16 ms·

In Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack, Let’s Not Sacrifice Even More Rights

285 points by stefap2 12y ago

higherpurpose 12y ago
Congress is way ahead of you EFF: http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/228945-top-house-dem-to-reintroduce-major-cyber-bill http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/228945-top-house-dem... It's also interesting to see how American media is reacting to this attack, in a manner that's completely opposite of how the French media reacted, or other journalists in other countries. Just like with the Sony threat, Americans seem ready to holds their hands up at any threat now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/01/07/fox-news-has-no-plans-to-air-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/01/0... The best way to hurt the terrorists is not to kill them. They want to die for their cause. It's to show that you are not afraid of them. Terrorist attacks are meant to create "terror" in populations, so the population or its government react a certain way. The US gov/population is reacting exactly the wrong way to terror attacks. France or Norway (that massacre a couple of years back) reacted the right way. Being "scared of offending the terrorists" is exactly what the terrorists are going for, and if it works once, why not try it again when something else offends them?
- throwaway344 12y ago
  So the US is now "soft on terror"? This isn't what I recall happened after the attacks on the WTC on 9/11 or on the Murrah Building in OKC. In one of those cases, the US launched a "global war on teror" along with an invasion of a country thousands of miles from home. The US can be blamed for making a lot of mistakes regarding terrorism, but I don't think being too gentle is one of them.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - cpa 12y ago
    I think he's specifically refering to news outlets not afraid of showing Charlie Hebdo's cartoons.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > So the US is now "soft on terror"? I think its more an issue of being hyper-motivated by the fear of terrorism than being "soft on terror". Both cowering under the bed and sacrificing freedoms to domestic authoritarians while dropping bombs all over the world can be manifestations of the sensitivity to fear of terrorism.
    - walshemj 12y ago
      but America hasn't had any real serious internal terrorist (using the term loosely) threats for 70+ years. Europeans are far more used to violence like the PIRA/UDA in NI Eta in Spain and the RAF in Germany. For example I know two people going through the truth and reconciliation process in NI. And if I had had to goto NI on business during the troubles I would have to be very careful about where I went and who I told who I worked for - the down side of working for "crown forces" let alone that I was the product of a mixed marriage.
  - dean 12y ago
    > along with an invasion of a country thousands of miles from home The U.S. didn't invade Iraq as a response to terrorism. They invaded Iraq because of the threat of "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Many people just assumed Iraq was behind 9/11 simply because the government wanted to invade them after 9/11, and the government did little to dispel that mistaken notion. And we all found out that Iraq having "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in the first place was a mistaken notion as well.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > The U.S. didn't invade Iraq as a response to terrorism. Fear of terrorism was one of the reasons for public support of the war and it was heavily pushed in the pro-war propaganda. > They invaded Iraq because of the threat of "Weapons of Mass Destruction". In the run-up to war, both supposed direct ties between the Iraqi regime an al-Qaeda (and direct ties between Iraq and one of the 9/11 attack specifically) and the threat that if Iraq acquired WMDs it might transfer them to al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups for use against the US were trumpeted. WMD and terrorism are not mutually exclusive motivations for war. The supposed connection between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda (including a supposed link between Iraq and 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta) was still be trumpeted months after the 2003 war began, even just before the 9/11 Commission issued its finding that no such connection existed. [0] [0] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5223932/ns/us_news-security/t/panel-sees-no-link-between-iraq-al-qaida/#.VK8R-VIXIeE http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5223932/ns/us_news-security/t/pane...
    - throwaway344 12y ago
      I was talking about the war in Afghanistan more than that of Iraq.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    You can be 'hard on terror' and mostly ineffective whilst making life of non-terrorists more miserable all across the board.
  - Crito 12y ago
    Remember that the "airplanes are hijacked and flown into buildings" model was neutralized on the morning of 9/11/2001. It only worked three times, the fourth time it was attempted, that same morning, it failed. With that in mind, consider the massive overreaction to that specific type of threat. Entire government agencies were created to combat it, despite it already being solved.
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    No, it's not what I was saying at all. Here, Schneier probably says it better than I do (even though I found this post after I wrote that comment): https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_be_terrori.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_b...
- morbius 12y ago
  Oh dear, you brought that up. I predict the stream of CISPA defense comments from tptacek in 5, 4, 3, 2... ...unless he has better things to do (I hope)
DickingAround 12y ago
Let's call a spade a spade here. Government's don't care even a little about protecting their people with the surveillance bills that come from events like this. They're just using events as an excuse to grab power from the people. We all know that. If they did care, they'd be pouring money into driver-less cars to reduce road fatalities. Let's stop even attributing decency and sense to government actions and just admit they're power grabs. The EFF is already probably too aggressive/extreme in their messages for most of the public, so I see why they say it this way. But we don't have to be PC about it. This article should be titled "Governments, please mar the trajectory at Charlie Hebdo by claiming you care about it."
