Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday November 23 2015, @11:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the any-excuse dept.

Citing possible links between terror-related websites and online communications and [the recent] attacks on Paris, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler suggested Tuesday Congress give the agency more authority to use 'big data' to monitor and act on potential threats.

Appearing at a hearing held by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the Federal Communications Commission chairman told lawmakers that updating a 1994 law could give the agency more power to assist law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the surveillance of terror suspects online.

"We just had this terrible attack in Paris, and hundreds of people were killed," Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton said during the hearing. "We need to do something about it. ISIS and the terrorist networks can't beat us militarily, but they are really trying to use the Internet and all of the social media to try to intimidate and beat us psychologically."

Total surveillance failed, so more unconstitutional measures are required.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 23 2015, @11:28AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 23 2015, @11:28AM (#266935) Journal

    Never, ever, EVER let a good crisis go to waste!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @06:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @06:06PM (#267088)

      The head of the FCC said two things. One, the 1994 law (CALEA ) that defined the legal rules for what can be legally intercepted needs to be updated to include tech that didn't exist in 1994. Two, that the FCC should be able to use more monitoring and Big Data to detect sabatoge/outages to networks like the 17 fiber cuts in SF. In other words something that is explicitly and only the FCC's responsibility, to maintain the safcety of the pipes. And he wants to upgrade the infrastructure that is legally there to monitor it. As far as I can tell from the quotes in the blurbs, he never mentioned Paris

      Now, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) said "We just had this terrible attack in Paris, and hundreds of people were killed.......they are really trying to use the Internet and all of the social media to try to intimidate and beat us psychologically" And then went on to ask "was anything the FCC could do to tamp down the spread of Islamic extremism and radicalization online".

      Oh, but the most important point, Wheeler pushed back and said the FCC's authority did not extend to picking and choosing among websites.

      But never let a good outrage go to waste.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Geezer on Monday November 23 2015, @11:32AM

    by Geezer (511) on Monday November 23 2015, @11:32AM (#266937)

    Does it not occur to the reactionary political class that this kind of fear-mongering repression is exactly what the bad guys want?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @12:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @12:48PM (#266960)

      Stopping them getting what they want isn't remotely important.

      Getting what we want is important, if those overlap it's just a coincidence.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday November 23 2015, @01:28PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Monday November 23 2015, @01:28PM (#266972)

      That dynamic is always in play: Violent authoritarians on each side of a conflict help each other, even if only accidentally.

      A few examples:
      - The militaristic expansionism of the USSR under Stalin allowed the US military-industrial complex to solidify after World War II. The US military-industrial complex, for its part, helped the Commies expand by angering people in the Third World enough to get many of them to sign on with the USSR. Both populations would have been much better off if they hadn't fallen into that trap.
      - Hamas rocket fire into Israel strengthens those parties such as Likud that have the stated goal of wiping out the Palestinians at first opportunity (really: it's in their charter that Palestine no longer have any territory but Israel remain majority Jewish, and genocide is the only way that will happen) at the expense of parties that favor a negotiated agreement. In turn, Likud's periodic bombing of Gaza and expansion in the West Bank strengthen Hamas at the expense of Fatah (by far the least violent faction in that whole mess). That dynamic means that peace will probably not come to the region until one or both groups are dead.
      - North Korea's military consumes an insane amount of the resources of that country. Why does the military get away with that? Because they argue - with justification - that the South Koreans and the US would remove North Korea from existence if they thought they could get away with it. Meanwhile, that situation allows the US military-industrial complex to sell a whole bunch of stuff to South Korea as well as supply a US military presence near the DMZ.

      In this case, Daesh's activities (oh, and the Mali rebels and Beirut bombers too, but they killed mostly black and Arab people so the US is not as upset about that) play into a heavy-handed response by the three-letter agencies and the US military. Which convinces more people to join Daesh and makes Daesh stronger and closer to the apocalyptic battle they want to make happen. Which allows the three-letter agencies to have the excuse they need to get even more money and power for a heavy-handed, and so on and so forth.

      These guys always claim that they are being "tough" and "doing what has to be done". But in fact, they live in a world of paranoia, where anybody who is not part of their trusted organization is considered a potential threat. In other words, they are, at best, scaredy-cats jumping at all the wrong things.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2, Troll) by NotSanguine on Monday November 23 2015, @03:12PM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Monday November 23 2015, @03:12PM (#267009) Homepage Journal

      Does it not occur to the bad guys that this kind of fear-mongering repression is exactly what the reactionary political class want?

