Donald Trump Says He'll Turn Off The Internet For Terrorists

from the uh,-how? dept

This isn’t the first time he’s said this, but on Monday, Presidential candidate Donald Trump once again insisted that part of his plan to “Make America Great Again” is to stop bad people from using the internet:


My Administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cutoff their funding, expanded intelligence sharing, and cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting. We cannot allow the internet to be used as a recruiting tool, and for other purposes, by our enemy โ€“ we must shut down their access to this form of communication, and we must do so immediately.

Almost no one covered this because everyone was focused on other stuff in the speech about his new “tests” for letting foreigners into the country. But this still remains a pretty big concern, in part because of just how technically clueless this is. Sure, we’ve seen some others suggest similarly dumb ideas, but no one seems to bother to think through how this might be done and what a mess it would create.

There’s no way you can “disrupt” or block them from using the internet without also cutting off millions of innocent people — many of whom almost certainly rely on the internet for all sorts of important things. And, on top of that, any solution would be of only limited effectiveness in the long run anyway. There are increasingly new ways and new paths to get online — whether through wireless mesh networks or, eventually, from things like drones and satellites. Thinking that you can magically take an entire group of people off the internet is profoundly silly.

At the same time, as we’ve noted, the most ridiculous part in this idea that we should kick terrorists off the internet is the fact that the intelligence community has said that tracking what they’re saying online has been tremendously beneficial in tracking terrorists, their views and their plans. Why would you want to cut off such a source of intelligence gathering?

The whole thing, like so much of this Presidential campaign, seems to be yet another example of a candidate saying what people want to hear with little to no thought about what it actually means, whether it would do any good or how to implement the plan.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Donald Trump Says He'll Turn Off The Internet For Terrorists”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
100 Comments
James Burkhardtsays:

Yes, Mr. Trump. Lets Magically cut off the internet for any terrorists, while keeping the internet up for everyone else. Ive got just the button its just that no one’s asked me to use the “no terroists” Button before. Of course, we’ll be preventing our intellegence agencies from gathering all that terrorist chatter that is the supposed reason for all that mass data collection, so we’ll probably want to shut that down, unless we have some sort of ulterior motive for the collect it all mentality?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

Nah it is clear he is a Genious. The FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and NSA have never even thought of using the internet before for anything. They likely never even looked at a computer before this week. Now that he said it out loud, he gets to for all of time claim it was because of him if anyone does anything on a computer relating to terrorism.

[sigh…]

Anonymoussays:

Re: Techdirt Insiders [was Re: ]

Hey! I see that Techdirt ?Insider? badge on your gravatar! I wonder why I don’t see more of them?

Just now, I’ve been thinking that the program needs something to snazz it up: Selectable badges! Instead of the boring old ?insider? badge, people could adorn their gravatars with choices:

? Insider
? Outsider
? Upsider
? Downsider
? Leftsider
? Rightsider
? Wrongsider
? * Sider
? Planetsider
? Sider
? Cider
? Sodder
? Corner

D’ya think Masnick’d like that idea? How ’bout you? Do you like that idea? Would you rather wear one of those badges on your gravatar?

There could even be a vote on the most popular badge!

P.S. Staying on topic: Donald Trump is a troll.

Bergmansays:

Re: Re:

And then watch Trump have an epic meltdown when he discovers he has lost access to the internet.

After all, the primary difference between a Presidential drone strike program and the World Trade Center attack on 9/11 is the 9/11 attackers were courageous and put their lives on the line for their act of terrorism, while drone controllers might not even leave the borders of the United States.

I.T. Guysays:

I have to say… since I cant actually say it on the advertising posts… and this is PRICELESS:

The Big Brother Dilemma: Easing Employee Fears About Location Tracking

Blackberry would certainly know ALL about that huh guys?

This one was priceless too:
Inside Job: Protecting Files From Their Biggest Threat – Your Employees (And our devices… oops!!!)

Still waiting for an article about the fat gov contract Blackberry got and the speculation of how they are so willing to turn over user data to the authorities may be just why.

On topic: Trump has proven himself to be a complete fool. Almost as if it is being done on purpose.

“We cannot allow the internet to be used as a recruiting tool, and for other purposes, by our enemy ? we must shut down their access to this form of communication, and we must do so immediately.”
That’s a stretch to say he’d shut down the whole internet.

I would like to see it happen. You think SOPA caused an uproar. Man… if the Pokemon Go crowd couldn’t catch em all due to an egotistical maniac shutting the internet… they would riot in the streets I tell ya.