- knowaveragejoe 12y ago
  Some of what you said carries merit but it overall smacks of rash overgeneralizations. Most government actions start with good intentions at heart, but they are often gamed and manipulated to personal benefit by those capable of doing so. Also, we can agree that much less should be spent on intelligence activities, but pouring money into driverless cars is a terrible example of what they "should" be spending money on.
  - DickingAround 12y ago
    It's fair that I'm not providing enough evidence here. I think we'd both agree they good intentions when they outlawed unpasteurized milk or made a patent system. It's hard to get clear evidence on intentions, but recent laws about internet surveillance of Americans that are justified by saying the prevent terrorism are pretty clearly not about terrorism. Before terrorism, there was the cold war, before that there were countries that might invade us, etc. History is littered with lies from governments about why they spy on their own citizens and most of the time governments and government officials seem to do it for their own gain and protection. In this sense, it's fair to assume the people doing it now are also doing it for that reason. Also, I'll admit I don't want them doing driverless cars either, but it would at least be clearly intended to reduce fatalities. Perhaps medical research is a better example? You tell me.
- thibauts 12y ago
sandstrom 12y ago
Norway had a great response to their terror attack in 2011. The country would "stand firm in defending our values" and the "open, tolerant and inclusive society", he said. "The Norwegian response to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political participation." -- Jens Stoltenberg, Norwegian Prime Minister [at the time] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/27/norway-terror-attacks-prime-minister http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/27/norway-terror-a...
- PythonicAlpha 12y ago
  That is the only valid response to such an attack. With different responses, the terrorists win.
  - mc32 12y ago
    I hear people use this phrase quite a lot. (people on the right and left) but I disagree with those who say that terrorists --people who commit any kind of terror are out to 'win' anything. Typically terrorists just want to terrorize, not win, particularly. For example, you might have an insurgent group somewhere or other, let's say Caucasus, those movements will have real boots on the ground doing fighting to win 'ground' and they will also have a terrorist operations. The terror operations are not there to win anything --just to instill terror. They are there for nothing else than instill terror. Not shut down buildings, not keep people from going to work or going to market --afterall people will _have_ to continue going to market. That's what I think. In sports this would be like doing something to get a penalty. Doing something to injure an opponent will not get you the victory. Only points (goals, whatever) will provide the win. A boxer does not win by biting off the opponent's ear, they win by earning more points.
    - brazzy 12y ago
      Terrorists do absolutely NOT "just want to terrorize". They have goals. If they achieve their goals through the acts of terror, directly or indirectly, they win.
zkhalique 12y ago
The question is, can liberalism be intolerant of intolerance? If this is the exception rather than the rule, then we shouldn't sacrifice any rights. However, if islamISTS or communISTS or nazISTS or anyone else decides to take advantage of a liberal society and attempt to overthrow it, systematically, shouldn't there be some way to prevent it? I don't know what's worse, McCarthyism or allowing unlimited growth of violent revolutionary ideas. Of course, the civil libertarian in me says that freedom of expression should be maximized. But I also realize that there are mind viruses out there that compete with liberalISM and despise it for one reason or another. The question is, how intolerant should we be of intolerance? In the United States, for instance, we have become very intolerant of racists and homophobes. I am not talking about this particular incident.
- the_af 12y ago
  > I don't know what's worse, McCarthyism or allowing unlimited growth of violent revolutionary ideas But what if this kind of terrorist attacks actively seeks retribution? What if the attackers wanted to "stir the pot", to encourage violence against all Muslims as a way to legitimize their own role? "See how the infidels hate you? That's why we must continue our attacks". In this sense, what does "disallowing violent revolutionary ideas" even mean? Attacking countries suspected of hosting Muslim terrorist groups? Interning suspects in illegal detention camps? Drone strikes? What other ways are there of "disallowing" violent ideas? What if this is not about an abstract principle of freedom of expression (or lack thereof) but about not doing precisely what the terrorists want?
  - nl 12y ago
    >> I don't know what's worse, McCarthyism or allowing unlimited growth of violent revolutionary ideas > But what if this kind of terrorist attacks actively seeks retribution?.. What other ways are there of "disallowing" violent ideas? I think you and the OP are in violent agreement here. The OP was asking if there other ways to combat "mind viruses".
- mathieuh 12y ago
  As a communist, I'll give you my point of view. To reiterate: I am a communist, not a troll, and this is really what I think. I think that "free speech" as meant by liberals is harmful. I don't believe that oppressive speech (i.e. homophobic, racist, fascist etc.) should come under the aegis of the liberal ideal of "free speech", at least not until a post-revolutionary society. People take on the ideas to which they're exposed. I'm sure if you look through the history of the Parisian murders you'd find a trail of exposure to extremist ideas.
quonn 12y ago
Also worth mentioning: The authorities already knew the subjects. The supposedly even had recent warnings regarding Charlie Hebdo. They have had police officers there for a long time, too. And for most cases of terrorism in the last decades it was the same. Generally, the police usually knows about the suspects before. They just can't do much before they commit a crime. The unwarranted surveillance of everyone can't possibly prevent attacks by people who already were filtered anyway. Much better to invest the budget in classical targeted intelligence and police work and into improving the response _if_ something has happened.
- Crito 12y ago
