Curiosity Jailed the Frog

[Jason]

France jailed a man for visiting pro-ISIS websites

He'd ... reportedly grown a beard, become "very irritable" when talking about religion with family and began wearing sarouel pants.

https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/01/fra ... -websites/

[JimC]

Crucify him!

[Svartalf]

stone him without the benefit of weed.
curiosity, my foot.

[Strontium Dog]

It's going to get like that here too, now that the Tories have made it so the authorities can monitor our Internet habits.

[Hermit]

France jailed a man for visiting pro-ISIS websites

He'd ... reportedly grown a beard, become "very irritable" when talking about religion with family and began wearing sarouel pants.

https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/01/fra ... -websites/

Just as I expected, and I am certainly not the only one, Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is steering us toward totalitarianism. France is by no means the only nation where this happens. Homeland Security style legislation has sprung up in just about every democracy, and is busily undermining the very system it is supposedly meant to defend and protect.

[JimC]

That may well be true, but it's Hobson's choice; it is likely that without somewhat intrusive surveillance, more deadly terrorist attacks would occur.

[Hermit]

it is likely that without somewhat intrusive surveillance, more deadly terrorist attacks would occur.

There are people who say the same thing about waterboarding and torture in general. I think it's rubbish. Unlike Islamic fundamentalist terrorism Homeland Security style laws have a real chance of destroying democracy.

[JimC]

it is likely that without somewhat intrusive surveillance, more deadly terrorist attacks would occur.

There are people who say the same thing about waterboarding and torture in general. I think it's rubbish. Unlike Islamic fundamentalist terrorism Homeland Security style laws have a real chance of destroying democracy.

I'm not talking about torture etc., just intelligent surveillance of people with connections to militant islam.

[Hermit]

it is likely that without somewhat intrusive surveillance, more deadly terrorist attacks would occur.

There are people who say the same thing about waterboarding and torture in general. I think it's rubbish. Unlike Islamic fundamentalist terrorism Homeland Security style laws have a real chance of destroying democracy.

I'm not talking about torture etc.,

I know that. You're just one step away from people who do.

Slowly but steadily I realise that you are not nearly as close to the centre of the political spectrum as you imagine yourself to be. Fifty years ago even centrist liberals opposed the introduction of emergency laws on the grounds that the avenues they permit to override democratic rights and freedoms at the authorities's discretion open the way for totalitarianism. They were, as the name implies, invoked only in an emergency, but only temporarily. The various Homeland Security acts are functionally identical. The big differences between them are that the latter have been invoked and they are permanent. You seem to regard this as an unfortunate necessity. I see it as an unacceptable state of affairs.

[JimC]

Missed my point. I may well oppose some aspects of the various new security acts, if they clearly overstep bounds. However, this does not mean that a degree of increased surveillance is pragmatically necessary - or do you have your head in the sand as to various bombings and mass shootings that have occurred all over he world? From various accounts, police in many jurisdictions, including Australia, have prevented a variety of attacks by intelligence gathering, and arrests based on the material gathered by surveillance of various sorts. If that means some bending of previous concepts of civil liberties, then the prevention of deaths and injury resulting is worth it.

[Jason]

It's one big step closer to state-enforced censorship programs and totalitarian regimes and a step in the opposite direction we should be taking as we need, in today's diverse and pluralistic societies, to foster understanding and informed decision making through the reinforcement of the democratic principle of free communication. My issue with this isn't so much the surveillance program that caught him but the law that convicted him. He's guilty of viewing so-called pro-ISIS websites and nothing else. There was zero evidence found that he is in collusion with terrorists or part of any terrorist plot. He was jailed because in France they have legalized who you can and cannot communicate with and it is punishable by 2 years in prison and a 30,000 Euro fine.

