to instill fear. Terror.

People who tell us who we should fear, instill fear in those who listen to them. Terror.

Terrorism is fear-mongering, whatever its form.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Riddla26, 24 Oct 2012 @ 10:51pm

While this situation is pretty ridiculous, let me just inject some sanity into the argument before the kneejerk reactions becoming even more ridiculous.

The excerpts in this article are pretty well sensationalized. You print a sentence and then tell what that sentence implies, vis a vis Egypt, when in actuality the portion that was printed in the article [emphasis mine] reads:

While some countries, such as Egypt, have implemented legislation requiring ISPs to identify users before allowing them Internet access, similar measures may be undertaken by ISPs on a VOLUNTARY basis.

Is the quote from the document. To which Techdirt tacks on as some sort of implied imaginary justification the UN is using - which just isn't the case - is:

"Hey, Egypt -- the same country that recently had the people rise up to force out a dictator, who tried to shut down the internet -- does it!"

If you actually read and understand what Techdirt is implying, it becomes much more ridiculous. The article you link to about internet access being shut off is from January 2011. Not only is this MONTHS after the uprising began, but President Mubarak did not even stand down until February. So yeah, the old dictatorship tried to shut down the internet, while the new government requires some information on you be verified before they provide your service to prevent fraud and, yes, terrorism. Much like many ISPs already require from you. Your entire "omg dictators in Egypt shut down the internet lets not be like them" angle is not only fraudulent but inaccurate to boot and frankly insulting to the freedoms of the Egyptian people that Techdirt insinuates they had an uprising because someone turned off their Facebook access.

Given all the stuff like SOPA, ACTA, LALA and PO recently I have few doubts that there won't be a massive public outcry about this, but this article is just sensationalised bullshit trying to stir people up before the actual issues with the proposal have been isolated, it's insulting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Oct 2012 @ 11:49pm

Shaq is more qualified at giving advice on how to make the perfect free throw every time than the UN is qualified at giving guidelines on human rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Julian, 25 Oct 2012 @ 5:00am

Re: Re:
You know that might actually be a good idea, let the people choose who they want to represent them in the UN.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SlickR, 25 Oct 2012 @ 6:38am

Re:
Haha, great post. I'd just like to add that all the scary terrorist that everyone needs to piss their pant at the very mention are run by NATO and the USA.

I mean we've even had Dennis Kucinich write in huffpost hey we are running and arming Al-Qaeda is Syria, Ron Paul has said so in congress, other decent human beings, as well as all the media. The Guardian reported, NYT, Washingtonpost, etc... that yeah NATO and the USA are allies with Al-Qaeda and are arming them in Syria who cares, you still need to give up all your rights because of Al-Qaeda.

Its just a one big giant joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jerian, 25 Oct 2012 @ 6:55am

Terrorists can use cell phones? Ban all cell phones!
Terrorists can hijack airplanes? Ban all airplanes!
Terrorists can sail speed boats? Ban all speedboats!
Terrorists can use the internet? Ban the internet!

UN, do you see how ridiculous your claims look now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim Hill (profile), 25 Oct 2012 @ 9:42am

Common cause
This is exactly the kind of thing that gets the fundamentalist nationalists nearly insane with fear and anger. On this one just about everyone in the U.S. can make common cause.

riddla26 apologizing for it above with "voluntary" http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/17162220792/un-problem-with-internet-today-is-its-just-too -open-terrorists-might-use-it.shtml#c875 is blinkered: the victims are not "voluntarily" being stripped of their rights.

The crimes invasiveness fosters are far worse than the crimes it's supposed to help prevent. Rooting out terrorist cells is a legitimate interest. This is burning down the house to roast the pig.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2012 @ 10:05am

Re: But, I thought...
Son, we don't like your kind. We're gonna send your fingerprints to Washington
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2012 @ 11:44pm

Internet Freedom is almost dead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2012 @ 8:02am

The problem is that other communication mediums are not open enough. The government has wrongfully handed over the exclusive use of broadcasting and cableco communication channels to corporate interests and the govt. industrial complex doesn't like people having an efficient communication medium to criticize them through. They've gotten so spoiled and used to being able to get away with brainwashing, lying to, and omitting information from the public and bombarding us with pro-corporate, anti-consumer (ie: pro-IP) propaganda while censoring any criticism and getting away with it that when something comes along that can expose our government industrial complex for their lies and for the criminals they are they all go nuts.

The solution is to abolish govt. established broadcasting and cableco monopolies. No one has a right to have govt established exclusive privileges over both content and communication medium so that they can exploit those privileges against my, and the public's, interests.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Penis, 26 Oct 2012 @ 2:16pm

THEIR ASSES ARE TOO OPEN
maybe the terrorist want to penetrate them...
[ link to this | view in thread ]