  > "They have had police officers there for a long time, too." In fact, one of the police officers that was killed was present for the shooting because he was assigned as a police bodyguard for Charb.
- boracay 12y ago
  "They just can't do much before they commit a crime" Of course you can, you just need a mindset where you are fighting extremism rather than extremists.
tokenadult 12y ago
Hear. Hear. Let's make sure that life in a free society is preserved no matter what threat it is put under. I see that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is calling for individuals and news media organizations to respond to the Charlie Hebdo attack too, and I hope they follow her suggestions.[1] A historical example I turn to about how to respond to grave national danger is that during the United States Civil War, the 1864 election occurred exactly on the expected schedule, and Abraham Lincoln was prepared to be voted out of office during the middle of the war. Of course in parliamentary systems elections do not occur at predictable intervals as they do in the United States constitutional system, but I've always thought that was a good example of how not to cave in to the temptation of self-benefit "for the sake of the country's stability" by delaying the election or something like that. Lincoln did invoke the power (a power granted by the Constitution from the beginning[2]) to suspend the right of habeas corpus during the War of Rebellion (as the Civil War was called by the Union at the time), but habeas corpus was restored as soon as the rebellion ceased. We should cherish all of our freedoms all of the time and guard them zealously. We should exercise free speech to minimize the risk of future attacks like the attack in Paris, by openly disagreeing with the kind of thinking that leads to attacks like that. [1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/ayaan-hirsi-ali-our-duty-is-to-keep-charlie-hebdo-alive.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/ayaan-hirsi... [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus
- nkurz 12y ago
  We should exercise free speech to minimize the risk of future attacks like the attack in Paris, by openly disagreeing with the kind of thinking that leads to attacks like that. I greatly appreciate your comments on this site, and worry I'm being obtuse, but I'm not sure what you feel is the "thinking that leads to attacks like this". I read Hirsi Ali as saying that we must band together and deliberately offend conservative Muslim sensibilities to protect free speech. This seems greatly at odds with many of the tenets of modern multiculturalism. Are you suggesting that we need to move away from the form of multiculturalism that grants power to the violent fundamentalist?
  - Crito 12y ago
bsaul 12y ago
People here live in a bubble. We're afraid of an orwelian society, but in the case of france, we're still unable to catch those guys eventhough they : - killed people in the center of Paris, including cops protecting the area. - left their id card at the back of the car - had 2 car accident while running away inside Paris and changed the car twice - stopped at a gas station a few kilometers away from paris to get some gas,where the owner recognized them. - were already under monitoring by the counter terrorism, for having tried to go to war in iraq ten years ago. - have 8000 cops chasing them all over the country, and 24 hours later, they lost their tracks, for the second time. We don't live in an orwelian society. We REALLY don't.
- kossTKR 12y ago
  1) The inability to instantly catch potentially well trained and prepared people on the run in a large capital, does not exclude a surveillance state. 2) The revelations of the recent years has not garnered so much attention because of live tracking abilities, but because of the intelligence services almost incredible omnipresence, their ability to store and therefore retrieve data over many years and lastly the enormity, sophistication and agression of the whole endeavour. You should know that if you have followed the debate even slightly. 3) Plenty of people in the hacker and rights communities has pointed to the fact that the this grand effort will probably both be failing in catching terrorists with enough technical training and be used to target non-terrorist activity in the end, i.e. regular citizens. Your argument is a classic straw-mans argument. *added 4) For me to grasp that technically minded individuals like yourself, is accusing the vast majority of the most intelligent people in the computer science community of crying wolf, and to be living in a fantasy after the ever increasing revelations over the past years - is very difficult. Arguments like yours based on completely made up premises makes me hope people like you are either a paid shills, completely out of the loop or just an infinitely small minority. We need to stand up for our rights more than ever today.
- joepie91_ 12y ago
  Whether a society is Orwellian or not, is not measured by how easy it is to catch evildoers.
duncan_bayne 12y ago
My (hastily written) email to the EFF on this issue: ===== "Even as we mourn the losses at Charlie Hebdo, we must be wary of any attempt to rush through new surveillance and law enforcement powers, which are likely to disproportionately affect Muslims ..." May I suggest the following thought experiment? Imagine if Hebdo staff had been murdered by Neo-NAZIs (it's certainly within the realm of possibility; the publication skewered the political right as much as it did other groups like Muslims, and fascist groups are known for their love of violence). Would you be decrying the possibility that new laws might disproportionately effect Neo-NAZIs? There are many parallels between the politics of Islam and the politics of National Socialism: the rejection of individualism, the anti-semitism, the subordination of all aspects of life to the philosophy, the hero-worship of the leader, etc. etc. The fact that most Muslims are not actively engaged in Jihad has parallels with the observation that most Germans during WWII weren't actively fighting for the NAZI party. To support an evil philosophy is morally wrong, regardless of whether that philosophy is or is not religious in nature. I'm particularly saddened to see the EFF join in the pretence that Islam, in and of itself, is worthy of respect. The philosophy, and the mainstream religious movement itself, is inimically opposed to the freedoms you seek to protect. =====
- scrollaway 12y ago
