Feinstein and the Anarchist's Cookbook.

[marplots]

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.

I'm not a policy wank, but one entry point would be to see what actual bombers find useful. How did they do it and where did they get the information?

I'm guessing there are dozens of people at the FBI who could tell us this already. But after the "easy wins," I have no idea where to go. Practically, it seems like you'd have to have some kind of allegation of national security threat and court rulings. You might get a quickie injunction to have stuff removed or blocked, but prosecution would be another level of difficulty.

 

[wea]

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?
The Constitution is a joke...

the more I look at the government, the more I'm sure it's not me. I'm not powerless and I'd prefer anarchy

 

[dudalb]

Stupid is as stupid does.

Feinstein has been smacked down once already in 1997 for wanting to ban this book. Here's a good article from Techdirt on the current idiocy and her history with being on the losing end of the battle over the First Amendment.

I think it fits in with Feinstein being a real hard liner on Gun Control. She pretty much wants all firearms banned, period. Not regulated, banned.
Frankly,I will be glad when Di Fi retires.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm not a policy wank, but one entry point would be to see what actual bombers find useful. How did they do it and where did they get the information?

A bit ex-post facto. If the next major attack involves a water heater then you have to blame mythbusters, but if it involves an exploding meth lab you have to blame walter white?

Instead of going after sources of information we should worry more about avenues of recruitment. Not eliminating them, but tracking and monitoring them.

 

[marplots]

A bit ex-post facto. If the next major attack involves a water heater then you have to blame mythbusters, but if it involves an exploding meth lab you have to blame walter white?

If the evidence shows that those are sources for bomb-making info, then yes. I don't think they are, but we must allow the evidence to convince us. It's not much good just guessing about such things, nor would it do any good to ignore the facts that emerge.

Instead of going after sources of information we should worry more about avenues of recruitment. Not eliminating them, but tracking and monitoring them.

We can do both. In fact, someone who is seeking such information would make a good target for at least some investigatory attention. I don't know what percentage of those who look for "tainted knowledge" are curiosity seekers, researchers, accidental tourists, or students of mayhem. But it seems like an attribute worth some attention.

Plus, going after sources of information seems pretty cost effective when the gatekeepers are vulnerable to pressure. A short email to GoDaddy about one of their accounts can't cost much. And I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA isn't already tracking this kind of thing anyhow.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If the evidence shows that those are sources for bomb-making info, then yes. I don't think they are, but we must allow the evidence to convince us. It's not much good just guessing about such things, nor would it do any good to ignore the facts that emerge.

contain pressure, until container fails => bomb

Adjust container and pressure as needed.

We are not talking about a field of great secrets and intrigue. Most bomb making is basic physics and chemistry.

We can do both. In fact, someone who is seeking such information would make a good target for at least some investigatory attention. I don't know what percentage of those who look for "tainted knowledge" are curiosity seekers, researchers, accidental tourists, or students of mayhem. But it seems like an attribute worth some attention.

That is quite the opposite of banning, that is baiting and tracking. Goal posts moved.

 

[casebro]

contain pressure, until container fails => bomb

Adjust container and pressure as needed.

We are not talking about a field of great secrets and intrigue. Most bomb making is basic physics and chemistry.

I think most naer-do-wells that download AC are looking at fire crackers. Maybe a little more potent than lady fingers, but expecting some harmless fun in the desert sand. Or an old TV set.* Terrorizing some one for political reasons is the furthest thing form their minds. "Hold my beer and watch this" kind of activities.

But nobody has seen sense in banning books to preserve Bubba's fingers.

*Darn LCD screens. Taking the fun out of old fashioned destructive sport.

 

[marplots]

contain pressure, until container fails => bomb

Adjust container and pressure as needed.

We are not talking about a field of great secrets and intrigue. Most bomb making is basic physics and chemistry.

Sure, and a microwave is just a box with an antenna in it. There's a huge distance to travel between the basic science and the engineering. If there weren't we'd have a rash of terrorists making vinegar and baking soda bombs.

Lethality is related to technical and engineering expertise.

The point of instruction manuals is to short circuit the learning curve, and that curve of experience and experimentation offers a great place for interdiction. What are all those loud noises from your neighbor's back yard?