[JimC]

It's one big step closer to state-enforced censorship programs and totalitarian regimes and a step in the opposite direction we should be taking as we need, in today's diverse and pluralistic societies, to foster understanding and informed decision making through the reinforcement of the democratic principle of free communication. My issue with this isn't so much the surveillance program that caught him but the law that convicted him. He's guilty of viewing so-called pro-ISIS websites and nothing else. There was zero evidence found that he is in collusion with terrorists or part of any terrorist plot. He was jailed because in France they have legalized who you can and cannot communicate with and it is punishable by 2 years in prison and a 30,000 Euro fine.

You make a fair point. As far as I'm aware, although somewhat like that might be put on a "watch" list in Oz, simply being on certain websites would not be enough for convictions, neither should it. Here, people have been convicted before carrying out actual attacks, but only when phone-taps etc. have heard clear evidence of planning terrorist attacks.

So, it is purely being somewhat elastic in terms of surveillance that I am advocating, as long as there is a degree of judicial oversight.

[Hermit]

Missed my point. I may well oppose some aspects of the various new security acts, if they clearly overstep bounds. However, this does not mean that a degree of increased surveillance is pragmatically necessary - or do you have your head in the sand as to various bombings and mass shootings that have occurred all over he world? From various accounts, police in many jurisdictions, including Australia, have prevented a variety of attacks by intelligence gathering, and arrests based on the material gathered by surveillance of various sorts. If that means some bending of previous concepts of civil liberties, then the prevention of deaths and injury resulting is worth it.

I did not miss your point. You just proved it. by saying some bending of previous concepts of civil liberties is pragmatically necessary, even worth it, if it prevents deaths and injury. That very much confirms what I said about your stance - You regard this state of affairs as an unfortunate necessity. Perfect mirror of what you said, except for the word "unfortunately", but let's just regard it as implied.

You may well oppose some aspects of the various new security acts, if they clearly overstep bounds, but ultimately you are in favour of the existence of those Homeland Security laws, oversteps and all. That is something else you are explicit about. "If that means some bending of previous concepts of civil liberties, then the prevention of deaths and injury resulting is worth it." Your drift from centre to right seems to be accelerating, Jim.

As for your comment about me having my head in the sand, that is an insult to your own intelligence and reading comprehension. Either that, or it reveals just how much of either you possess. What exactly do you think I referred to when I repeatedly referred to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism? Being brow-beaten with Qur'anic verses by an Imam at the Lakemba mosque? Where we differ, and both of us made the difference perfectly clear, is that given a choice, I'd rather sacrifice extra hundreds, even thousands of lives than the rights and freedoms of entire nations, while your preference is the other way around.

Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are winning in a manner they never imagined at the outset of their international terrorist campaigns.

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

...I'd rather sacrifice extra hundreds, even thousands of lives...

Tell that to their families.

And you are exaggerating the loss of freedom to an absurd degree. I am not talking about anything else than increased levels of surveillance on individuals and organisations that already have raised red flags, not automatic big brother surveillance of all. If such increased levels of surveillance required legal tweaks, then so be it. As far as I'm aware, in Oz at least, judicial oversight is part of the deal.

If some crazed religious fuckwits are caught by such tools planning a bombing or mass shooting in an Australian city, and lives are saved by their early arrest (with clear evidence of such planning), then so be it.

So, Hermit, get fucked with your insinuations that I am turning into a right-winger. At least I'm not a carping leftist puritan.

[pErvinalia]

It's one big step closer to state-enforced censorship programs and totalitarian regimes and a step in the opposite direction we should be taking as we need, in today's diverse and pluralistic societies, to foster understanding and informed decision making through the reinforcement of the democratic principle of free communication. My issue with this isn't so much the surveillance program that caught him but the law that convicted him. He's guilty of viewing so-called pro-ISIS websites and nothing else. There was zero evidence found that he is in collusion with terrorists or part of any terrorist plot. He was jailed because in France they have legalized who you can and cannot communicate with and it is punishable by 2 years in prison and a 30,000 Euro fine.

Thought crime has become a real thing in a number of legal spheres. This is why I say we need to develop a vaccine against conservatism. The people who enact these laws are scared little children (and/or acting in the name of scared little children voters).