4 ms·

I think the difference of opinion here is on the definition of "violence", which is a part of the definition of "terrorism". AKA blowing up a building to scare

I think the difference of opinion here is on the definition of "violence", which is a part of the definition of "terrorism". AKA blowing up a building to scare people is, hacking into stuff (however damaging) isn't. Maybe that line needs to be re-defined in the 21st century, I don't know... but nobody brought Islam into the debate other than you.

will_brown 12y ago
Right from the article: >“This raises questions about the US government’s definition of terrorism and whether they have expanded it to including hackers,” said Hanni Fakhoury, a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Fakhoury said he was curious to know the identity of the “terrorist organisation” mentioned in the documents. “If it was al-Qaida or Islamic State that would pose no problem for me, but if they were referring to Anonymous that would be a different proposition,” he said.
- torthrowaway123 12y ago
  I'm not sure "to include hackers" is the same as "to include non-violence", though that may well be what he meant. You can commit a non-violent act of civil disobedience without going near a computer, and you could commit a violent-act through hacking, such as breaking into air traffic control to crash two planes together. edit: And just realised the connection between HN comments and that quote from the article. Mea culpa on that one.
  - will_brown 12y ago
    I think it contributes to add that acts of violence are not required. [1] It is simply enough to aid, fund, train or otherwise support terrorists or terrorist organizations. So again this goes down a dark path...what if you didn't know they were a terrorist? What constitutes funding or training? ect... This is precisely why we need this to be a legal matter that is out in the open, with formal charges and findings of fact. This would create notice (of what behavior is and is not allowed) as well as legal precedent so we don't have Government employees acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner without consistency. For example, the instance of some of the 9/11 terrorists being housed by a Saudi family in Florida, the Saudi family fled the US weeks before 9/11 and then the FBI lied to Congress in an attempt to cover this up.[2] [1]For the purpose of the Order, "terrorism" is defined to be an activity that (1) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (2) appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking. See: http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/122570.htm http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/122570.htm [2] http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/06/fbi-lied-to-congress-about-fla-saudi-familys-ties-to-911-hijackers/ http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/06/fbi-lied-to-congre...

will_brown 12y ago

Right from the article: >“This raises questions about the US government’s definition of terrorism and whether they have expanded it to including hackers,” said Hanni Fakhoury, a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Fakhoury said he was curious to know the identity of the “terrorist organisation” mentioned in the documents. “If it was al-Qaida or Islamic State that would pose no problem for me, but if they were referring to Anonymous that would be a different proposition,” he said.

torthrowaway123 12y ago
I'm not sure "to include hackers" is the same as "to include non-violence", though that may well be what he meant. You can commit a non-violent act of civil disobedience without going near a computer, and you could commit a violent-act through hacking, such as breaking into air traffic control to crash two planes together. edit: And just realised the connection between HN comments and that quote from the article. Mea culpa on that one.
- will_brown 12y ago
  I think it contributes to add that acts of violence are not required. [1] It is simply enough to aid, fund, train or otherwise support terrorists or terrorist organizations. So again this goes down a dark path...what if you didn't know they were a terrorist? What constitutes funding or training? ect... This is precisely why we need this to be a legal matter that is out in the open, with formal charges and findings of fact. This would create notice (of what behavior is and is not allowed) as well as legal precedent so we don't have Government employees acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner without consistency. For example, the instance of some of the 9/11 terrorists being housed by a Saudi family in Florida, the Saudi family fled the US weeks before 9/11 and then the FBI lied to Congress in an attempt to cover this up.[2] [1]For the purpose of the Order, "terrorism" is defined to be an activity that (1) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (2) appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking. See: http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/122570.htm http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/122570.htm [2] http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/06/fbi-lied-to-congress-about-fla-saudi-familys-ties-to-911-hijackers/ http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/06/fbi-lied-to-congre...