Politicians aim at terrorist web presence

An Intelligence Agency focused on the online world would be an excellent solution, taking a website down is probably not - I think atleast the stupid terrorists would be caught out by that.

Wow. I really just can't believe the ignorance of this post. First, yes, it is Islamist terrorists specifically who pose the greatest threat to the United States. Read a newspaper. People don't become terrorists without an ideology, and currently, the most prevalent ideology which drives terrorism is Islamo-Fascism.

"A review of the hearing gives the impression that the government is contemplating starting a program to police cyberspace."

That is a highly misleading, half-truth at best. A review of the hearing gives the impression that specific governing officials (e.g. Sen. Lieberman, who is quoted above) support the idea of actively working against efforts by specific terrorist groups to spread propaganda and coordinate attacks against the United States and its allies. What you said here (and further down below when you sketched out your slippery slope argument) implied that the U.S. Government as a whole was planning on controlling all internet content.

"Not to say that terrorism should be tolerated, but is the internet really the source of the problem?"

You're right, the internet isn't the source of the problem; the Islamo-Fascist ideology and those who would spread it are the source of the problem. But the internet is a tool in the hands of such people by which they spread their message.

"Even if the Al-Qaida presence is shut down online, will that really end terrorism? At best, it slows them down temporarily. Is that worth the cost?"

No, it won't end terrorism. I hope it slows them down, if only temporarily. Just what exactly is the cost? Are you worried that efforts to hamper the effectiveness of terrorist communication and recruiting will defile your "blessed internet"?

"If you start policing the internet for terrorists, why stop there? Why not take down any anti-American website? Why not take down any site that isn't completely pro-America?"

Slippery slope 'arguments' are the last resort for sophists who don't actually have an argument. They sound compelling, but there's no bite because it's purely hypothetical. Please give an *argument* for why the U.S. will slide from monitoring, infiltrating, and sometimes shutting down terrorist websites, all the way to becoming the world-wide internet Thought Police where no site is allowed to exist except those which are pro Uncle Sam.

"Perhaps we should be worrying about physical terrorism, instead of online terrorist conversations."

Physical terrorism is propagated by means of terrorist conversations, online or otherwise.

"If nothing else, these sites give us an insight into what the terrorists are thinking."

Which is exactly why the C-Net article your post linked to stated the following: "They repeatedly said the answer to dealing with what they deemed a serious threat lies in a combination of approaches: using technical measures to shut down sites deemed particularly threatening may sometimes be worthwhile, but it's often more prudent to allow sites to remain active for intelligence-gathering purposes." They do use the sites to gain insight into what the terrorists are thinking. Sometimes they shut them down.

"These sites aren't doing any harm, it's the terrorists themselves that are the problem."

Again from C-Net article: "Leaders of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs said they're troubled that extremists are increasingly flocking to the Web to recruit, organize, conduct online courses, raise funds and plan attacks in a manner that's cheaper and speedier than ever before." Please explain how the sites aren't doing any harm.

I'm so glad that you've pointed us to this fantastic download. Stories like this make me happy that DLS hasn't become like those other preachy tech sites. Thank you DLS.

At this point, I never believe anything that emerges from the hole in Joe Lieberman's face. He's been leading his personal crusade of censorship for years, and nearly everything he does is meant to push that agenda.

What? Download Squad doesn't mention how this will affect CO2 emissions so the fraction of a percent of CO2 in the atmosphere created by human-create machines will do nothing to affect the Sun's increased temperature?

For a minute there, I thought I was reading Slashdot...

thanks, will. very well stated

This is the most asinine post I have ever read on DLS.

Thank you Will for so thoroughly smacking Peter White, you saved me the trouble. And you did it more effectively then I could have.

Hehe, it's funny you've used a picture showing Buenos Aires police (where I live, btw). I don't think those guys could deal with anything that remotely resembles a terrorist.
And about the article, I think it's somehow impossible or improbable that such a thing as a cyberspace police could be a success, but maybe in a long term (read a decade), maybe, just maybe, it could have a little influence as to make presumably terrorists lives a little more difficult. Don't think such and in-depth investigation could ever be achieved.