Feinstein and the Anarchist's Cookbook.

[Cleon]

you're all entitled to support the publication of Inspire magazine all you want.

Really, Joey?

 

[Joey McGee]

Well when you quote my words directly like that I suppose it could be twisted to make me look unreasonable...

Banning Inspire and criminalizing it's possession is so stupid and useless, our allies have been putting people in jail for breaking those laws for years! Didn't stop them from downloading it at all!

 

[wea]

From what I've seen of The Anarchist's Cookbook, it resembles more of a suicide kit than a terrorist manual.

While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of its content, in the event of doubt regarding the content, it is suggested that you contact your oldest cousin. Updates, corrections, comments and suggestions are welcome.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I only know what I read in the papers, and people are arrested and charged with accessing child porn all the time and are discovered by a wide variety of means. I don't know where you live or what newspapers you read.

In any case, I've made my point. This is a rather unpleasant subject, you're all entitled to support the publication of Inspire magazine all you want.

Who here is supporting it? Brothers Tsarnayev used Inspire's plan for a pressure cooker bomb, nearly to the letter. I know this because I've read the article and compared the reported design with the plans. No significant improvisation or improvising used.

 

[Joey McGee]

Who here is supporting it?

Sorry I was clearly talking out of my ass there, Cleon noticed, but seriously what is the harm in just denying them the ability to get away with it where we have control. Even if it is only symbolic (which it realisticly would not be if implemented) Britain does it. How are they doing on the civil liberty index?

Brothers Tsarnayev used Inspire's plan for a pressure cooker bomb, nearly to the letter. I know this because I've read the article and compared the reported design with the plans. No significant improvisation or improvising used.

It's really the best one they have as an example. There was a case in Canada where two junkie terrorists, a couple (it gets stupider) were reported to have been inspired by the magazine. Either they were too stupid, or the Canadians were so well-placed and capable, (both) but they were compromised by undercovers early and were no threat. Still, it is a confirmed link.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-day-bomb-plot-inspired-by-al-qaeda-1.1331375

What I meant by you supporting it is, in a roundabout way, a marginal cost even if it was purely symbolic, which it isn't so why not? It's not hurting civil liberties at all is the US ahead or behind the Aussies and the Brits on this? Is this just old fashioned american freedomism?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

when they arrest the producers (or consumers), guess what? It's still on the internet. Once it gets on filesharing networks, it doesn't matter what you do with the original distributor.

Technically it's not a hard problem - Google can find pretty much anything in a few seconds - we just need to take the next step.

Objectionable material should be hunted down and removed from the Internet no matter where it is found, and websites or file sharing networks that continue to host it should be shut down until they clean up their act. People may still be able to swap files via other means (email, VPNs etc.) but we can certainly keep them off the Web so that they are not accessible to browsers.

 

[Joey McGee]

It's not harder for me to steal music and ebooks and video courses and obscure stuff that I have an interest in, but it is harder for my friends and family because they don't know all of the elite **** I know about finding stuff. Back in the day everyone I knew stole stuff. Now few people I meet know what torrents are... most people have given up on pirating stuff after they ended up with malware.

That said I have spent a good deal of money buying things legitimately since I can afford it for the convenience of a few minutes of searching what is 20 bucks...

 

[ponderingturtle]

What criteria should be used for banning this information? People tend to list specific things not the criteria used to determine if something should or should not be banned.

Do the Mythbusters show too much about how they build their bombs and should the program be banned based on that? What about chemistry books and patent information?

 

[quadraginta]

From her press release:


And the Democratic Party war on the Bill of Rights continues.

And it occurs to me that Feinstein could probably find hard copies of that book in any book store near the UC-Berkeley campus in her back yard.

It might be Feinstein's war, but that doesn't equal to it being the Democratic Party's war.

If you want to see what a party wants look to their platforms and the types of voters they court in the primaries.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

You're the one who has to live with your thoughts when you're alone at night....

And I suppose you're all for banning airlines, since that is a tool that terrorists have used, right?

 

[Joey McGee]

No.

 

[mgidm86]

Not sarcasm, realism. I am not one of those wild-eyed libertarians who thinks that 'freedom' is preferable to essential security. You think the government can protect our freedoms by being weak?

The government is us, and that power is ours to wield for the common good. Without it we are powerless individuals, and Anarchy reigns. Is that what you want?

Yes, of course that is what I want! A reign of anarchy!

The Constitution is a joke. It was created at a time when the British Empire was the primary threat, and we were the 'terrorists'. Generations of politicians have twisted parts of it to mean exactly the opposite of what was intended, and it has given us a system of government which is now almost unworkable.

It is ridiculous to presume that the drafters were prescient enough to take into account technological advances such as the Internet, and that their ideas must be the final word on what can be done.

Your ideas for government control over the media and internet that I quoted in my previous post are quite overbearing. The drafters of the Constitution did have a great sense of government tyranny because, unlike most of us, they actually lived through it. They kept specific powers away from government reach, like the power for them to arbitrarily define what you refer to as "objectionable material".

I don't see a reason to respond any further to your ideas on censorship because they are so far away from my own that there really isn't a point.

 

[Joey McGee]

A speech on free speech...

I hope you will agree, a great one.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Do the Mythbusters show too much about how they build their bombs and should the program be banned based on that?

Doesn't matter how much they know, the question is have they shown the viewers how to make a bomb? They blow up lots of things with dynamite and C4, but I don't think that qualifies as how to build a bomb (and anybody who has access to those explosives should already have the appropriate knowledge and authority).

However some of their stunts may be borderline. The closest to a bomb 'recipe' I could find on the Myth Busters website was this, but the video doesn't reveal anything about the mixture required or even what chemicals were involved. That 'censoring' of sensitive information may be a deliberate act on their part...