      There. FTFY.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday November 24 2015, @11:29PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday November 24 2015, @11:29PM (#267747) Homepage Journal

        Troll? Really? I can see 'Disagree' or 'Flamebait' or even 'overrated'. But Troll? Just because you disagree with me about the quality (and more importantly, the authoritarian reflexes) of the leaders that my countrymen have elected, doesn't mean I'm trying to troll.

        Sigh.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:51PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday November 24 2015, @02:51PM (#267512) Journal

      Does it not occur to the reactionary political class that this kind of fear-mongering repression is exactly what the bad guys want?

      Why do you think the political class keeps giving weapons and money to these "bad guys"?

  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday November 23 2015, @11:58AM

    by Gaaark (41) on Monday November 23 2015, @11:58AM (#266946) Journal

    the terrorist networks can't beat us militarily,

    It also seems the US can't beat THEM militarily, either.... or they'd be gone!

    try to intimidate and beat us psychologically.

    Seems to be working...

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @12:16PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @12:16PM (#266953) Homepage Journal

      Technically, we can. Practically, we can't. The chucklehead in the oval office the past seven or so years is not interested in fighting that fight at all and the one before let the cost of winning deter him. Or the tl;dr version, it can be done, we just don't have the will to do it.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by AndyTheAbsurd on Monday November 23 2015, @12:45PM

        by AndyTheAbsurd (3958) on Monday November 23 2015, @12:45PM (#266957) Journal

        There's a bigger problem in that winning militarily against the current set of terrorists will simply result a new (and probably larger) set of terrorists being created; people who (continue to) see the United States as "the Great Satan" because of our intervention in their country.

        --
        Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @01:30PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @01:30PM (#266974) Homepage Journal

          That depends entirely on if you allow it or not. In Japan, Germany, South Korea, Viet Nam, all the American Indian tribes, and hopefully one day Afghanistan... The list could go on for ages of hostile forces that have been successfully defeated and pacified. The trick is you can't pull out after you declare victory without the means and the will in place to prevent a resurgence in violence. I'm not saying it's easy but that bit of strategy is simple.

          For anyone who wants to argue morals: I wasn't talking about morals, just effective strategy.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:24PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:24PM (#266971)

        The will to do it? It's more like no balls and no IQ. Either that or he's Muslim.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @01:34PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @01:34PM (#266975) Homepage Journal

          I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's just a pansy-ass dove. Doesn't really matter in practice either way.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:24PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:24PM (#266991)

            You sound like a "Chicken Hawk".

            • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @03:01PM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @03:01PM (#267002) Homepage Journal

              I served. Nothing chicken about it.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @11:02PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @11:02PM (#267221)

                So did I but you obviously didn't learn anything from the experience.

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:41AM

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday November 24 2015, @12:41AM (#267252) Homepage Journal

                  I didn't learn to be a coward if that's what you mean. Yeah, you spend your brothers' lives dearly but if they need spent you spend them. None of us signed up to be safe and hold hands and sing kum ba yah.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 23 2015, @06:42PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday November 23 2015, @06:42PM (#267107) Journal

          The will to do it? It's more like no balls and no IQ.
           
          I would argue that advocating for yet another invasion of Iraq would indicate the holder of lower than average IQ.
           
            Either that or he's Muslim.
           
          Suspicion confirmed.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday November 23 2015, @02:56PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Monday November 23 2015, @02:56PM (#267000)

        The chucklehead in the oval office the past seven or so years is not interested in fighting that fight at all and the one before let the cost of winning deter him.

        Yeah, about that:
        1. The US is actively bombing Daesh. They've been doing so for months. That seems to be having some effect.
        2. Daesh has been slowly losing ground to the forces arrayed against them: the Iraqi army, the Iranian army, Hezbollah, the PKK and other Kurdish forces, Bashar al Assad's forces, air support from France and the US and other Arab nations.
        3. Some example of their losses: Just last week, Daesh's capitol city, Mosul, was cut off from most of the rest of their holdings. The Iraqi army is slowly pushing them back in the Ramadi-Fallujah area, which would kick them out of most of the western areas of Iraq.
        4. The long-term result of winning this way is that Iraqi forces will be battle-tested and thus more likely to successfully defend the country against repeat attempts. By contrast, if the US came in, the long-term result of winning would be an ongoing occupation by US forces, and that leads to anti-Americanism even in places where we're mostly liked like Japan. So winning this way is in fact smart.