AJsays:

Now hang on a minute.. He may not have used the precise wording that I would have liked to see, however, I didn’t get that he was implying that you could “magically” remove their access to the internet or somehow stop them from going on line by what he said. I took away that he was suggesting using our resources to attack and disable their propaganda and recruiting web sites and perhaps even their funding.

The way he phrased his idea sucked as usual, but I think I’m going to put my pitch fork and torch back in the barn on this one…..but i’ll keep them handy!!!

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Trump’s choice of phrasing for his ideas is about as relevant as the lighting you choose for photographing a heap of horse crap.

I disagree. This is someone competing for the office of the President of the United States. How he speaks and conveys thoughts IS extremely important, as he’s speaking for the entire nation.

Now why a party would nominate such an ignorant pile of pig shit with political Tourettes is unclear to me.

But I’d argue that his ability to articulate thoughts is significant.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

[My previous reply got automodded—I guess I should’ve expected that. Here’s a rephrased version that hopefully won’t trigger the filter.]

But I’d argue that his ability to articulate thoughts is significant.

Why? Why is it significant? Would you argue that Rick Astley’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ">ability to articulate thoughts</a> is significant?

John Fendersonsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

This.

“Donald Trump is misunderstood” is not even close to an adequate explanation, even if it is true.

The words a President speaks mean a lot more, and are analyzed a lot harder, than those spoken by others. Misunderstandings can cause major problems, including wars.

The ability to make yourself clear is an essential skill for being President, and when Trump repeatedly shows that (at best) he cannot seem to accomplish even that, he shows that he has no business in the office.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, sir George W. Bush suffered from something alike what Trump has. I guess the need for a well-articulated president hasn’t grown in at least that party.

While foreign policy is an important field for the president and articulation is of essence in that field, I would be more inclined to look at his advisors for understanding his positions. Not that even such a lenient analysis of his policies is to his advantage.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

But add to what else he has said (borrowed from the link found below)
—————————-
“We’re losing a lot of people because of the internet, and we have to do something,” Trump said at a rally earlier this month. “We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them maybe in certain areas closing that internet up in some way.”

He returned to that theme in last night’s Republican primary debate: “We should be using our brilliant people ? our most brilliant minds to figure a way that ISIS cannot use the internet.”

When pressed on this point by Wolf Blitzer, Trump stuck to his guns: “I would certainly be open to closing areas where we are at war with somebody. I sure as hell don’t want to let people that want to kill us and kill our nation use our internet.”
—————————

So it’s OUR internet? I’m pretty sure the WWW stands for WORLD WIDE WEB. It doesn’t belong to this “our” he refers to.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/16/10303256/donald-trump-internet-dumb

PaulTsays:

Re: Re:

“I took away that he was suggesting using our resources to attack and disable their propaganda and recruiting web sites and perhaps even their funding.”

That still opens up the same response – how? How is this done without unacceptable collateral damage, how is this done in any way that actually effective and how is this done without committing actions that inadvertently help the cause you’re supposedly fighting? That’s even before you get to the question of exactly who he thinks is hosting and funding the sites.

Like his comments on building a wall, dealing with Muslim terrorists, etc., it’s not just the piss-poor phrasing that’s the problem. It’s that there’s not any thought to the way these things would actually be done. The realities of doing any of these things is not compatible with the scenarios he thinks he’s addressing.

It’s superficial soundbite politics at its worst, only this time even the soundbites are garbled.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“How is this done without unacceptable collateral damage, how is this done in any way that actually effective and how is this done without committing actions that inadvertently help the cause you’re supposedly fighting? That’s even before you get to the question of exactly who he thinks is hosting and funding the sites.”

Any action at all will be spun by the left to be shown as either ineffective, or stupid in some way. I’ve given up trying to explain things. I will say this; I lived in the middle east, in a couple of different countries, during a couple of different periods.. I saw first hand what it’s all about and I came to this understanding.

They don’t hate Americans or Europeans because we are white and/or are from a specific geographical location, they don’t even hate us because of our politics.. although I would agree our politics make a bad situation worse….. no. It’s not that simple.

They hate our freedoms, they hate that our woman can vote, own property, are equals. They hate that we are tolerant with homosexuals and alternative life styles, they hate us because we don’t have our asses in the air 5 times a day worshiping some bush burning god some where… etc… It’s been this way for a very long time, and all the tolerance in the world on our part is not going to change the fact that a certain percentage of them are taught from birth that the west, and all it represents, is evil and needs to be destroyed.