One thing Myth Busters has shown us is that many things people think 'should' work in theory either don't work in practice or need lot of help to get the desired effect (just about anything will blow up if you put enough C4 under it!). This may be one of the reasons that few people have gotten into trouble trying to replicate their experiments.

What about chemistry books and patent information?

Chemistry books contain a lot of theory, but not much practical advice. Patents tend to be opaque to those who are not 'experienced in the art' and half of them are rubbish anyway. Anyone who has the academic skills and intelligence to make good use of these resources is most likely also sensible enough not to use it for nefarious purposes.

But hey, perhaps some evil mastermind is building a high tech weapon of mass destruction in his basement right now, based on high school chemistry books and a patent he got off the net!

What criteria should be used for banning this information? People tend to list specific things not the criteria used to determine if something should or should not be banned.

If something would be illegal to do in real life then teaching us how to do it should also be - assuming that the instructions are practical and could be carried out by an ordinary person with readily available tools and materials.

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)
If something would be illegal to do in real life then teaching us how to do it should also be - assuming that the instructions are practical and could be carried out by an ordinary person with readily available tools and materials.

Along with this, I'd note that bomb making instructions are different than mere knowledge about chemistry. There's an end point and a goal which guides the choices and the instructions which academic knowledge wouldn't share. While there is bound to be a lot of overlap, building a bomb is a much different activity than even learning how to make explosives.

 

[Arcade22]

If something would be illegal to do in real life then teaching us how to do it should also be - assuming that the instructions are practical and could be carried out by an ordinary person with readily available tools and materials.

Thankfully no one ever does that. Hence why, for example, instructions and tools for encryption and decryption of information is hardly ever explicitly given in order for people to reduce the risk of being caught for copyright violations, downloading and possessing child pornography or otherwise accessing and/or disseminating information in a way contrary to law.

Instead far nobler uses are presented such protecting internal business information or protecting private and personal information. Even if in theory the same tools, instructions and methods could be used to obfuscate potentially illicit actions that's not the intent behind it all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Doesn't matter how much they know, the question is have they shown the viewers how to make a bomb? They blow up lots of things with dynamite and C4, but I don't think that qualifies as how to build a bomb (and anybody who has access to those explosives should already have the appropriate knowledge and authority).

However some of their stunts may be borderline. The closest to a bomb 'recipe' I could find on the Myth Busters website was this, but the video doesn't reveal anything about the mixture required or even what chemicals were involved. That 'censoring' of sensitive information may be a deliberate act on their part...

One thing Myth Busters has shown us is that many things people think 'should' work in theory either don't work in practice or need lot of help to get the desired effect (just about anything will blow up if you put enough C4 under it!). This may be one of the reasons that few people have gotten into trouble trying to replicate their experiments.

Chemistry books contain a lot of theory, but not much practical advice. Patents tend to be opaque to those who are not 'experienced in the art' and half of them are rubbish anyway. Anyone who has the academic skills and intelligence to make good use of these resources is most likely also sensible enough not to use it for nefarious purposes.

But hey, perhaps some evil mastermind is building a high tech weapon of mass destruction in his basement right now, based on high school chemistry books and a patent he got off the net!

If something would be illegal to do in real life then teaching us how to do it should also be - assuming that the instructions are practical and could be carried out by an ordinary person with readily available tools and materials.

So how about all kinds of technical manuals for firearms and so on. When does information become illegal? It seems to be the information becomes illegal when it is used to build bombs my people who you disagree with.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Along with this, I'd note that bomb making instructions are different than mere knowledge about chemistry. There's an end point and a goal which guides the choices and the instructions which academic knowledge wouldn't share. While there is bound to be a lot of overlap, building a bomb is a much different activity than even learning how to make explosives.

But historical technical manuals and the like do.

 

[marplots]

But historical technical manuals and the like do.

Yes. I think that's why the military manuals were so popular. But other than "field expedient," even these use methods and materials outside the scope of the kitchen cook. That's not to say it can't be done, but consider something as straightforward as making your own fuming nitric acid. Imagine that in a world where one-bottle meth heads are setting themselves and their landlord's houses on fire.

The only issue of Inspire I've seen had a good example of walking someone through making a device from propane tanks. I can't imagine finding anything like it in any official material, just because the result is so ham-handed and probably not very reliable. It was apparent that sacrifices in craft were made to keep it simple enough for an amateur to make.

The Boston bomber trial and the infamous pressure cooker bomb are a good example. A combination of what resources are likely to be available and the skill level of the expected bomber.

In my opinion, it isn't an easy thing to draft instructions that are both doable and worth doing for the lone wolf in the wild. I think it takes some real knowledge and experience to accomplish that, and the material published would be very tightly focused to that end.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes. I think that's why the military manuals were so popular. But other than "field expedient," even these use methods and materials outside the scope of the kitchen cook. That's not to say it can't be done, but consider something as straightforward as making your own fuming nitric acid. Imagine that in a world where one-bottle meth heads are setting themselves and their landlord's houses on fire.

The only issue of Inspire I've seen had a good example of walking someone through making a device from propane tanks. I can't imagine finding anything like it in any official material, just because the result is so ham-handed and probably not very reliable. It was apparent that sacrifices in craft were made to keep it simple enough for an amateur to make.

The Boston bomber trial and the infamous pressure cooker bomb are a good example. A combination of what resources are likely to be available and the skill level of the expected bomber.

In my opinion, it isn't an easy thing to draft instructions that are both doable and worth doing for the lone wolf in the wild. I think it takes some real knowledge and experience to accomplish that, and the material published would be very tightly focused to that end.

I get the point, but when is it met and what should be the consequences of meeting it?

When we are getting into censoring such things I want to see your proposed guidelines.