When We Call Criminal Acts 'Terrorism' We Destroy Our Rights And Sacrifice Our Principles

from the letting-the-terrorists-win dept

Every so often over the past decade or so in the "age of terrorism," someone has raised the issue of why we treat "terrorism" as somehow distinct from criminal activity. We let the intelligence community, rather than law enforcement, focus on terrorism (even as some in law enforcement -- notably, the FBI and the NYPD -- have tried to redefine their missions as being about terrorism). In the past, I've actually seen the wisdom of treating terrorism and criminal activities as separate, especially when terrorism was part of a larger, coordinated effort (especially when connected with state-level actors). However, these days, we're quick to call so much terrorism, it's really problematic. And not just because of the semantic argument. This hit home reading Hamilton's thought-provoking piece pointing out that "Terrorism Works."

His argument, in short, is that terrorism "works" because our reaction to it generally is the reaction of those who have been successfully terrified:

Two men with a rifle paralyze Washington, DC for weeks. Two men with a couple of homemade bombs paralyze Boston for days. One man on a plane with a dud bomb packed inside his boots has an entire nation taking off its shoes at the airport for years to come. A small group of religious zealots send three U.S. presidential administrations down a nightmarish rabbithole of drone war, torture, and total surveillance of the citizenry.

Terrorism works. Against us, terrorism works very, very well. Our collective insistence on treating terrorist acts as something categorically different than crime—as something harder to understand, something scarier, something perpetrated not by humans but by monsters—feeds the ultimate goals of terrorists. It makes us dumb. It makes us primitive. It is our boogeyman, and no amount of rational talk will drive it out of our minds.

That point, that we treat terrorism as different than crime really hits home. When there's a criminal spree -- bank robberies, burglaries, car thefts -- we may make certain changes in how we act (get better locks, security systems, etc.) but we don't seem to change our entire national psyche. We don't get terrified by crime. We take some actions to mitigate the risk, but we get on with our lives. When we call things "terrorism" we seem to let all perspective go out the window.

We switch from a mode of trying to minimize the risk to an absolutely impossible ideal of eliminating the threat entirely. That's dangerous. It tosses out anything involving cost-benefit analysis. It tosses out common sense. And, most importantly, it seems to toss out our rights, privacy and freedoms.

There's a way to deal with this and it's to treat most of these things as criminal activity, and to react accordingly. But that doesn't generate quite the same headlines or opportunities for politician grandstanding, so it probably won't happen.

Filed Under: attacks, crime, principles, rights, terror, terrorism

Opinion Piece On CBS Says Chris Dodd Should Be Fired For His 'Intransigent' Position On SOPA/PIPA

from the working-together? dept

Over the last few months, MPAA boss Chris Dodd has been promoting SOPA and PIPA by repeating the refrain that Hollywood and Silicon Valley shouldn't be fighting each other, and they need to work together. However, the reality is something entirely different. By "working together" he seems to mean "the tech community should just agree to everything Hollywood wants, no matter how counterproductive." He's missed no opportunity to exclude the input of the tech industry (and even the wider content industry). This isn't a huge surprise. Dodd has a history of playing fast and loose with the facts, as well as flip-flopping when politically convenient. This includes his promise not to work as a lobbyist just a short while before taking over the MPAA -- a lobbying organization.

But it's nice to see that some have finally had enough of Chris Dodd's claims here -- and even from within his supposed "supporters." CBS has been a supporter of SOPA/PIPA, but CBS News has an opinion piece by Brad Chase, about how the tech world and Hollywood need to work more closely together, and the first key point they make is that Chris Dodd has been obstructionist on this point and needs to go:

Like the American Civil War, a polarizing figure is at the heart of the rift between North and South. Whereas Abraham Lincoln recognized the inherent need for a united house, MPAA chairman Chris Dodd has no such noble intent or practical understanding. The intransigent former senator - no stranger to putting self-interest above the cause from his days pandering to the banking industry - has done everything possible to widen the rift between Hollywood and Silicon Valley. He's made a huge mistake systematically shutting the tech industry out of the conversation and trying to unilaterally push through new regulation. The 21st century merging of content and delivery platforms creates a natural partnership in this fight, but Dodd stands in the way. It's time the MPAA gives Dodd a one-way ticket back to Washington.

Filed Under: censorship, china, chris dodd, pipa, principles, protect ip, sopa, us
Companies: mpaa

MPAA Boss Chris Dodd Then & Now Concerning Google Censorship In China

from the how-much-does-it-cost-to-get-an-ex-senator-to-sell-his-soul dept

Last week, we quoted ex-Senator now MPAA-boss, Chris Dodd making somewhat surprising comments suggesting that it's fine to force Google to censor the internet at home, because the Chinese government made Google censor its results in China. His specific quote:

"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites."

That's an interesting statement, because almost exactly four years ago, when Chris Dodd was still a Senator and was also an aspiring Presidential hopeful, he went and gave a talk at Google. He discussed many things over the course of an hour, with one key point being that, for the sake of greater internet freedom, Google should stand up to the Chinese and not allow such censorship: In case you can't watch that video, he says:

Tell the Chinese government that Google.cn will no longer censor information with Google's consent. And should the Chinese government not find that acceptable, then Google.cn would shut down its operations. I understand that you've already moved all of your search records out of China, to prevent them from being turned over to the Chinese government. But what better way to affirm Google's commitment to the free flow of information as a human right, than to send this message to a nation with the largest population in the world?