I don’t get the left. They claim to be champions of human rights, gays, minorities, woman’s rights, etc… then make excuses for those who’s only mission in life is to destroy those rights. The Right isn’t your enemy… you want to marry the same sex, cross dress, smoke your weed, play Robin Hood with social programs, defend your right to abortion.. have at it man, as long as you don’t try to force any of it on me, I’ll leave you alone to do your own shit.. try that with them, they won’t leave you alone, they’ll cut your fucking head off, video tape it, and show it on the internet for the whole world to see.. The Right is not the enemy, the very people the Left is hell bent on defending are.. but no one can tell them that, that just won’t hear it.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Do you people ever tire of this kind of thing? I mean, you could participate in an honest debate, maybe even try to explain why the candidate under discussion fails not only at describing any depth to his proposed policies, but fails at proposing plans that would work to begin with.

But, no. We have a litany of whining and deflection. Whining about “the left” as if there’s only 2 possible political viewpoints. Whining about imagined slights that stop you from offering any substance to what you propose, even though what has been proposed is both dangerous and unworkable. Trying to pretend that the views of conservatives in the Middle East have anything to do with the views of non-conservative Americans. Trying to pretend that you don’t have to do anything to improve the quality of your country because other countries are much worse.

Do you tire of being such a liar and a victim?

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You’re a liar because you lied in your post above, and you revelled in false equivalence and oversimplifiction.

You’re a victim because you’re acting like one. I love the touch of complaining about human rights abuses in the middle east, then immediately whining that “the left” wants you to treat minorities as equal human beings and make you to do likewise, by the way. In between erecting strawmen to criticise, that particular piece of cognitive dissonance was rather amusing.

I’d love an honest debate, but you immediately signalled that you want no such thing. Your excuse for such a bad candidate is that “the left” would immediately criticise any plan he put forward. It’s not his fault, nor “the right” or whatever label you want to criticise, he’s talking utter shite because the “left” are so mean to him. If only he’d pick a platform that’s realistic and not so easily mockable, huh?

Maybe next time, try not playing the victim in your very first sentence if you don’t want to be labelled as such. If you want a reasonable discussion, try coming up with a defense of this fool that doesn’t amount to “but the left are so mean to us!!!” Try not instantly deflecting attention away from the man you so valiantly step into defend – discuss his merits, if he has them.

Anonymoussays:

Trump floating ridiculous ideas is nothing new and it’s come to symbolize just how completely ignorant the general public is about science in general and technologies like the Internet and computers specifically. Many of these same people are already in Congress trying to pass similar inane laws and policies to the detriment of US society as a whole. It’s not just Republicans, either. It’s Democrats, who consider themselves ‘well meaning’ but are just as ignorant (often willfully so) or outright malicious in the form of several three letter agencies.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

“Trump floating ridiculous ideas is nothing new and it’s come to symbolize just how completely ignorant the general public is about science in general and technologies like the Internet and computers specifically.”

Considering Trump’s poll numbers, one might conclude there are many who understand things that Trump does not.

In addition, considering the average voter turn out, members of congress were elected by a very small percentage of the eligible voters.

Comparing the ignorance or maliciousness between groups of people involves much more feel than fact and you certainly find undesirables in every group, so opinions are like bungholes …

John85851says:

Re: Re:

Sure, the general public might be ignorant and go along with Trump, but where are the people from intelligence agencies to say they use social media to infiltrate and learn about enemy groups? How do they feel about Trump talking about taking away one of their best tools to track terrorists? What if Trump does become president and he figures out a way to do what he says? Sure, it’s a long shot, but last year, it was long shot that he’d become the Republican candidate.

I’m not sure what’s worse: that Trump is saying these kinds of things or the fact that there’s not much blow-back about it.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people

Education does not equal salvation. Good, high paying jobs does not equal salvation. The major communist leaders of the last 100 years had the top jobs in their country and were educated to some level and still put many millions of people in the ground.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people

Osama bin Laden came from a wealthy Saudi family and studied at a Saudi University. I’m sure he would say he is educated, if you could ask him.

Someone whose education is different from what you recieved doesn’t make them uneducated. And it doesn’t mean they want or need your education.

