French authorities want to block Tor and ban free Wi-Fi in wake of Paris terror attacks

[hahahanoobs]

lets strip people of their ability to communicate at all in the midst of a state of emergency in an attempt to stop 3 bad guys from communicating!
I have lived between rural and urban america, and I imagine you have clearly stayed in mostly urban. there are many rural places where you simply do not have reliable cell service or internet. Heck even in urban areas you dont always have it. Stopping people from communicating AFTER terrorists have committed a terrorist attack doesnt keep anyone safe more than it prevents them from finding safety themselves or ensuring the safety of their loved ones.

If you are so naive as to assume that EVERYONE has phone or internet access all the time I don't know what to tell you, as thats not even close to the case even in america. Even one percent of the (american, as an example) population amounts to over 3 million people, and roughly 20% of the population lives in rural areas. I wouldnt not at all find it hard to believe that 1/20 people living in rural areas dont have constant access to the internet or a phone in their homes or around it, At that point youre cutting them off from the outside world and knowledge of any huge threat in an attempt to stop a few people from communicating after their crime. And no, public hotspots wont connect all those people, but it will quite a few.

ITT: We remove at least thousands of peoples ability to communicate in the wake of an emergency to stop 10 people from communicating, even though those 10 people probably have pre planned their next move.

I never said everyone had internet - anywhere. Calling me naive is hypocritical. You are speculating to the point of believing what you are imagining. Like I said about the one word changed in the title. You're going off the deep end on a POSSIBILITY. And after reading one whole article. *claps*

What if's are fun to play with. Treating them as anything else is naive.

This made me lol: "I have lived between rural and urban america" (article is about terrorist attack in France). My guess is you don't live in Boston or NY, but that doesn't stop you from pretending to be an expert....

 

[VitalyT]

Utterly misdirected cause, vindicating political inadequacy.

 

[h4expo]

Advocating censorship and eliminating privacy, sounds like the terrorists achieve their goals either way.

Did you even read the article?

Yes. My analogy is by extension (of thought) the interpretation of the terrorists actions as advocating less freedom for the general populace to mitigate a minority threat instituted in the heat of the moment. This in turn causes people who want to communicate in a law abiding way fear of reprisal or worse from and through their governing body and surveillance. Not to mention the cascading effects this has on legal policy. So in effect terrorism when reacted to like this accomplishes its goals either way.

 

[oldikes]

I never said everyone had internet - anywhere. Calling me naive is hypocritical. You are speculating to the point of believing what you are imagining. Like I said about the one word changed in the title. You're going off the deep end on a POSSIBILITY. And after reading one whole article. *claps*

What if's are fun to play with. Treating them as anything else is naive.

"I never said everyone had internet - anywhere. "
"No one said you couldn't use the Internet connection you are paying for or going to a friends or relatives house ..."

*assumes everyone has access to internet in the immediate area*


How is it speculation that millions of people across the globe dont have consistent internet or phone access? you can look into that fact for yourself. Its not speculation that removing public wifi removes peoples access to the internet and thus a form of communication, because thats the reason public wifi became popular, to give people internet access who didnt have it consistently elsewhere. I don't even know what youre arguing anymore, as your post contains no real retort. You just seem desperate for me to be wrong at this point.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Yes. My analogy is by extension (of thought) the interpretation of the terrorists actions as advocating less freedom for the general populace to mitigate a minority threat instituted in the heat of the moment. This in turn causes people who want to communicate in a law abiding way fear of reprisal or worse from and through their governing body and surveillance. Not to mention the cascading effects this has on legal policy. So in effect terrorism when reacted to like this accomplishes its goals either way.

There goal was to KILL, and they succeeded so what are you talking about?

This article is about protecting the french people after the fact. The government knows something has to be done - NOW. This article is about what steps are being CONSIDERED - not CONFIRMED. Ike and his crew don't care about the people. They have a different agenda and it's to stir the pot. Ike's comments are full of outrage, because people could lose their Internet for a while. What about their freedom, he says?! Oh the HORROR, he says!

You'd think someone was threatening to cut HIS internet!

 

[hahahanoobs]

"I never said everyone had internet - anywhere. "
"No one said you couldn't use the Internet connection you are paying for or going to a friends or relatives house ..."

*assumes everyone has access to internet in the immediate area*

Me - "No one said you couldn't use the Internet connection you are paying for or going to a friends or relatives house ..."
Ike - *assumes everyone has access to internet in the immediate area*

^Learn to read and comprehend, okay? Start with the definition of the word, "or". Get back to me when you have done that.

 

[oldikes]

There goal was to KILL, and they succeeded so what are you talking about?