  It's very hard to find a way to retort that actually has the potential to change your mind. I will try, though, and I hope you take this with an open mind. First of all, I completely disagree. You yourself admit the email was hastily written and that tells me you didn't take the time to actually consider the opposing point of view. I'm not religious, myself. I know several muslims though, all believers to varying degrees. They all think very differently from one another and have completely different opinions about various parts of islam. One thing they do have in common is that they all condemn those attacks as heinous, disgusting and a disgrace for those people to consider themselves muslims. You talk about an "evil philosophy" as if this is what islam intended. Plenty of murders and bombings, even genocides, have been committed in the name of a much more popular religion, yet I'm fairly certain you do not think of that religion as an "evil philosophy". And if you do, please consider that everyone, no matter their philosophy, also have the freedoms you talk about. Those freedoms do in fact include the freedom of faith. Your reasoning regarding your own thought experiment is flawed. In this world, neo-nazis do not have to fear consequences to such actions. At least not theoretically (which is what your thought experiment suggests), and because neo-nazism is kept off the mainstream media, unlike islam in some countries. Neo-nazism is not a religion. It's easy to drop the N-bomb on islam comparisons but a lot harder to justify it once you get past the fairly childish prejudice that "they're both extremist mindsets, so they're the same". You've drawn some parallels that most muslims have nothing to do with. Will you find a lot of neo-nazis that follow nazism because they find peace and understanding of the universe in it? I could argue a long time on how this logic is flawed but I'm fairly certain it won't go anywhere. I just hope that you, personally, appreciate that an extreme majority of muslims aren't merely passive about such behaviour, they're very actively against it and revolted by it. What do you think they can do about it, exactly? Stop believing in their own god? You're removing their freedom of faith if you ask that of them. I was actually heartwarmed by the european response to the attacks, they have been my own personal light of the past 12 months. I've seen that my country of birth is not as bigoted as I thought, and that its media is in a much better state than I suspected. All of this because they did, in fact, all made a point to make the difference between those wastes of DNA that perpetrated the attacks, and the religion as a whole. Please don't make the mistake France avoided. PS: I upvoted you because I'm hoping for some decent discussion on the issue here. I hope others do the same.
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
Lot of people getting mad about Charlie Hebdo and staying quiet about Brandon Duncan.
- drawnalong 12y ago
  Interesting! I didn't follow the Tiny Doo story too closely but read more after you posted. Except I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that people SHOULD be mad that we're prosecuting Brandon Duncan because of his published work? I'm assuming that's what you mean, and if so, I suppose I agree.
Trisell 12y ago
The general population has been sold a bill of goods by those in power that those in power cannot possible make good on. As long as there are small groups of armed individuals, highly motivated and unmoved by the fear of laws or death, a government cannot guarantee the general populations safety. Only when the people finally come to understand this fact and decide to make good on the need to provide their own protection will you see a change in the reaction to these events. This idea is what continues to drive the gun vs. anti-gun movement in the USA. Individuals still want to be able to provide for their own protection, while the other side wishes that we rely upon government to provide that protection. Like it or not the unarmed police officers on bikes were just more sheep sent to the slaughter by a government that had convinced the people that it could provide for their safety. When it not only failed totally, but is still failing today as the people are no safer then they were yesterday.
- elinchrome 12y ago
  It's far from proven that armed individuals can provide their own safety, whatever that means (or if that's even possible). But, a day has passed, so it is surely time for every special interest to start using this tragedy as a shoehorn for their cause.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
    I read somewhere that most mass-shootings in the USA occur at schools and in shopping malls, where conceal-carry is prohibited. Is this true?
azinman2 12y ago
Too soon. The main dudes are still out there, and now there's some warning about legislation? You can't warn about consequences when the wound is so fresh -- we're still in emotional-trying-to-process-land. I saw this after 9/11... people protesting generically against war on 9/12 in SF. I normally am a big supporter of the EFF but this feels out of touch with reality.
- pluma 12y ago
  The legislation that enabled the perpetual state of not-quite-war the US has been in since then[1] was passed after a memorial ceremony mere days after 9/11. The text itself was drafted within less than a day after the events. [1]: http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/
unclebucknasty 12y ago
It's really just bullshit, all the way around. The terrorists, the various governments, people killing each other, the EFF, the predictable media response, the endless commenting and discussing by everyone who has a keyboard--as if what they have to say really matters--and the fact that nothing will change. Absolutely nothing. Bullshit. All of it.
shaurz 12y ago
The problem is, you actually need an all-seeing surveillance state if you're going to mass-import millions of Muslims in to a non-Muslim country. The violence will keep getting worse as their numbers in Western countries grow and the spineless dhimmis continue to apologise for them. Unfortunately beyond a certain point (which we seem to have already passed) it is simply impossible to stop, no matter how efficient the state is at foiling their plots.
pknerd 12y ago
As free speech advocates, we mourn the use of violence against individuals who used creativity and free expression to engage in cultural and political criticism. Murder is the ultimate form of censorship It always amaze me why do world want to practice freedom of expressions against Islam only. Why not one is allowed to mock Holocaust like things by using same tool of freedom of expression?
- arjn 12y ago
  You clearly have not seen all the cartoons that Charlie Hebdo published, have you. That would have answered your very silly and uninformed question.