That is quite the opposite of banning, that is baiting and tracking. Goal posts moved.

Banning is part of the same mechanism. To ban, you have to track. And prohibiting something ought to help eliminate innocents from the net. Banning is the way you get the authority to interdict.

I'm not allowed to possess heroin. I know that, my friends know it, the cops know it. Heroin is a banned substance. I am exposing my intent to be a drug dealer or user if I accumulate heroin with the ban in place. I can no longer claim that heroin is merely a chemical and we certainly can't ban all chemicals. So too with information. Bomb-making instructions are not simply generic, they are information of a particular type with a particular (nefarious) purpose. The ban communicates this status.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If the evidence shows that those are sources for bomb-making info, then yes. I don't think they are, but we must allow the evidence to convince us. It's not much good just guessing about such things, nor would it do any good to ignore the facts that emerge.

So we need to ban novels like the Turner Diaries as well. What about Catcher in the Rye though?

 

[TragicMonkey]

So we need to ban novels like the Turner Diaries as well. What about Catcher in the Rye though?

If we don't ban Catcher in the Rye we run the risk of teenagers wandering around calling people "crumb bums" and asserting that everybody is "fake". Do we want to run that risk? No! It's too dreadful to contemplate. We must ban teenagers immediately. I mean, the book. Ban that book.

 

[marplots]

So we need to ban novels like the Turner Diaries as well. What about Catcher in the Rye though?

It isn't rocket science. Whatever you are considering banning, you want to show a link to the feared behavior. The logic goes like this:

1) Bad actor/action
2) Was informed by/motivated by X
3) Consider banning X to the extent it is causally linked to #1

For a bomber, information about how to construct a bomb, that they then used to construct a bomb, would be a pretty strong tip off that the information influenced the outcome we wish to avoid.

If the Turner Diaries and/or Catcher in the Rye fits the bill, then yes, they would be a target for banning. I don't think they do, but I would listen to someone who wants to make that case.

What I find hard to accept is that the relationship between bomb-making instructions and bombs being made can be ignored in service of the principle of free expression. Even if restricting the information doesn't prevent bombers from practicing their craft, it still might be worth banning, simply because it would make the final product less than it could be or make it more difficult to accomplish.

The whole point of a "cookbook" is to teach, to reduce the barriers to entry. If we don't want the subject to be learned, then we ought to take it off the curriculum. If the Boston Bombers are using a script from Inspire, then I'd like to restrict, as much as possible, that same script from others with similar motivations.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Quickly! We must seal the barn doors shut. The animals already escaped, but if we hurry we can keep the Streisand Effect contained inside!

Good thinking! I'll prepare the press release telling the media to keep quiet about it.

I'll throw in some veiled legal threats to shut up the bloggers.

 

[fuelair]

It isn't rocket science. Whatever you are considering banning, you want to show a link to the feared behavior. The logic goes like this:

1) Bad actor/action
2) Was informed by/motivated by X
3) Consider banning X to the extent it is causally linked to #1

For a bomber, information about how to construct a bomb, that they then used to construct a bomb, would be a pretty strong tip off that the information influenced the outcome we wish to avoid.

If the Turner Diaries and/or Catcher in the Rye fits the bill, then yes, they would be a target for banning. I don't think they do, but I would listen to someone who wants to make that case.

What I find hard to accept is that the relationship between bomb-making instructions and bombs being made can be ignored in service of the principle of free expression. Even if restricting the information doesn't prevent bombers from practicing their craft, it still might be worth banning, simply because it would make the final product less than it could be or make it more difficult to accomplish.

The whole point of a "cookbook" is to teach, to reduce the barriers to entry. If we don't want the subject to be learned, then we ought to take it off the curriculum. If the Boston Bombers are using a script from Inspire, then I'd like to restrict, as much as possible, that same script from others with similar motivations.

I am guessing you are unaware that there are a number of chemistry textbooks in print or available old & used that cover many explosives and connected tech for correct usage. Weingart's Pyrotechnics is probably the classic for the US but many more exist and are not difficult to find (Amazon). The topic of explosives of the fuel/fertilizer form is well covered in a book on road construction by a gentleman in charge of road building some long years ago in West Virginia. The explosives thing is way out of the bag and widely available with complete legality regardless of an internet connection and in more likely to be accurate form.