This article is about protecting the french people after the fact. The government knows something has to be done - NOW. This article is about what steps are being CONSIDERED - not CONFIRMED. Ike and his crew don't care about the people. They have a different agenda and it's to stir the pot.

I would take a bullet for any damn stranger on the street so id appreciate it if you don't presume to know me or how much I "care about people". I don't give two craps about the pot. I have no desire to participate in any politics. My concern is for the safety of the average citizen and for the ability of them to communicate when need be. your post seems to be a pretty desperate considering its content so im not going to be giving anyone as low as you any more of my time. I also never once mentioned freedom, that was not my concern nearly as much so as the actual safety of the people.

 

[davislane1]

There goal was to KILL, and they succeeded so what are you talking about?

This article is about protecting the french people after the fact. The government knows something has to be done - NOW. This article is about what steps are being CONSIDERED - not CONFIRMED. Ike and his crew don't care about the people. They have a different agenda and it's to stir the pot. Ike's comments are full of outrage, because people could lose their Internet for a while. What about their freedom, he says?! Oh the HORROR, he says!

You'd think someone was threatening to cut HIS internet!

If Europe et. al. were interested in protecting their people, they would refuse Muslim immigrants. If they want to do something now, they should scrutinize French mosques.

But they won't do that. They won't do it because it's politically incorrect and mean.

Instead, they'll do what the U.S. has done since 9/11: seek to expand depth and scope of their power in the name of safety and security.

 

[Squid Surprise]

If Europe et. al. were interested in protecting their people, they would refuse Muslim immigrants. If they want to do something now, they should scrutinize French mosques.

But they won't do that. They won't do it because it's politically incorrect and mean.

Instead, they'll do what the U.S. has done since 9/11: seek to expand depth and scope of their power in the name of safety and security.

I see, we should decide that these terror attacks are actually the fault of the entire Muslim religion, and start discriminating against them all?!!??!

You DO realize that there are well over a BILLION Muslims in the world.... and more than 99% of them are completely innocent of this....

People need to understand that this ISN'T a war against Muslims!!! This is a war against fanatical terrorists - who are using the Muslim faith as a pretext to commit their atrocities...

ISIS and other terror organizations WANT you to declare war against Islam - because then they'll have a billion more people on THEIR side!

 

[sdms96825]

"You DO realize that there are well over a BILLION Muslims in the world.... and more than 99% of them are completely innocent of this...."

That sounds about right. About 10,000,000 (1%) of them are guilty of this . . .

 

[Squid Surprise]

"You DO realize that there are well over a BILLION Muslims in the world.... and more than 99% of them are completely innocent of this...."

That sounds about right. About 10,000,000 (1%) of them are guilty of this . . .

I did say MORE than 99%.... I suspect you can blame the same percentage of any other religion of being reprehensible fanatics... the people who shot up columbine weren't Muslims....

 

[Emexrulsier]

I'll just get my customers to pay 1p to access my "internet", on the successful connection we will run a promotion where you are given a refund if you browse for more than 0.0001ms. There is you first loophole in this stupid retarded law thought up with no thought put into it at all.

 

[HiImTim]

Block wifi?? how will people mark themselves as safe in facebook's safety check?

 

[treetops]

They said ISIS has access to passport making machines left behind by the various government and military installation they have over ridden. An unlimited supply of fake credentials. What would actually make sense would be to require a new updated passport based on your fingerprint. Or if they did that 20 years ago when it was available.

Now its kind of moot, no one can prove your not who you say you are anyways. At least it would help the next few generations if we started now.

 

[davislane1]

I see, we should decide that these terror attacks are actually the fault of the entire Muslim religion, and start discriminating against them all?!!??!

You DO realize that there are well over a BILLION Muslims in the world.... and more than 99% of them are completely innocent of this....

People need to understand that this ISN'T a war against Muslims!!! This is a war against fanatical terrorists - who are using the Muslim faith as a pretext to commit their atrocities...

ISIS and other terror organizations WANT you to declare war against Islam - because then they'll have a billion more people on THEIR side!

When Europe and America show spinelessness and reluctance in defending and their cultures and bend over backwards to appease people with opposing values, while religiously consistent groups like ISIS expand and promote their own, you're already losing the "moderate" Muslims. Nobody backs a horse that won't even put up a fight.

Furthermore, it isn't Japanese or Scandanavians who pose a threat to European nations and America: it's Muslims.

Putting everyone under surveillance while ignoring the meeting places of the group responsible for the threat is both inefficient and daft.

Recall that in WWII we put the Japanese and Japanese Americans in camps. No social ills became of it.

On the other hand, a lot of bad did result when a mere percentage of Germans went into full-on conquest mode while the nice moderates did nothing to stop them.