285 points by stefap2 12y ago

Congress is way ahead of you EFF: http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/228945-top-house-dem-to-reintroduce-major-cyber-bill http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/228945-top-house-dem... It's also interesting to see how American media is reacting to this attack, in a manner that's completely opposite of how the French media reacted, or other journalists in other countries. Just like with the Sony threat, Americans seem ready to holds their hands up at any threat now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/01/07/fox-news-has-no-plans-to-air-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/01/0... The best way to hurt the terrorists is not to kill them. They want to die for their cause. It's to show that you are not afraid of them. Terrorist attacks are meant to create "terror" in populations, so the population or its government react a certain way. The US gov/population is reacting exactly the wrong way to terror attacks. France or Norway (that massacre a couple of years back) reacted the right way. Being "scared of offending the terrorists" is exactly what the terrorists are going for, and if it works once, why not try it again when something else offends them?

throwaway344 12y ago
So the US is now "soft on terror"? This isn't what I recall happened after the attacks on the WTC on 9/11 or on the Murrah Building in OKC. In one of those cases, the US launched a "global war on teror" along with an invasion of a country thousands of miles from home. The US can be blamed for making a lot of mistakes regarding terrorism, but I don't think being too gentle is one of them.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- cpa 12y ago
  I think he's specifically refering to news outlets not afraid of showing Charlie Hebdo's cartoons.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > So the US is now "soft on terror"? I think its more an issue of being hyper-motivated by the fear of terrorism than being "soft on terror". Both cowering under the bed and sacrificing freedoms to domestic authoritarians while dropping bombs all over the world can be manifestations of the sensitivity to fear of terrorism.
  - walshemj 12y ago
    but America hasn't had any real serious internal terrorist (using the term loosely) threats for 70+ years. Europeans are far more used to violence like the PIRA/UDA in NI Eta in Spain and the RAF in Germany. For example I know two people going through the truth and reconciliation process in NI. And if I had had to goto NI on business during the troubles I would have to be very careful about where I went and who I told who I worked for - the down side of working for "crown forces" let alone that I was the product of a mixed marriage.
- dean 12y ago
  > along with an invasion of a country thousands of miles from home The U.S. didn't invade Iraq as a response to terrorism. They invaded Iraq because of the threat of "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Many people just assumed Iraq was behind 9/11 simply because the government wanted to invade them after 9/11, and the government did little to dispel that mistaken notion. And we all found out that Iraq having "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in the first place was a mistaken notion as well.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The U.S. didn't invade Iraq as a response to terrorism. Fear of terrorism was one of the reasons for public support of the war and it was heavily pushed in the pro-war propaganda. > They invaded Iraq because of the threat of "Weapons of Mass Destruction". In the run-up to war, both supposed direct ties between the Iraqi regime an al-Qaeda (and direct ties between Iraq and one of the 9/11 attack specifically) and the threat that if Iraq acquired WMDs it might transfer them to al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups for use against the US were trumpeted. WMD and terrorism are not mutually exclusive motivations for war. The supposed connection between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda (including a supposed link between Iraq and 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta) was still be trumpeted months after the 2003 war began, even just before the 9/11 Commission issued its finding that no such connection existed. [0] [0] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5223932/ns/us_news-security/t/panel-sees-no-link-between-iraq-al-qaida/#.VK8R-VIXIeE http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5223932/ns/us_news-security/t/pane...
  - throwaway344 12y ago
    I was talking about the war in Afghanistan more than that of Iraq.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  You can be 'hard on terror' and mostly ineffective whilst making life of non-terrorists more miserable all across the board.
- Crito 12y ago
  Remember that the "airplanes are hijacked and flown into buildings" model was neutralized on the morning of 9/11/2001. It only worked three times, the fourth time it was attempted, that same morning, it failed. With that in mind, consider the massive overreaction to that specific type of threat. Entire government agencies were created to combat it, despite it already being solved.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  No, it's not what I was saying at all. Here, Schneier probably says it better than I do (even though I found this post after I wrote that comment): https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_be_terrori.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_b...
morbius 12y ago
Oh dear, you brought that up. I predict the stream of CISPA defense comments from tptacek in 5, 4, 3, 2... ...unless he has better things to do (I hope)

DickingAround 12y ago

Let's call a spade a spade here. Government's don't care even a little about protecting their people with the surveillance bills that come from events like this. They're just using events as an excuse to grab power from the people. We all know that. If they did care, they'd be pouring money into driver-less cars to reduce road fatalities. Let's stop even attributing decency and sense to government actions and just admit they're power grabs. The EFF is already probably too aggressive/extreme in their messages for most of the public, so I see why they say it this way. But we don't have to be PC about it. This article should be titled "Governments, please mar the trajectory at Charlie Hebdo by claiming you care about it."