To think the terrorists are uneducated because they a “fundamentalist religious people” is to woefully underestimate them. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and that doesn’t happen by accident. They seem to be doing a better job of educating people to their vision than anyone else. And they don’t need or want anyone else to come along and give them a “proper” education. They believe they have already done that.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people

I have news for you, the elites are always well educated, and well indoctrinated to be rulers of the lesser people. Cutting the Internet will not effect their chances of an education, but will severely limit the opportunities for the lesser people. The elites like it that way, as it makes it much easier for them to maintain an air of superiority, and brainwash the ‘lesser people’ into dying to advance the objectives of the elites.
Perhaps if you read Malala Yousafzai’s story you will understand what I am saying. Perhaps you will also realize that Muslims span as wide a view on their religion as Christians, and stop tarring them all with the same brush.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people

Their religion was founded by a mass-murdering pederast who heard voices in his head telling him to kill everyone who disagreed with him and even animals he thought were incarnations of the devil. Christ by contrast was a peacenik who was executed as a political dissident. Buddha didn’t do much else but contemplate the nature of the universe and get fat. So no, I really don’t care what brush Muslims paint their cult with, I don’t want them here and I don’t want their sick cult founder’s garbage being spewed over the airwaves. Sam Harris is absolutely correct that there is nothing redeeming about Islam, that it is “the motherlode of bad ideas.”

The Quran is good for toilet paper and not much else. If it wasn’t for the Meccans sitting on a gold mine of petroleum, this religion and all 1.6B of its inbred kissing cousins would have been wiped off the face of the earth a long time ago.

Oh, and that Mala girl is a brainwashed idiot with a severe case of cognitive dissonance. She still clings to the same cult that prompted a crew of maniacs to make an assassination attempt on her life for the “crime” of going to school. Note that the “Assassins” were the predecessors to ISIS way back in the day.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people

And you sound like ant radical Imman criticizing the satanic west.
Christianity has been every bit as violent about enforcing its beliefs as Islam, especially in the middle ages, where and educated elite ruled an uneducated peasantry.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people

“Christianity has been every bit as violent about enforcing its beliefs as Islam, especially in the middle ages, where and educated elite ruled an uneducated peasantry.”

I see your point, and somewhat agree; But in all fairness, and not that I’m defending Christianity, I’m not fond of organized religion as a whole….but it’s been quite a while since I’ve heard of someone losing their head because they didn’t believe in Jesus.. compared to hundreds of people dying, it seems every month, simply because they don’t believe as the Muslims do, “radical” or not. I don’t think comparing the two is really an apples to apples comparison, at least not in this day and age.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people

“it’s been quite a while since I’ve heard of someone losing their head because they didn’t believe in Jesus.. compared to hundreds of people dying, it seems every month”

Have you checked outside of the mainstream US, or are you comparing American Christians with Muslims in active war zones and theocracies? If the latter, you’re not exactly comparing apples to apples either.

Oh, and one bonus: most of the people killed by Muslims are also Muslims. It seems disingenuous to blame the religion when both victim and oppressor share the same one (albeit often different sects).

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people

WTF???

“Have you checked outside of the mainstream US, or are you comparing American Christians with Muslims in active war zones and theocracies? If the latter, you’re not exactly comparing apples to apples either.”

Does it matter where or the situation? If your chopping off someones head, then your chopping off someones head. A quick google search reveals hundreds of hits of Christians losing their heads in the name of the Muslim faith up to and including this year. Aside from the occasional extremist, which admittedly do exist, lets see a modern beheading, sanctioned by the local political party or state, by a Christian on a Muslim.

I could go on all day with the links..

In Saudi Arabia, apostasy is punishable by beheading/death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Saudi_Arabia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Saudi_Arabia

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/saudi-man-sentenced-death-beheading-insulting-allah-and-mohammed

“Oh, and one bonus: most of the people killed by Muslims are also Muslims. It seems disingenuous to blame the religion when both victim and oppressor share the same one (albeit often different sects).”

Just because MORE Muslims are killed by other Muslims, does not mean you can’t “blame the religion”. If they are killing in the name of religion, then the religion is absolutely to blame. As are the people that support the religion, the extremists, and the people that tolerate the religion.
What the hell is wrong with you man? You think someone is disingenuous to blame the religion for it’s violence just because they are “both victim and oppressor” as they share the same religion? WTF is that?

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people

“Does it matter where or the situation? If your chopping off someones head, then your chopping off someones head.”

Of course it does. Is that person doing that because they believe a god told them to, because it’s convenient for a brutal political regime, in revenge for other atrocities or because they’re a paranoid schizophrenic? They might have the same result, but there’s widely different implications and different solutions.