Not to mention that in the home-grown guides you are just as, if not more, likely to blow yourself up if you use the suggestions in them as anything more than satire/humor - unless you are well grounded in chemistry and lab safety..........

Also, the only fictional source I ever saw that included making nitroglycerin correctly was a TV movie back in the 70's. They included a primary step shown correctly that I have never seen shown/written about correctly (other than an older (late '50s) reference book in the G. Peabody College Library) in any other source on nitro. *






* note, I am not saying there are not any, just I have only seen one myself.

 

[marplots]

I am guessing you are unaware that there are a number of chemistry textbooks in print or available old & used that cover many explosives and connected tech for correct usage. Weingart's Pyrotechnics is probably the classic for the US but many more exist and are not difficult to find (Amazon). The topic of explosives of the fuel/fertilizer form is well covered in a book on road construction by a gentleman in charge of road building some long years ago in West Virginia. The explosives thing is way out of the bag and widely available with complete legality regardless of an internet connection and in more likely to be accurate form.

Not to mention that in the home-grown guides you are just as, if not more, likely to blow yourself up if you use the suggestions in them as anything more than satire/humor - unless you are well grounded in chemistry and lab safety..........

Also, the only fictional source I ever saw that included making nitroglycerin correctly was a TV movie back in the 70's. They included a primary step shown correctly that I have never seen shown/written about correctly (other than an older (late '50s) reference book in the G. Peabody College Library) in any other source on nitro.

I am familiar with the pyrotechnics hobbyist literature. You are no doubt aware that Weingart, Shimizu, and Rev. Lancaster's books, while being "how to" manuals for fireworks, don't cover HE (maybe a little, it's been awhile, but I think Lancaster had some). And, even their salutes wouldn't make practical destructive devices in the way that would interest a terrorist - in contrast with what you'd find in the Anarchist's cookbook or Inspire.

There is certainly overlap. But I do think that recipe books directed specifically at amateurs looking primarily for a "bomb build" are enough of a distinct category to be usefully targeted. Some of the stuff out of Paladin Press would cross the line - the "Black Book" or "Poor Man's James Bond" would be good examples.

I agree that someone could still learn the craft. My parallel would be comparing a trained chemist to someone without skills wanting to make meth. It's about barriers to entry, skin in the game and making impulses harder to act on - even though you can't prevent a dedicated student from pursuing a degree in mayhem.

I've been a member of PGI and other organized pyrotechnics clubs. There is a wealth of knowledge, but even in this group, I found it a rare member who knew how to make/use HE. They had a healthy respect for "the line." And gaining the practical knowledge to make reliable, functioning pyro didn't translate directly into what the Kewl Bomz Kidz were after. If you've dabbled, you know the level of technical expertise is different, even between making a good BP and the most basic HE. It isn't simply a matter of mixing A and B, there's the whole theory bit, the explosive train to consider, actual laboratory chemistry instead of just balancing an oxidizer and fuel.

I also understand the kind of low-power devices used in Boston are fairly simple to construct by re-purposing existing materials. But the Oklahoma bombing level of destructive devices are not.

And again, someone traveling the path of Tim McVeigh, without a clear cookbook to follow, will have to do a certain amount of experimentation - trial and error that can very well reveal their nefarious intent before they are able to do the nasty deed. So I think it's useful to restrict, as much as possible, all the resources we can. Not with the expectation of preventing all we'd like to, but preventing more than if we adopted the laissez-faire stance.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I am familiar with the pyrotechnics hobbyist literature. You are no doubt aware that Weingart, Shimizu, and Rev. Lancaster's books, while being "how to" manuals for fireworks, don't cover HE (maybe a little, it's been awhile, but I think Lancaster had some). And, even their salutes wouldn't make practical destructive devices in the way that would interest a terrorist - in contrast with what you'd find in the Anarchist's cookbook or Inspire.

There is certainly overlap. But I do think that recipe books directed specifically at amateurs looking primarily for a "bomb build" are enough of a distinct category to be usefully targeted. Some of the stuff out of Paladin Press would cross the line - the "Black Book" or "Poor Man's James Bond" would be good examples.