knowaveragejoe 12y ago
Some of what you said carries merit but it overall smacks of rash overgeneralizations. Most government actions start with good intentions at heart, but they are often gamed and manipulated to personal benefit by those capable of doing so. Also, we can agree that much less should be spent on intelligence activities, but pouring money into driverless cars is a terrible example of what they "should" be spending money on.
- DickingAround 12y ago
  It's fair that I'm not providing enough evidence here. I think we'd both agree they good intentions when they outlawed unpasteurized milk or made a patent system. It's hard to get clear evidence on intentions, but recent laws about internet surveillance of Americans that are justified by saying the prevent terrorism are pretty clearly not about terrorism. Before terrorism, there was the cold war, before that there were countries that might invade us, etc. History is littered with lies from governments about why they spy on their own citizens and most of the time governments and government officials seem to do it for their own gain and protection. In this sense, it's fair to assume the people doing it now are also doing it for that reason. Also, I'll admit I don't want them doing driverless cars either, but it would at least be clearly intended to reduce fatalities. Perhaps medical research is a better example? You tell me.
thibauts 12y ago

sandstrom 12y ago

Norway had a great response to their terror attack in 2011. The country would "stand firm in defending our values" and the "open, tolerant and inclusive society", he said. "The Norwegian response to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political participation." -- Jens Stoltenberg, Norwegian Prime Minister [at the time] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/27/norway-terror-attacks-prime-minister http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/27/norway-terror-a...

PythonicAlpha 12y ago
That is the only valid response to such an attack. With different responses, the terrorists win.
- mc32 12y ago
  I hear people use this phrase quite a lot. (people on the right and left) but I disagree with those who say that terrorists --people who commit any kind of terror are out to 'win' anything. Typically terrorists just want to terrorize, not win, particularly. For example, you might have an insurgent group somewhere or other, let's say Caucasus, those movements will have real boots on the ground doing fighting to win 'ground' and they will also have a terrorist operations. The terror operations are not there to win anything --just to instill terror. They are there for nothing else than instill terror. Not shut down buildings, not keep people from going to work or going to market --afterall people will _have_ to continue going to market. That's what I think. In sports this would be like doing something to get a penalty. Doing something to injure an opponent will not get you the victory. Only points (goals, whatever) will provide the win. A boxer does not win by biting off the opponent's ear, they win by earning more points.
  - brazzy 12y ago
    Terrorists do absolutely NOT "just want to terrorize". They have goals. If they achieve their goals through the acts of terror, directly or indirectly, they win.

zkhalique 12y ago

The question is, can liberalism be intolerant of intolerance? If this is the exception rather than the rule, then we shouldn't sacrifice any rights. However, if islamISTS or communISTS or nazISTS or anyone else decides to take advantage of a liberal society and attempt to overthrow it, systematically, shouldn't there be some way to prevent it? I don't know what's worse, McCarthyism or allowing unlimited growth of violent revolutionary ideas. Of course, the civil libertarian in me says that freedom of expression should be maximized. But I also realize that there are mind viruses out there that compete with liberalISM and despise it for one reason or another. The question is, how intolerant should we be of intolerance? In the United States, for instance, we have become very intolerant of racists and homophobes. I am not talking about this particular incident.

the_af 12y ago
> I don't know what's worse, McCarthyism or allowing unlimited growth of violent revolutionary ideas But what if this kind of terrorist attacks actively seeks retribution? What if the attackers wanted to "stir the pot", to encourage violence against all Muslims as a way to legitimize their own role? "See how the infidels hate you? That's why we must continue our attacks". In this sense, what does "disallowing violent revolutionary ideas" even mean? Attacking countries suspected of hosting Muslim terrorist groups? Interning suspects in illegal detention camps? Drone strikes? What other ways are there of "disallowing" violent ideas? What if this is not about an abstract principle of freedom of expression (or lack thereof) but about not doing precisely what the terrorists want?
- nl 12y ago
  >> I don't know what's worse, McCarthyism or allowing unlimited growth of violent revolutionary ideas > But what if this kind of terrorist attacks actively seeks retribution?.. What other ways are there of "disallowing" violent ideas? I think you and the OP are in violent agreement here. The OP was asking if there other ways to combat "mind viruses".
mathieuh 12y ago
As a communist, I'll give you my point of view. To reiterate: I am a communist, not a troll, and this is really what I think. I think that "free speech" as meant by liberals is harmful. I don't believe that oppressive speech (i.e. homophobic, racist, fascist etc.) should come under the aegis of the liberal ideal of "free speech", at least not until a post-revolutionary society. People take on the ideas to which they're exposed. I'm sure if you look through the history of the Parisian murders you'd find a trail of exposure to extremist ideas.

quonn 12y ago

Also worth mentioning: The authorities already knew the subjects. The supposedly even had recent warnings regarding Charlie Hebdo. They have had police officers there for a long time, too. And for most cases of terrorism in the last decades it was the same. Generally, the police usually knows about the suspects before. They just can't do much before they commit a crime. The unwarranted surveillance of everyone can't possibly prevent attacks by people who already were filtered anyway. Much better to invest the budget in classical targeted intelligence and police work and into improving the response _if_ something has happened.

