Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 102 posts

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#51

Post by ecshafer »

csomar wrote: post #46
negativity wrote: post #27

Holy shit. I'd leave the country and renounce citizenship over something like this. Reading words? Looking at pictures? Watching a video? Felony jail time? Really? This is policy that any sane person would resist.

Given that the video is, at the end of the day, a Binary number; this is going to be quite interesting. Is it about downloading the wrong number? Or watching the video? If I downloaded, it doesn't mean I watched.

To be more specific, it is a number used as an argument to a function. The bit stream input into a video decoding algorithm is what makes the video. The video binary itself is mostly nonsense.

But the other way to look at is that it would be possible to have a set of data that is essentially illegal to use one function on and legal for another function to be used. Could someone unknowingly generate or acquire a set of data that is illegal to access and own? There has already been cases of terrorists hiding information within legal media.

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#52

Post by cpncrunch »

weirdstuff wrote: post #48
freedomben wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where would you go? (serious question, not a troll. I'd love to have some basic idea of where to go should things get bad enough in the US).

Costa Rica? (I don't know, just putting it out there. I hear there are lots of U.S. expats there.)

https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=216...

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAS ASSESSED SAN JOSE AS BEING A HIGH-THREAT LOCATION FOR CRIME DIRECTED AT OR AFFECTING OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT INTERESTS.

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#53

Post by snerbles »

ykler wrote: post #41
rjeli wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why Americans have the 2nd amendment

No, this is why we have the first amendment. The second amendment is crap. I have no very strong opinion on whether people should be allowed to have guns, but the issue is not very relevant. Governments will always have way more force than private individuals. The important thing is to contain that force. And it is a very bad thing if just looking at what extremists have to say can get you arrested.

Having more force is irrelevant if it can't be properly applied. Easy when a few yahoos take over an abandoned building on federal land, a little harder when an insurgency of thousands has metastasized throughout a society.

See the outcomes of asymmetrical warfare in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#54

Post by freedomben »

astrodust wrote: post #8
pythonaut_16 wrote: post #5

This article is pretty click-baity. It claims to be about reading banned literature in the title, then when you navigate to the site it immediately says the announcement/law is actually about watching videos promoting terrorism. The main body of the article is pretty incoherent and rambling; it never really clearly states what the law is actually about. If you actually go read the linked BBC article[0], you'll find t…

Is owning a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook or Mein Kampf going to be a criminal offense? What about a video version of same?

As soon as it's politically advantageous for those in power to make it so, yes.

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#55

Post by misterHN »

liquidise wrote: post #28
negativity wrote: post #27

Holy shit. I'd leave the country and renounce citizenship over something like this. Reading words? Looking at pictures? Watching a video? Felony jail time? Really? This is policy that any sane person would resist.

While i have no intention of drawing moral equivalencies: in the US, watching child pornography videos can earn you felony jail time and permanent registration on a sex offenders list. Agree or disagree with the punishment, watching a video resulting in jail time is not without precedent, even stateside.

which law?

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#56

Post by freedomben »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #15
dmitrygr wrote: post #2

Words cannot describe now worrisome this is.

All this does is extend the jail terms. Where were you when the law was initially created? It's been on the books for years.

While I agree that the best time to speak up is when the precedent is being encoded into law, the phrase "better late than never" does come to mind.

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#57

Post by seorphates »

ykler wrote: post #41
rjeli wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why Americans have the 2nd amendment

No, this is why we have the first amendment. The second amendment is crap. I have no very strong opinion on whether people should be allowed to have guns, but the issue is not very relevant. Governments will always have way more force than private individuals. The important thing is to contain that force. And it is a very bad thing if just looking at what extremists have to say can get you arrested.

pp is not on the wrong track. The first is clearly under assault from several quarters. Without the first we cannot even question authority much less dig in and speak about it. The second seems meant to shore up the first. I guess you have to try to think a little like a man that has only just gained his freedom and whose aim is hold and maintain that freedom for all of his and on equal footing. How would you proceed?

Either way, the costs are only ours to bear and Ms. Rudd's fantastically dystopic sales pitch seems to be selling tickets like hotcakes for a fast moving train.

The blatant assaults have become vicious. There is no authority over minds. We mustn't allow the mere access to information the means to determine or contain the freedom of the mind much less our bodies.

First they came for the children and then they came for the drugs. They are currently coming for "terror" and ache to expand that access without burdens or bounds. They will not stop until they have everything, which we must not permit.

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#58

Post by carlossilva33 »

rjeli wrote: post #40
wcarron wrote: post #4

Oh...shit. That is both stupefying and petrifying. More and more I feel that there is a new class war coming; and it is not rich vs poor so much as it is governments vs civilians. Really wondering whether this will be shot down or if other governments will follow suit down this road as quickly as possible. Instinct tells me the latter is more likely. I've not been on this Earth long, but where the fuck did all my fre…

This is why Americans have the 2nd amendment

As a European I am jealous of your Bill of Rights (specially the 2nd). If only it wasn't being trampled on and used as toilet paper...

Addendum: Regarding the inevitable issue of gun violence, it has actually decreased since the early 90's https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-...

Re: Longer jail terms for viewing terror content online

#60

Post by codedokode »

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #45
ykler wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is why we have the first amendment. The second amendment is crap. I have no very strong opinion on whether people should be allowed to have guns, but the issue is not very relevant. Governments will always have way more force than private individuals. The important thing is to contain that force. And it is a very bad thing if just looking at what extremists have to say can get you arrested.

It's possible that having even a small capacity to use force could create a deterrent effect against those who would otherwise harm you, even if they are stronger than you are. To give an extreme but not unprecedented example, if the government wants to wipe out all citizens of $ENEMY_TYPE_X, they might be at least slightly less willing to do so if the agents contracted to enter the homes of the citizens in question…

That's wrong. You can kill several cops who were only doing their job but you cannot win against army forces. You cannot defend your rights from government with a weapon.

The weapon in USA (especially long range weapon like rifles) is mostly useful for mass shootings.

Post reply on HN