        Terrorism in a nutshell is what you do when you want to fight but don't have an effective army. Daesh tried to make the switch from mostly-terrorists to being an organized army and country, and ended up in over their heads. They're switching back to terrorism with their attack on Paris because their army is losing. And it worked from a PR standpoint, because nobody noticed that they're actually losing on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @03:57PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @03:57PM (#267026) Homepage Journal

          I disagree but that's a fair argument at least.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday November 23 2015, @05:35PM

            by Thexalon (636) on Monday November 23 2015, @05:35PM (#267071)

            And for the record, the two giant strategic mistakes in Iraq:
            1. Going in there in the first place against the advice of Colin Powell and lots of other people. The stated reason for doing this, according to the Project for the New American Century, was to get control of the oil as a way of countering Russia and China, but since technology has improved to the point where oil should be slowly but surely on its way out this is a classic example of fighting the last war (in this case, the Cold War and Vietnam).

            2. The "de-Baathification" process which dismantled the entire civil service apparatus of Iraq. That meant that once the luster of "Yay, Saddam's gone!" wore off, people noticed that "Hey, the power's not on, there's no food, and I can't get to work." That in turn caused most Iraqis to support the insurgency, which allowed Al Qaida in Iraq to form. It also didn't help that Maliki and his government were thoroughly corrupt and abused their power.

            Oh, and the reason Obama left Iraq? George W Bush had agreed with the Maliki government on a timetable for withdrawal, and Obama tried to negotiate an extension (against the wishes of many in his own party) which fizzled out due to issues of who had jurisdiction if a US soldier, say, gunned down an innocent Iraqi civilian.

            None of this was the fault of the military - the political leaders in the Bush administration in particular botched the whole thing badly enough that any gains that the military made basically achieved nothing useful.

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Monday November 23 2015, @04:33PM

        by Kromagv0 (1825) on Monday November 23 2015, @04:33PM (#267039) Homepage

        It isn't just Obama and I unfortunately do think McCain was correct when he said we will fight this war for the next hundred years. The American population doesn't have the will to fight an all out war over there to actually win it and the hold the peace. The simple fact that we haven't fought a war like we did WWII over there indicates that we are still dicking around with velvet gloves on. The other solution would to to turn the whole area into a smoking hole in the ground but again no one here wants to go that route. Since neither of those a palatable we will drop some bombs for shits and giggles, expand the government's power to violate our rights and call it a day. The only other option would be to man up and say it fuck it, as I have a better chance of winning the PowerBall than being killed by terrorism, and not worry about terrorism.

        --
        T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 23 2015, @09:56PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday November 23 2015, @09:56PM (#267192) Homepage Journal

          Which is exactly what I do and would get a +1 Insightful from me if I had mod points left.

          I'm not remotely afraid of terrorists. Doesn't stop me from acknowledging that they could use a good killing, just means I'm not saying it out of fear.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by basicbasicbasic on Monday November 23 2015, @12:00PM

    by basicbasicbasic (411) on Monday November 23 2015, @12:00PM (#266947)

    "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it." Never mind if the something makes any sense or not.

    https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/04/metal_detectors.html [schneier.com]

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by AndyTheAbsurd on Monday November 23 2015, @12:51PM

    by AndyTheAbsurd (3958) on Monday November 23 2015, @12:51PM (#266961) Journal

    The problem is that when you react to terrorists, they've won. Their whole purpose is to use attacks that are, militarily speaking, small, but have a large psychological impact, in order to create change in the world. So, in reacting, you've let them win.

    Instead, we could accept that (a) having freedom of speech means freedom of speech EVEN WHEN WE DON'T AGREE WITH IT, and (b) occasional attacks of this sort ARE going to happen, even under the most totalitarian regimes, because that is the price of freedom, and (c) the right way to deal with it is to punish the ACTUAL PERPETRATORS of such actions, and leave everyone else alone.

    But politicians must be seen to be doing SOMETHING, so they do the first thing that seems like it will please more people than it upsets.

    --
    Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Covalent on Monday November 23 2015, @01:16PM

    by Covalent (43) on Monday November 23 2015, @01:16PM (#266968) Journal

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjJN08uqt70 [youtube.com]

    Come on people. Jean-Luc had this right more than 20 years ago. You don't beat terrorism by terrorizing your own people - all you have done is replaced your terrorists with other terrorists. You beat terrorism by loving all people, by inviting them in to our nation and showing them the "blessings of Liberty". You hold the lamp beside the golden door. You woo them with modernity, you entice them with plenty, and you win their hearts with encouraging them to enjoy their traditions but also to embrace new ones.