I agree that someone could still learn the craft. My parallel would be comparing a trained chemist to someone without skills wanting to make meth. It's about barriers to entry, skin in the game and making impulses harder to act on - even though you can't prevent a dedicated student from pursuing a degree in mayhem.

I've been a member of PGI and other organized pyrotechnics clubs. There is a wealth of knowledge, but even in this group, I found it a rare member who knew how to make/use HE. They had a healthy respect for "the line." And gaining the practical knowledge to make reliable, functioning pyro didn't translate directly into what the Kewl Bomz Kidz were after. If you've dabbled, you know the level of technical expertise is different, even between making a good BP and the most basic HE. It isn't simply a matter of mixing A and B, there's the whole theory bit, the explosive train to consider, actual laboratory chemistry instead of just balancing an oxidizer and fuel.

I also understand the kind of low-power devices used in Boston are fairly simple to construct by re-purposing existing materials. But the Oklahoma bombing level of destructive devices are not.

And again, someone traveling the path of Tim McVeigh, without a clear cookbook to follow, will have to do a certain amount of experimentation - trial and error that can very well reveal their nefarious intent before they are able to do the nasty deed. So I think it's useful to restrict, as much as possible, all the resources we can. Not with the expectation of preventing all we'd like to, but preventing more than if we adopted the laissez-faire stance.

Um didn't McVeigh learn to do this in the military? How do we prevent them from learning these things?

As far as his bomb, the mining industry is full of how to use AMFO as they use thousands of tons of it a year, and sometimes in one blast.

 

[marplots]

Um didn't McVeigh learn to do this in the military? How do we prevent them from learning these things?

As far as his bomb, the mining industry is full of how to use AMFO as they use thousands of tons of it a year, and sometimes in one blast.

I'm not sure about McVeigh, but my point is not to restrict or prevent all knowledge, only a certain type - recipe books amateurs can use to make HE/bombs.

McVeigh was an example of the level of expertise and how you'd get it, outside of having a cookbook. That is, it isn't the sort of thing someone is going to invent on their own, de novo, even with scientific literature as a guide - they either get trained or have to experiment to find out what will work.

The cookbook represents a path we can eliminate for those who didn't get the training - or - we force them to do some experimenting in the hopes they will reveal themselves.

In parallel, things that can easily be converted to destructive devices are looked at to see if they can be tracked or restricted, like AN is now (I think).

 

[marplots]

A serious weakness in my case is that I don't know if guidebooks have ever actually been used to construct a bomb for terror "in the wild."

Ted Kaczynski started "low and slow" with smokeless powder and less-than-lethal devices, but apparently learned his trade. The first couple attempts are described in Wikipedia, but they don't detail any of the later products.

I can't really support suppressing materials that aren't actually used in the way I've been arguing - but I'm not hooked into the enforcement side of things, so I have no way to know if there are actual examples.

The Boston Bombing wouldn't count, since I've been arguing the "strong" case for more exotic/advanced stuff. I don't have a causative chain/link, making my whole argument too weak to really give me confidence.

Anders Breivik might count, but I'm loath to look through his manifesto again to see his resources - if they are even listed.

 

[quadraginta]

Um didn't McVeigh learn to do this in the military? How do we prevent them from learning these things?

As far as his bomb, the mining industry is full of how to use AMFO as they use thousands of tons of it a year, and sometimes in one blast.

Also farmers getting rid of troublesome stumps.

We should probably gag all of them.

Then there's the construction industry, where AMFO is used routinely in foundation excavation. Most of the subcontractors I've run into that do commercial blasting for construction are relatively small, pretty nearly Mom & Pop operations. Lots of family involved. Sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, in-laws, cousin Ernie. (All highly qualified professionals, of course.)

We probably need to gag all of them too.

 

[Dr. Keith]

"Hold my beer and watch this" kind of activities.

I started saying this at far too young an age.

 

[Dr. Keith]

A serious weakness in my case is that I don't know if guidebooks have ever actually been used to construct a bomb for terror "in the wild."

There is another weakness: you are letting the terrorist define your banned list. You are giving them a means for curtailing my freedoms, directly. You aren't letting them win, you are showing them how to win. Well done.