Crito 12y ago
> "They have had police officers there for a long time, too." In fact, one of the police officers that was killed was present for the shooting because he was assigned as a police bodyguard for Charb.
boracay 12y ago
"They just can't do much before they commit a crime" Of course you can, you just need a mindset where you are fighting extremism rather than extremists.

tokenadult 12y ago

Hear. Hear. Let's make sure that life in a free society is preserved no matter what threat it is put under. I see that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is calling for individuals and news media organizations to respond to the Charlie Hebdo attack too, and I hope they follow her suggestions.[1] A historical example I turn to about how to respond to grave national danger is that during the United States Civil War, the 1864 election occurred exactly on the expected schedule, and Abraham Lincoln was prepared to be voted out of office during the middle of the war. Of course in parliamentary systems elections do not occur at predictable intervals as they do in the United States constitutional system, but I've always thought that was a good example of how not to cave in to the temptation of self-benefit "for the sake of the country's stability" by delaying the election or something like that. Lincoln did invoke the power (a power granted by the Constitution from the beginning[2]) to suspend the right of habeas corpus during the War of Rebellion (as the Civil War was called by the Union at the time), but habeas corpus was restored as soon as the rebellion ceased. We should cherish all of our freedoms all of the time and guard them zealously. We should exercise free speech to minimize the risk of future attacks like the attack in Paris, by openly disagreeing with the kind of thinking that leads to attacks like that. [1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/ayaan-hirsi-ali-our-duty-is-to-keep-charlie-hebdo-alive.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/ayaan-hirsi... [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus

nkurz 12y ago
We should exercise free speech to minimize the risk of future attacks like the attack in Paris, by openly disagreeing with the kind of thinking that leads to attacks like that. I greatly appreciate your comments on this site, and worry I'm being obtuse, but I'm not sure what you feel is the "thinking that leads to attacks like this". I read Hirsi Ali as saying that we must band together and deliberately offend conservative Muslim sensibilities to protect free speech. This seems greatly at odds with many of the tenets of modern multiculturalism. Are you suggesting that we need to move away from the form of multiculturalism that grants power to the violent fundamentalist?
- Crito 12y ago

bsaul 12y ago

People here live in a bubble. We're afraid of an orwelian society, but in the case of france, we're still unable to catch those guys eventhough they : - killed people in the center of Paris, including cops protecting the area. - left their id card at the back of the car - had 2 car accident while running away inside Paris and changed the car twice - stopped at a gas station a few kilometers away from paris to get some gas,where the owner recognized them. - were already under monitoring by the counter terrorism, for having tried to go to war in iraq ten years ago. - have 8000 cops chasing them all over the country, and 24 hours later, they lost their tracks, for the second time. We don't live in an orwelian society. We REALLY don't.

kossTKR 12y ago
1) The inability to instantly catch potentially well trained and prepared people on the run in a large capital, does not exclude a surveillance state. 2) The revelations of the recent years has not garnered so much attention because of live tracking abilities, but because of the intelligence services almost incredible omnipresence, their ability to store and therefore retrieve data over many years and lastly the enormity, sophistication and agression of the whole endeavour. You should know that if you have followed the debate even slightly. 3) Plenty of people in the hacker and rights communities has pointed to the fact that the this grand effort will probably both be failing in catching terrorists with enough technical training and be used to target non-terrorist activity in the end, i.e. regular citizens. Your argument is a classic straw-mans argument. *added 4) For me to grasp that technically minded individuals like yourself, is accusing the vast majority of the most intelligent people in the computer science community of crying wolf, and to be living in a fantasy after the ever increasing revelations over the past years - is very difficult. Arguments like yours based on completely made up premises makes me hope people like you are either a paid shills, completely out of the loop or just an infinitely small minority. We need to stand up for our rights more than ever today.
joepie91_ 12y ago
Whether a society is Orwellian or not, is not measured by how easy it is to catch evildoers.

duncan_bayne 12y ago

My (hastily written) email to the EFF on this issue: ===== "Even as we mourn the losses at Charlie Hebdo, we must be wary of any attempt to rush through new surveillance and law enforcement powers, which are likely to disproportionately affect Muslims ..." May I suggest the following thought experiment? Imagine if Hebdo staff had been murdered by Neo-NAZIs (it's certainly within the realm of possibility; the publication skewered the political right as much as it did other groups like Muslims, and fascist groups are known for their love of violence). Would you be decrying the possibility that new laws might disproportionately effect Neo-NAZIs? There are many parallels between the politics of Islam and the politics of National Socialism: the rejection of individualism, the anti-semitism, the subordination of all aspects of life to the philosophy, the hero-worship of the leader, etc. etc. The fact that most Muslims are not actively engaged in Jihad has parallels with the observation that most Germans during WWII weren't actively fighting for the NAZI party. To support an evil philosophy is morally wrong, regardless of whether that philosophy is or is not religious in nature. I'm particularly saddened to see the EFF join in the pretence that Islam, in and of itself, is worthy of respect. The philosophy, and the mainstream religious movement itself, is inimically opposed to the freedoms you seek to protect. =====