    Or, to quote an even greater man:

    Darkness cannot drive out darkness;
    only light can do that.
    Hate cannot drive out hate;
    only love can do that.
    Hate multiplies hate,
    violence multiplies violence,
    and toughness multiplies toughness
    in a descending spiral of destruction....
    The chain reaction of evil --
    hate begetting hate,
    wars producing more wars --
    must be broken,
    or we shall be plunged
    into the dark abyss of annihilation.

    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    --
    You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:30PM (#266973)

      Star Trek didn't have ISIS. There is no way ISIS would come to western society and assimilate peacefully when their agenda seems to be join us or die, join us and die, rape everything that moves, etc.

      • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday November 23 2015, @03:05PM

        by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday November 23 2015, @03:05PM (#267004) Journal

        Star Trek had the Borg. Relentless, mindless, invasive machines whose creed was join us or die. They could not be taught mercy, could not be turned, could not be reasoned with.

        Except... oh yeah, they could. Plenty of instances where individual (and even groups of) Borg were rehabilitated or parlayed with. Try again AC.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @08:18PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @08:18PM (#267155)

          Star Trek had the Borg. Relentless, mindless, invasive machines whose creed was join us or die. They could not be taught mercy, could not be turned, could not be reasoned with.

          Except... oh yeah, they could. Plenty of instances where individual (and even groups of) Borg were rehabilitated or parlayed with. Try again AC.

          (Different AC)

          Are you seriously using the argument that because things turned out well there it has to in real life? Star Trek is fiction, written by writers. It could have just as easily turned out that trying to be friendly with a borg (Hue) ended up with the Enterprise assimilated, followed by the Federation, followed by the entire Alpha Quadrant. The writers could have done whatever they wanted to.

          In fact, if you want to take the argument that the writers are somehow supernatural deities and whatever they wrote must be true because it is, they wrote that too. Remember the episode with Worf changing dimensions? There was a world where the Borg won, and it was so bad that Riker was prepared to shoot fellow Federation ships to stop from going back.

          It's all well and good to try to draw inspiration from fiction, but don't go so far as to say that "because it's in fiction and it worked it has to be universally true."

      • (Score: 2) by Covalent on Monday November 23 2015, @03:24PM

        by Covalent (43) on Monday November 23 2015, @03:24PM (#267016) Journal

        They totally did. In fact, this episode was literally about something very much like ISIS. The entirety of DS9 revolved around terrorism / oppressive regimes.

        --
        You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @01:56PM (#266980)

      You cannot reason with those who regard you as less than human.

      • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday November 23 2015, @02:09PM

        by SanityCheck (5190) on Monday November 23 2015, @02:09PM (#266986)

        You cannot reason with those who regard you as less than human.

        Indeed, that is what the Islamists think.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:36PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:36PM (#266993)

          Indeed, that is what the Islamists think.

          And so the way of proving them wrong is to treat them like dirt?

          Differences can be resolved. But slight a guy and he will hate you to his grave. -- Hoffa

          There is one thing I stand firm against my fellow Republicans and Democrats on. That is immigration. We use it as a political tool of convenience instead of a tool of helping others.

          You can welcome these people with open arms or turn your back on them and create bitter enemy's. Your choice. If they cause a ruckus you toss them in jail or deport them back to wherever. Just like we do with every other criminal out there. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. To even do that you first must commit a crime and be caught. Do not worry about what someone may/maybe/might/possibly do.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @02:13PM (#266988)

        And?

  • (Score: 2) by useless on Monday November 23 2015, @03:21PM

    by useless (426) on Monday November 23 2015, @03:21PM (#267015)

    You read in the press that they were using PlayStation 4 games to communicate on

    Except they weren't [sfgate.com], but don't let facts ruin a good scare tactic power grab

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:10PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @04:10PM (#267030)

    Now watch how quickly all the nitwits and hypocrites who supported giving this agency the power to regulate in favor of "network neutrality" remember that it is, in fact, and always has been, an enemy to communications freedom.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @06:55PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2015, @06:55PM (#267116)

    Barton sounds like a typical Republican:

    "We need to do something about it. ISIS and the terrorist networks can't beat us militarily, but they are really trying to use the Internet and all of the social media to try to intimidate and beat us psychologically."

    What exactly is he so afraid of? We all understand that Republicans are afraid of widows and orphans because, you know, they might be terrorist widows or orphans, but here he seems to be saying that Daesh is going to post bad things about the United States of America on Facebook, or something. And maybe they would go so far as to unfriend us, and get all their friends to unfriend us as well!! Pretty soon we all be losers!! Ben Carson for President! He's got a foreign policy just like this!!