“A quick google search reveals hundreds of hits of Christians losing their heads in the name of the Muslim faith up to and including this year”

It also shows a lot of Muslims, which was part of my point. There’s a lot of peaceful Muslims getting murdered alongside those Christians. So, it seems strange to blame the group that makes up the majority of victims when they’re fleeing persecution and violence themselves.

“If they are killing in the name of religion, then the religion is absolutely to blame. “

Cool, so Christianity is to blame for those who kill in the name of Christianity? Got it.

“You think someone is disingenuous to blame the religion for it’s violence just because they are “both victim and oppressor” as they share the same religion? WTF is that?”

It means that if a Hindu kills a Hindu, there might be more to blame than Hinduism. If a Hindu kills a Muslim, there might also be more to it, of course, but it’s strange to blame religion for telling one person not to akill and another to do so when the religion is shared.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people

“Of course it does. Is that person doing that because they believe a god told them to, because it’s convenient for a brutal political regime, in revenge for other atrocities or because they’re a paranoid schizophrenic? They might have the same result, but there’s widely different implications and different solutions.”

Bullshit. That’s a cop-out. All fundamentalists believe “god told them to”. These beheadings are part of Saudi Arabia’s culture. They’ve been doing it for a very long time. This isn’t revenge or paranoid schizophrenia, this is a fundamental religious believe that people that don’t think as they do, should die. It’s written in their law, it’s on display for all to see, you can’t cover it up, you cant explain it away. It’s right there in your face and practiced constantly… Saudi, Africa, Iran, etc etc.. it goes on and on.

“It also shows a lot of Muslims, which was part of my point. There’s a lot of peaceful Muslims getting murdered alongside those Christians. So, it seems strange to blame the group that makes up the majority of victims when they’re fleeing persecution and violence themselves.”

Another cop-out. We need blame the people doing the deed, regardless of their choice of victims. Muslims killing Muslims, Muslims killing Christians, it doesn’t matter. They are killing PEOPLE in the name of religion. Doing so right now, and doing so in some cases by state / political decree. Are all Muslims murders? No. Obviously not. But that doesn’t change the fact that the ones that ARE doing the killing, are doing so in the name of the Muslim faith.

“It means that if a Hindu kills a Hindu, there might be more to blame than Hinduism. If a Hindu kills a Muslim, there might also be more to it, of course, but it’s strange to blame religion for telling one person not to akill and another to do so when the religion is shared.”

No. If a Hidu Kills a Hindu in the name of Hinduism, then you have a situation where an extremist or secular individual or group did something out of the norm. But if thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of Hindo’s kill other Hindo’s and/or people of other religions, then you have a problem with the basic religious believe of Hindoism that has now become the root of the problem. You are completely wrong on this.

This isn’t the Crusades, or some other short (relatively compared to modern times) period of time where a religion has gone sideways and started killing people, this has been going on since it’s creation and in some cases, is sanctioned by the state.. some of which are allies of the U.S. and Europe.

Uriel-238says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Annotated

No. If a [Hindu] Kills a Hindu in the name of Hinduism, then you have a situation where an extremist or secular individual or group did something out of the norm. But if thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of [Hindus] kill other [Hindus] and/or people of other religions, then you have a problem with the basic religious [belief] of [Hinduism] that has now become the root of the problem. You are completely wrong on this.

Whatever standard you apply to one religion or ideology, you have to apply to them all. It eventually leads to thought-crime, which is messy. Or you can come to realize that human beings are capable of filtering out what really doesn’t suit them in their faith, as many do with Christianity and Judaism.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people

“Bullshit. That’s a cop-out. All fundamentalists believe “god told them to””

Of course they do. But that wasn’t my point. The point is that people like you will try to pretend that all killing done by people of a certain faith are done purely because of that faith, whether they’re committed by fundamentalists, political activists, government agents or garden variety psychos. it’s a lot more complicated than that – which people like you tend to realise because they also tend to try their hardest to wave away atrocities committed by Christians as being unrelated to their faith. A Muslim kills someone in the name of Allah, you say “that’s because of Islam. A Christian kills someone in the name of Jesus, you say “well, that’s not because of Christianity”. A clear double standard.

“We need blame the people doing the deed, regardless of their choice of victims”

Yes, we do. We need to blame the ACTUAL reasons for doing it, not just say “Muslims bad”. Especially since that leads to situations such as refugees getting attacked because of their Muslim faith, even though they’re the ones targeted for slaughter at home.

“But that doesn’t change the fact that the ones that ARE doing the killing, are doing so in the name of the Muslim faith.”