From there, he goes on to talk about refusing to hand over information to our own government without a warrant, followed up by this statement:

When Google acts, others will follow in my view. Standing up in these instances will not only be good for business ethics, but I also believe it will be good for business.

Yet, when Google does stand up against censoring the internet today? The very same Chris Dodd says they're "accessories" to a robbery.

As Darwin said years ago, it's not the strongest of the species who survive, or even the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change.

Hey, Chris, perhaps it's time to look a bit at the MPAA, one of the organizations most resistant to change we've ever seen.

One way we respond to change, in my view, is to stand up, and to stand up for our principles, which do not change.

Unless, of course, the MPAA hires you for a salary upwards of a million dollars. Then your principles go right out the window and your commitment to not censoring search results does a 180, and suddenly you're demanding that Google censor results at home, and highlighting the censorship in China as if it's a positive example.

Filed Under: censorship, china, chris dodd, principles, us
Companies: mpaa

Extra Kudos To Senators Willing To Stand On Principle Against PROTECT IP

from the not-an-easy-task dept

While most of the attention over the past few weeks was given to SOPA and the House side of Congress in this debate on censoring the internet, the Senate side is becoming increasingly important. One of the ridiculous side effects of SOPA being so ridiculously bad is that PROTECT IP (the Senate version, also called PIPA) being just slightly less bad, means that some think that it can be seen as a "compromise." That's ridiculous, but it's part of the angle that supporters are using to try to rush that bill through the Senate in the near future. That's why the three Senators who stood up last week and spoke out against PIPA for the first time, Senators Rand Paul, Maria Cantwell and Jerry Moran deserve extra kudos. There's been massive lobbying support in favor of PIPA, and lots going on behind the scenes while the public was focused on SOPA on the House side. Having three Senators willing to stand up on principle, recognizing that the broad definitions and consequences of PIPA would hurt jobs, the economy and innovation, is something we don't see enough of these days. If one of these is your Senator, you should reach out and thank them for standing up for the benefit of society, rather than the benefit of big time corporate lobbyists.

Filed Under: copyright, jerry moran, maria cantwell, pipa, principles, protect ip, rand paul, ron wyden, sopa

OECD Supports Making ISPs Copyright Cops

from the oecd-fail dept

On the whole, the OECD has been pretty good about recognizing both the importance of freedom and openness of communications online and how certain industries have sought to use questionable claims and stats to push for protectionism. So, earlier this week, when the OECD put together a statement on "principles for internet policy-making," people hoped that it would follow along with the UN in focusing on protecting civil rights of individuals... not protecting outdated business models of certain companies.

And yet... it quickly came out that the OECD was considering dangerous language in the principles, seeking to cut back on important safe harbors to protect against misguided third party liability. When the draft language came out, nearly all of the "civil society" (i.e., consumer rights) groups that were a part of the discussion stated publicly that they could not endorse the language.

Tragically, the final document (pdf) did, in fact, keep the dangerous language.

To be sure, there are plenty of good things in the principles -- and even many of the "titles" for the principles sound reasonable. For example, among the principles are things like:

• Promote and protect the global free flow of information
• Promote the open, distributed and interconnected nature of the Internet
• Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and services
• Promote and Enable the Cross-Border Delivery of Services
• Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data into the policy-making process
• Ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability
• Strengthen consistency and effectiveness in privacy protection at a global level
• Maximise individual empowerment
• Promote Creativity and Innovation

It's tough to argue with most of those. But the devil is in the details. As KEI points out:

The Internet has actually demonstrated how much creativity is fostered without intellectual property, in fact despite IPR. Intellectual property is not a "driving" tool of the Internet. The Internet was NOT created by patents or copyright or trademark. Why would intellectual property be such a central theme for such a document? We concede that the Internet must not be a lawless "place" but this document where words such as "fair use, limitation and exception for users (it is "fixed" for the ISPs?), open source, free software, public domain, etc never appear, is wrong in tone and in its focus.

For example, just take a look at the very first item on the list: "Promote and protect the global free flow of information." Sounds good. But nearly half of the paragraph to back that up isn't about the global free flow of information, but about making sure there are ways to block the free flow of information:

While promoting the free flow of information, it is also essential for governments to work towards better protection of personal data, children online, consumers, intellectual property rights, and to address cybersecurity. In promoting the free flow of information governments should also respect fundamental rights.

Of course, countries that are blatantly censoring the internet, from China to Australia all claim that they're working towards "better protection of children online" etc. Such a statement basically undermines the entire point of the principle. The document goes on in this nature, inserting "intellectual property" in all sorts of places it doesn't belong. Perhaps most troubling is that there's a section officially on limiting third party liability, which has a whopper in the middle. Basically it talks up the importance of limiting liability to service providers to encourage innovation... and then puts a huge "but not in the case of IP" in there:

Within this context governments may choose to... identify the appropriate circumstances under which Internet intermediaries could take steps to educate users, assist rights holders in enforcing their rights or reduce illegal content....

In other words, this document is a joke, which is why civil society deserted it. It seems clear that it presents some nice principles upfront, but then undermines them in the fine print.

Filed Under: copyright, freedom, internet, oecd, principles, protection