scrollaway 12y ago
It's very hard to find a way to retort that actually has the potential to change your mind. I will try, though, and I hope you take this with an open mind. First of all, I completely disagree. You yourself admit the email was hastily written and that tells me you didn't take the time to actually consider the opposing point of view. I'm not religious, myself. I know several muslims though, all believers to varying degrees. They all think very differently from one another and have completely different opinions about various parts of islam. One thing they do have in common is that they all condemn those attacks as heinous, disgusting and a disgrace for those people to consider themselves muslims. You talk about an "evil philosophy" as if this is what islam intended. Plenty of murders and bombings, even genocides, have been committed in the name of a much more popular religion, yet I'm fairly certain you do not think of that religion as an "evil philosophy". And if you do, please consider that everyone, no matter their philosophy, also have the freedoms you talk about. Those freedoms do in fact include the freedom of faith. Your reasoning regarding your own thought experiment is flawed. In this world, neo-nazis do not have to fear consequences to such actions. At least not theoretically (which is what your thought experiment suggests), and because neo-nazism is kept off the mainstream media, unlike islam in some countries. Neo-nazism is not a religion. It's easy to drop the N-bomb on islam comparisons but a lot harder to justify it once you get past the fairly childish prejudice that "they're both extremist mindsets, so they're the same". You've drawn some parallels that most muslims have nothing to do with. Will you find a lot of neo-nazis that follow nazism because they find peace and understanding of the universe in it? I could argue a long time on how this logic is flawed but I'm fairly certain it won't go anywhere. I just hope that you, personally, appreciate that an extreme majority of muslims aren't merely passive about such behaviour, they're very actively against it and revolted by it. What do you think they can do about it, exactly? Stop believing in their own god? You're removing their freedom of faith if you ask that of them. I was actually heartwarmed by the european response to the attacks, they have been my own personal light of the past 12 months. I've seen that my country of birth is not as bigoted as I thought, and that its media is in a much better state than I suspected. All of this because they did, in fact, all made a point to make the difference between those wastes of DNA that perpetrated the attacks, and the religion as a whole. Please don't make the mistake France avoided. PS: I upvoted you because I'm hoping for some decent discussion on the issue here. I hope others do the same.

GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago

Lot of people getting mad about Charlie Hebdo and staying quiet about Brandon Duncan.

drawnalong 12y ago
Interesting! I didn't follow the Tiny Doo story too closely but read more after you posted. Except I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that people SHOULD be mad that we're prosecuting Brandon Duncan because of his published work? I'm assuming that's what you mean, and if so, I suppose I agree.

Trisell 12y ago

The general population has been sold a bill of goods by those in power that those in power cannot possible make good on. As long as there are small groups of armed individuals, highly motivated and unmoved by the fear of laws or death, a government cannot guarantee the general populations safety. Only when the people finally come to understand this fact and decide to make good on the need to provide their own protection will you see a change in the reaction to these events. This idea is what continues to drive the gun vs. anti-gun movement in the USA. Individuals still want to be able to provide for their own protection, while the other side wishes that we rely upon government to provide that protection. Like it or not the unarmed police officers on bikes were just more sheep sent to the slaughter by a government that had convinced the people that it could provide for their safety. When it not only failed totally, but is still failing today as the people are no safer then they were yesterday.

elinchrome 12y ago
It's far from proven that armed individuals can provide their own safety, whatever that means (or if that's even possible). But, a day has passed, so it is surely time for every special interest to start using this tragedy as a shoehorn for their cause.
- TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
  I read somewhere that most mass-shootings in the USA occur at schools and in shopping malls, where conceal-carry is prohibited. Is this true?

azinman2 12y ago

Too soon. The main dudes are still out there, and now there's some warning about legislation? You can't warn about consequences when the wound is so fresh -- we're still in emotional-trying-to-process-land. I saw this after 9/11... people protesting generically against war on 9/12 in SF. I normally am a big supporter of the EFF but this feels out of touch with reality.

pluma 12y ago
The legislation that enabled the perpetual state of not-quite-war the US has been in since then[1] was passed after a memorial ceremony mere days after 9/11. The text itself was drafted within less than a day after the events. [1]: http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/

unclebucknasty 12y ago

It's really just bullshit, all the way around. The terrorists, the various governments, people killing each other, the EFF, the predictable media response, the endless commenting and discussing by everyone who has a keyboard--as if what they have to say really matters--and the fact that nothing will change. Absolutely nothing. Bullshit. All of it.

shaurz 12y ago

The problem is, you actually need an all-seeing surveillance state if you're going to mass-import millions of Muslims in to a non-Muslim country. The violence will keep getting worse as their numbers in Western countries grow and the spineless dhimmis continue to apologise for them. Unfortunately beyond a certain point (which we seem to have already passed) it is simply impossible to stop, no matter how efficient the state is at foiling their plots.

pknerd 12y ago

As free speech advocates, we mourn the use of violence against individuals who used creativity and free expression to engage in cultural and political criticism. Murder is the ultimate form of censorship It always amaze me why do world want to practice freedom of expressions against Islam only. Why not one is allowed to mock Holocaust like things by using same tool of freedom of expression?

arjn 12y ago
You clearly have not seen all the cartoons that Charlie Hebdo published, have you. That would have answered your very silly and uninformed question.