It also doesn’t change the facts that the vast majority of Muslims are doing no such thing, nor does it help to demonise the victims of such killings.

I’m talking about reality, but you reject reality as a “cop-out”. That’s pretty stupid.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people

“people like you” .. WTF does that mean? You mean people willing to do the research and not tow the leftist line? You are very incorrectly in assuming that I’m a Christian and that I haven’t beat the apologetic Bible thumping cowards to death over the very religious war you claim that I am “waving away” In the words of our pacifist teleprompter reading idiot of a president.. let me be clear… Any religion that kills in the name of religion are pieces of shit…. Crusades include..feel better? Stop deflecting and pointing at the Christians as a fucking excuse for the Muslim pieces of shit that are committing these crimes, and the Muslim pieces of shit that are tolerating them. Your an apologist / pacifist, afraid of making the people that are responsible take ownership. Make them take ownership, just like the Christians need to man up and take ownership.. stop being part of the problem.

Uriel-238says:

Re: Re: Re:11 "[Toeing] the leftist line"

Be careful that you don’t generalize people based on one or two points of disagreements. I don’t see you calling out the US conservative right whose bedfellowing with the Religious Right as turned the GOP platform in to a white Christian males club.

I know that not all conservatives are like that, but you apparently don’t have the perspective you are calling for.

Two-edged swords and all that.

Uriel-238says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Oooh! Oooh! Let me try!

Does it matter where or the situation? If [you’re] drone striking civilians, then [you’re] drone striking civilians. A quick google search reveals thousands of Afghani Muslims losing their lives in the name of a multiple-Christian-church endorsed jus bellum military campaign starting as early as 2003 and continuing through 2016 Aside from the occasional extremist, which admittedly [does] exist, lets see a modern civilian massacre campaign exceeding all the gun deaths in the US, sanctioned by the local political party or state, by a Muslim enacted on a Christian populace.

Did I do it right?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re: Oooh! Oooh! Let me try!

“Did I do it right?”

Nope.. your fucked it all up. He was saying (and he’s correct) that most Muslims are killed by other Muslims in the name of religion.. the white boy’s “multiple-Christian-church” are only killing a few by comparison…. you might cover the whitey with your rant (arguably), but it doesn’t do shit for the bulk of the murders…. nice try tho. Continue to look like an idiot at will…

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: also cutting off millions of innocent people

Did you follow the reference I gave, because if you did you would realize that Muslims have a wide range of beliefs. Many are currently fleeing Syria because the do not support radical fundamentalism., and would rather live in a foreign land than be ruled by fundamentalists.
Condemning Muslims as a whole for violence makes no more sense than blaming catholics as a whole for violence because of the IRA.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Turn off the internet for terrorists

But users might be radicalized any time. Best make it a focus-grabbing popup every 5 seconds. Also we’d need to put a similar thing on all cable & OTA tv requiring all viewers to click 73 times on the remote within 5.2 seconds every 10 seconds otherwise their contract is terminated and for OTA customers a spike up their power lines will kill all electronics in their house and melt their cellphones. Ditto all radio broadcasts, streamed podcasts etc etc. Think of the children this will save.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Turn off the internet for terrorists

Popups can be easily missed of blocked by a browser.
Better make it a forced interstitial between every single click or every 30 seconds. Whatever comes first. Also if you take too long to answer, you are clearly a terrorist.

But this is also America. So you could completely opt out of the question by paying a monthly fee to the ISP. Just say in big words “No terrorists allowed” on that payment option. They will never be able to get past that thing.

Justinsays:

Re: Re: Donald Trump Says He'll Turn Off The Internet For Terrorists

Dude…. if we did that, we would be paying millions and trillions of dollars a YEAR on internet alone, because as it is, sorry to say it mate, Comcast is SHIT. SO, Why don’t we all keep our shit in our own piles and wait for ISIS to strike online again, and idk…. MAYBE TRACK THERE MAC ADDRESS?!?!?!?! OR CONNECTION POINT!!! Wait…. he might be onto something……. YEAH RIGHT I AM!

