It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are You OK With Government Regulation of the Internet to Reduce Terrorism?.

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Advantage
Absolutely NOT... few reasons .
#1 potential for abuse of violating such a law/categorizing what is hate speech/terrorism/etc
#2 No way to monitor what trends are actually taking place and manipulating those trends
#3 I refuse to penalize anyone for thoughts.. even thoughts I find repugnant. We should never ever allow ourselves to even look at that slippery slope.

This terrorism issue has to be handled vigilantly and precisely. Check points, monitoring commerce on certain things... which we already do, but have NOT used it to prevent much. International movement and travel agreements... El Al level travel profiling and physical security. Israeli Air is the safest and can be proven with its track record. We look like pathetic amateurs at best.. allowing terrorism at worst with our pathetic TSA. We should have listen to the security advise given by El Al yrs ago... but people whined about profiling. Too bad. Hell, I look like those who would be stopped and profiled. Fine.. I dont care. There are SO many ways to deal with this that we have not utelized because someone might be offended ... the deaths of innocent folks being prevented trumps your fragile and tender sensibilities.. sorry.


I understand your position on restricting the Internet. I don't care if "they" monitor what I say online...or on the cellphone for that matter. But it would be annoying if the government were to cut off access to ATS, or wipe-out ATS threads, if the content enabled terrorists in some way.

As far as defeating terrorism.. the countries need to get the leaders. It's not like they're mystery people..at least I don't think they are.




posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
No, I'd rather just keep them the hell out of our country. But since that won't be allowed to happen, and I don't want regulation of the internet, I say we just live with terror attacks and hope it isn't your family that becomes a victim. Eventually they will get their hands on nuclear and/or biological weapons, but oh well, this is the politically correct path we have chosen.
edit on 5-6-2017 by TruMcCarthy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Regulating the internet isn't going to do anything. It's not like extremist terrorist wanna-be's are going to www.signupforterrorismschool.com or something.

There are a billion ways to use the internet backbone to transfer information that have nothing to do with having a webpage or some other crap. They can always use it in ways that most people would never know about anyway. About all they can do is monitor the traffic that crosses it, which can always be encrypted or made to look innocent using code language or something. Or shut it down so nobody uses it.

It's already being used to monitor everyone anyway. Censoring it isn't going to do anyone any good other than give the Government an open to censor what they don't like which would go way past just terrorism.

So no way. Not good.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: carewemust

I don't like it.

The law would be abused.



I think of it as sacrificing (although I don't know what), to save the lives of innocent citizens around the globe.

Unfortunately though, prevention doesn't allow you to quantify how many people are saved... does it?


That's why people can argue for TSA.

Now imagine TSA being in charge of what you read, see, and say on-line.




posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm


You make good points, mOjOm. I guess the proper way to monitor is for the providers of social media to put "radical jihad" sensors in place or something.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: carewemust

I don't like it.

The law would be abused.



I think of it as sacrificing (although I don't know what), to save the lives of innocent citizens around the globe.

Unfortunately though, prevention doesn't allow you to quantify how many people are saved... does it?


That's why people can argue for TSA.

Now imagine TSA being in charge of what you read, see, and say on-line.



I don't want ANYONE censoring what I read or see online. Least of all, the TSA.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Thats why I say absolutely NOT to any sort of censorship by any government or international body tasked with oversight. Like here at ATS... its NOT a democracy. Its a dictatorship and the dicks will ban you if lines are crossed. Of course I mean dick in the most loving way of course.. but it should remain in the hands of and at the discretion of the site owners and moderation staff.

The most pukey blue hard core liberal manbun on here would turn in a plot or a person who they had reasonable suspicion of committing a crime. I trust the owner and mods here than I do my own government to suss out a threat vs a non threat... scary as hell but true.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I'm not sure monitoring any more than they already do is going to do anything. I mean what is it about every terror attack that is always the same. Well, one thing as there is more than one actually. But the one I'm talking about is the fact that every single one of them has already been known to police or FBI as someone to watch for their extreme ideas.

So I think they have them monitored plenty already. But for some reason they always seem to looking the other way when these guys decide to snap.

Like if I snapped and did something I'd understand why nobody knew until I did it. I'm not on known to LEO's as some extremist who might do something. But it seems all these people always are and they've all had run ins with the cops at some point. Yet nobody is watching when they decide to do something crazy.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join