If they want to be serious about preventing Islamic terrorism, they need to scrutinize Islamists and refuse to grant them entry as immigrants. Very simple. Anything else is a power grab.

 

[mailpup]

Recall that in WWII we put the Japanese and Japanese Americans in camps. No social ills became of it.

The Japanese Americans had quite a different view of the experience.

 

[davislane1]

The Japanese Americans had quite a different view of the experience.

I didn't say they liked it.

 

[mailpup]

Ah, but you said, "No social ills became of it." This is what I dispute.

 

[davislane1]

Ah, but you said, "No social ills became of it." This is what I dispute.

Cite one example from post-WWII America where there were significant long-term social consequences to rounding up Japanese following Pearl Harbor.

We put them in camps during WWII. After the war, they integrated right back into society.

We dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. After the war, we became allies and now have huge trade with one another.

The argument that "you're going to upset x if you do y, and x is really not a problem" is BS. That's the same nonsense Chamberlain believed about the Germans. It's also the same nonsense that prevented us from ending the Vietnam War from the start. It's also what got us stuck in the Middle East after 9/11.

The fact of the matter is that trying to be diplomatic and understanding when it comes to national security gets people killed, and the arguments for non-discrimination (when the adversary exists exclusively within ONE population group) are based on feelings rather than facts, or anything resembling consistent logic.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Cite one example from post-WWII America where there were significant long-term social consequences to rounding up Japanese following Pearl Harbor.

We put them in camps during WWII. After the war, they integrated right back into society.

We dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. After the war, we became allies and now have huge trade with one another.

The argument that "you're going to upset x if you do y, and x is really not a problem" is BS. That's the same nonsense Chamberlain believed about the Germans. It's also the same nonsense that prevented us from ending the Vietnam War from the start. It's also what got us stuck in the Middle East after 9/11.

The fact of the matter is that trying to be diplomatic and understanding when it comes to national security gets people killed, and the arguments for non-discrimination (when the adversary exists exclusively within ONE population group) are based on feelings rather than facts, or anything resembling consistent logic.

Wow.... it's bigoted irrational hatred like this that is the reason for most of our problems in the first place! And to say that no social ills occurred to us for interring the Japanese during WWII?!?!?! I suspect you might want to talk to the numerous Japanese-Americans living in your country today.... not to mention a lot of the business practices by many Asian countries that have helped to destabilize the US economy - almost certainly DIRECTLY in response to racist US policies in the past....

Do you want to wonder about WHY Muslim countries banded together against the "West" in the first place? Why do you think OPEC exists?

When you declare war against an entire religion, don't be surprised when they strike back!! Why on Earth do we WANT to make a billion people our enemies?!?!?! How will this make for a safer and more secure future?!!?!?

 

[mailpup]

My parents are citizens of the USA by birth (well, my father passed away last year, so was a citizen). My father was born in Indiana and my mother in California. My parent's (they met after the war) and grandparent's lives were totally disrupted by internment and lost nearly everything they had. I know the rest of their lives were severely negatively impacted but I'm not inclined to give you their personal histories after the war but they were quite bitter about their treatment. My wife's family had much the same experience. So I know this might not be enough to satisfy your demand for "one example" but that's all you're going to get from me. By the way, despite being held in camps some of my sister's brothers were drafted and served in the US Army. Similarly, my wife's father and his brother's also were drafted into the U.S. Army. It's interesting that these threats to national security were trained to kill and armed by Uncle Sam.

Government discrimination against Japanese and other "undesirable" aliens (I.e. Asians) was not limited to wartime. In California (where my parents lived pre-war) there was the California Alien Land Law of 1913 and 1920 which essentially prevented non-citizen Japanese (and other Asians) from owning land in California. Wartime discrimination was not just a one time hiccup in the history of government's treatment of Japanese.

 

[davislane1]

Wow.... it's bigoted irrational hatred like this that is the reason for most of our problems in the first place!

You understand that the consistent labeling people who dare disagree with multicultural values as bigoted and hateful has destroyed the meaning of the terms, no? Quite literally, I don't care. Nor do millions of others, as evidenced by shift to far-right populism in Europe and Donald Trump's success in the U.S. primaries.

My position is entirely rational:

Standard Islamic doctrine states that infidels are to be converted or killed.
Islamists conduct jihad on European and American soil.
Muslims have Islamic values.
Non-Muslims don't have Islamic values.
Therefore, Islamists (Muslims) should be scrutinized.

That's entirely consistent logic.

Now, how about you explain how this position is even remotely intelligent:

Standard Islamic doctrine states that infidels are to be converted or killed.
Islamists conduct jihad on European and American soil.
Muslims have Islamic values.
Non-Muslims don't have Islamic values.
Therefore, everybody should be scrutinized.

almost certainly DIRECTLY in response to racist US policies in the past....

Quite a bold claim. Show me a major economic policy drafted by an Asian nation explicitly to punish the United States for "past wrongs." I triple dog dare you, bro.

When you declare war against an entire religion, don't be surprised when they strike back!! Why on Earth do we WANT to make a billion people our enemies?!?!?! How will this make for a safer and more secure future?!!?!?

Islamists declared war against everyone else. Read the Koran.

Or, better yet, read the news:

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/...stops-sharia-court-here-is-her-epic-response/

My parents are citizens of the USA by birth (well, my father passed away last year, so was a citizen). My father was born in Indiana and my mother in California. My parent's (they met after the war) and grandparent's lives were totally disrupted by internment and lost nearly everything they had. I know the rest of their lives were severely negatively impacted but I'm not inclined to give you their personal histories after the war but they were quite bitter about their treatment. My wife's family had much the same experience. So I know this might not be enough to satisfy your demand for "one example" but that's all you're going to get from me. By the way, despite being held in camps some of my sister's brothers were drafted and served in the US Army. Similarly, my wife's father and his brother's also were drafted into the U.S. Army. It's interesting that these threats to national security were trained to kill and armed by Uncle Sam.

Government discrimination against Japanese and other "undesirable" aliens (I.e. Asians) was not limited to wartime. In California (where my parents lived pre-war) there was the California Alien Land Law of 1913 and 1920 which essentially prevented non-citizen Japanese (and other Asians) from owning land in California. Wartime discrimination was not just a one time hiccup in the history of government's treatment of Japanese.

Anecdotes are irrelevant. I asked you to cite a specific long-term social consequence. How have Japanese today been negatively impacted by WWII internment? How were they negatively impacted by it in the 80s or 90s? Give one example.

 

[mailpup]

Here's what I find irrelevant. Whether or not there were long-term social consequences is, IMHO, irrelevant. We have this thing called the Constitution which is supposed to protect us from the tyranny of government. It doesn't matter whether or not the trampling of the rights of its people has temporary, lasting or permanent effects. The denial of rights to some is a denial to all.

What was that quote...? From Martin Niemöller:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

FWIW, generally I am a constitutional strict constructionist and politically somewhere between libertarian and conservative in most things. The expedient thing and the emotionally popular thing is not necessarily the right thing in my view. I believe that both liberals and conservatives would like to ignore or minimize the parts of the Constitution that they don't like (and I can even understand why without necessarily agreeing with them). For example, some liberals might want to outlaw guns. I feel it is protected by the Constitution. Deal with it. Some conservatives might want to ignore due process but it's protected by the Constitution. Too bad. When the government does the expedient thing and tries to ignore the Constitution we all lose. The Constitution guarantees rights our enemies would deny us. Do we have to do it for them?

 

[davislane1]

So you have no examples. Understood.

Insofar as the constitution, I have not suggested nor supported anything unconstitutional. Denying Muslim immigrants isn't unconstitutional. Scrutinizing mosques isn't unconstitutional either.

More importantly, the constitution has nothing to do with how France handles its security, which is what the thread is about.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Definition of Bigoted: Utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

So yes, I don't see a problem in labeling you as bigoted...it's what the word means after all... And it's people like you that are making the world the terrible place that it is becoming...
_______________

"Show me a major economic policy drafted by an Asian nation explicitly to punish the United States for "past wrongs." I triple dog dare you, bro."

Well, obviously no major policy has ever been drafted for one single reason.... by ANY nation.... but I think we can look at Mao's anti-US policies in China as pretty much his response to the US involvement in occupying Taiwan - and participating in the fairly major civil war that raged for years in China... We're still feeling the effects of this conflict today...

And while noone can claim to know Putin's reasons for doing anything, I bet a lot of Russians would tell you that he enjoys the support he has now because of his "anti-west" ideals and his attempt to place Russian back as the #1 (or #2 if you're an American) superpower...

________________

I've read the Koran - something I highly doubt you have.... and I'd like you to quote where it says that war has been declared on the rest of the world... Yes, it does espouse converting nonbelievers - by force if necessary.... Ever read the "Christian" bible??!!?!? If you don't believe that Jesus is your Lord and saviour, you go to Hell.... and you are therefore commanded to convert people to the faith.... Ever hear of the Crusades? or the Inquisition!?!?!

If you'd bother doing some real research, you'd realize that the VAST majority of ALL religions are peaceful - religions tend to exist in order to keep people acting "rightly" - faith, obedience, etc... there are fanatics in all, unfortunately, which ruins it for everyone else....