ECAsays:

oK TECH TIME

So..
SOMEHOW, you figure a way to STOP them
You find a way that Any terrorist, or Soon to be terrorist, can not install and run anything that can use the internet..
Cyber cafe, any laptop(or friends/family laptop), Cellphone(friends/families Cellphone), Tablets, and any other way they can FIND..
So, you are going to SHUT DOWN whole nations that have Terrorists..(thats one way, and I dont know many others that WORK)

Oh!! Perchance…is there a Program that would Link to LOCAL hardware, and send messages, directly to devices..
Phone1-to Phone 2..Phone 2 to phone 3…Phone 3, to Tablet 4..
Could someone setup THERE OWN wireless setup on a computer, and send Messages to ONLY certain phones and devices as they travel Near the computer..
Could all of this be used WHILE people are going to work and school and ANY public event..and a Traveler, by Train/plane or Auto, could get this data sent to other locations VERY easily..

Could any of this be encoded??

Could a SMALL hack, be inserted into peoples devices, phones, computers that would allow this in the Background on ANY DEVICE…

Yes, Yes, yes , yes…

So with all of this..all you end up doing is SLOWING things down, a small amount..And you have FORCED the terrorists to become MORE knowledgeable..

This is funny..
as Long ago, police would monitor NEWSPAPERS for illicit activities..Prostitutes..
Then we had the internet, and Police and newspaper became concerned..and complained..
WHY???
They had a new resource and could SEE what was happening and WHERE..
If you STOPPED them using the paper or the NET, HOW would you monitor it?

WHY force things UNDER GROUND…when you can sit on a computer and WATCH things happen, and Locate people…

TRXsays:

Every few years there’s a bill to require some kind of registration and authentication for internet use. Usually it’s buried in some kind of “protect the children” or anti-porn thing.

You have a lot of people in the Fed, and probably a bunch of marketing wonks, who squee at the thought of absolute identification of every user and device on the net.

Their ideal is something like a giant mainframe with a bunch of terminals hung off it, with everything under central control.

Uriel-238says:

It's probably going to go down the way it did with guns...

Assuming that any given thing Trump says turns into actual policy (no guarantees, except the Trump guarantee)…

He’ll probably push to pass regulations on who can use the internet.

And thus only people who use the internet without state permission will become criminal.

So we’ll have a lot more criminals using the internet. Will we have a lot of criminals using the internet who are criminal for reasons other than using the internet? Hard to say.

Then we’ll get to the point that we realize those who are determined to be law abiding are at yet another disadvantage to those who are willing to break the law. And that this is not a good state of affairs.

Anonymoussays:

Trump is a non factor.

He has no chance of actually getting elected and he never wanted to be president.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/aug/17/michael-moore-donald-trump-does-not-want-to-be-president

All politicians shoot off their mouth during campaign season promising the impossible. Trump has taken this to new extremes, but we can all stick a fork in him now. He’s done.

Median Wilfredsays:

This is quite an opportunity

“Kicking terrorists off the Internet” is quite an opportunity for control freaks and “law enforcement”. It’s a great opportunity to get everything and everyone registered and inspected, and get a handle on those folks who are actually providing new services on the net, and shut them down, pronto, if they don’t pay up I mean get a license.

I think you’re all concentrating too hard on the name, and not on the thing. Nomen est not Numen, as no Roman ever wrote, ever.

Tynsays:

So?

We’ve proven this can be done with copyright infringers, becase priorities. And it’s been reasonably effective in shutting down domestic infringement sites. Love it or hate it, it’s worked.

Shutting down a person is less plausible than rerouting DNS, but that can be done, if that person is identified.

This one doesn’t bother me as much as his clearly wrong headed stance on encryption.

Neither is a deal breaker for me, though.
The President doesn’t manage this kind of thing directly anyway. It’s like thinking your college education is suddenly going to be paid for because Bernie said it would. Campaigns work this way. It’s nothing new. And Hillary has made similar implausible whoppers.

I’ll probably get yelled at now, but it’s okay.
Yelling doesn’t bother me.

Anonymoussays:

Why should we allow these backward societies to spew their cultist garbage over the airwaves? Is it really so difficult to take out their communications capabilities? I mean, if they like their 7th century, they can keep their 7th century — and keep it as far away from Western civilization as possible.

We destroyed communication towers during WW2 with no problem. No one seemed concerned about the prospect that German or Japanese civilians wouldn’t have access to the outside world, because we knew we were at war and during a war you have to resort to drastic measures to contain and ultimately destroy the enemy.

So why not destroy the Middle East by locking them in their sandbox of misery and letting them implode by killing each other, with the Western world blissfully ignorant to what kind of barbarism goes on there on a daily basis. Start by having ICANN revoke the charters for all TLDs of Islamic-majority countries. Issue a requirement that all U.S.-based telcos actively block traffic to and from this region, and negotiate a treaty with the E.U. and our Asian allies like Japan and South Korea to do the same — and make it enforceable with harsh penalties for violators.

Make their communications centers a strategic target and take them out. Same with their transportation avenues, including the airport in Saudi Arabia. Iran already destroyed all of the country’s satellite dishes. If other countries harboring terrorists won’t do the same voluntarily, we do it for them.

I don’t really see any issue with the logistics or technical ability to completely cut the Muslim world off from modern society. It’s simply a matter of political will. Are we willing to BDS Saudi Arabia and its savage Mahometan ilk, or aren’t we?

Uriel-238says:

Re: "Destroy the Middle East"

The reason we (as a people aspiring to civilization, not specifically the US) avoid such general sweeps as locking them in their sandbox of misery is that most of the people there don’t agree with the premise behind terrorist extremism. Most of them, by far, want to be industrialized and have liberties and have nothing to do with war.

Our own officials like to send our troops to unnecessary war, but they don’t like to go, themselves.

Punishing the Muslim world is punishing a lot of innocent people for the will of a few extremists and radical leaders. Our moral responsibility is to remove radical individuals from power with the least amount of collateral damage.

Sadly, our officials agree with you, in painting progress as the massacre of huge numbers of innocent civilians.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: "Destroy the Middle East"

Humor me for a minute. I like where your going, but I’m not sure it will work. Aside from all out war, how do you change a country but from the inside? Sanctions, treaties, and the like don’t seem to work, look at Iran and North Korea. Would not locking them in “their sandbox of misery” insight change from within? Like many people, I’m starting to feel frustrated with the lack of solutions. If we can’t go to war, and sanctions / treaties don’t work. What’s left to do? The U.S. is running out of money, we can’t just keep pumping them full of money, it’s not sustainable… what else is there?

I’m not being an ass, I’m seriously interested in alternatives.

Stoshsays:

Wow, we have one candidate that wants the government to throw terrorists off the internet, and the other wants the government to decide who can indulge in political speech on the internet….definite race to the bottom.

Glad I’m old enough to remember the start of the Arpanet / Internet, with it’s growing pains, and it seems also see the death of the Internet in my lifetime.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Reality

“Not me. I want Trump to have as many unfiltered outlets of expression as possible. The more he speaks his mind, the less likely he is to be president.”

The funny part is; The very thing that you think is causing him to be less likely to be president, imo, is what is going to get him elected. People don’t seem to care that he doesn’t communicate his thoughts very well, I think they are welcoming it. Not exactly sure why, but the polling numbers indicate it’s true.

John Fendersonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Reality

“Not exactly sure why, but the polling numbers indicate it’s true.”

Except that they don’t. His polling numbers have been falling. They are exceptionally low for a major party candidate at this stage in the campaign, and look to continue to fall, at least in the near term.

I don’t think that it’s a coincidence that this started happening as a more general population started listening to him speak.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Reality

? the polling numbers indicate?

Except that they don’t.

?All The Polls That Show Trump Losing, Now In One Convenient Location?, by Janie Velencia, Huffington Post, Aug 18, 2016

In a painfully awkward exchange on CNN Wednesday, Donald Trump surrogate Michael Cohen expressed confusion and disbelief that the Republican presidential nominee was actually lagging behind Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

When CNN anchor Brianna Keilar contended that Trump was ?down,? Cohen pushed back by repeatedly saying, ?says who?? and then asking, ?which polls??

?All of them,? responded Keilar, correctly.?.?.?

(Embedded hyperlinks omitted.)

Previously? ?The Polls Aren?t Skewed: Trump Really Is Losing Badly?, By Harry Enten, FiveThirtyEight, Aug 9, 2016

We?ve reached that stage of the campaign. The back-to-school commercials are on the air, and the ?unskewing? of polls has begun ? the quadrennial exercise in which partisans simply adjust the polls to get results more to their liking?.?.?.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Reality

We shall see. Either way the country loses. My guess is that Hillary’s dirty laundry is going to come back to haunt her. Trump is an idiot, but he’s basically at face value. Hillary is crook and a liar. Basically, we either get a lying crook, or an idiot for the next President. Get out your popcorn!!

GEMontsays:

Another Trumped up Wall Story

Sigh…. just another Trump “wall” story.

Somebody told Trump that there was a thing called a firewall that could prevent certain kinds of access, so he’s decided he gonna build a 30′ high “fire” wall this time, that prevents terrorist access.

Oh the joys of total, blissful, ignorance eh. ๐Ÿ™‚

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow